Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Pennsylvania Jim, Jan 7, 2005.
...and claims that it is the "law of the land":
As of now, he is right. While it is unfortunate, until SCOTUS overturns Roe, it will remain the law of the land. Fortunately, we have a chance in this term to get some justices who might be favorable to pro life.
I think some people don't understand that an attorney general cannot pick and choose what he wants to enforce. As a part of integrity, he has to enforce the law as it now stands.
I watched Gonzales on CSPAN yesterday. Normally I get kinda sea sick listening to Chuck Shumer but I stuck it out till the end.
I feel better now knowing that there is going to be an attorney general that believes anyone considered an enemy combatant has no rights under the laws. Especially so, because of section 802 of the Patriot Act that basiscally defines terrorism as anyone that disagrees with the government.
It took the supreme court to convince Gonzales that a person held without charges and subjected to torture has a right to legal councel.
At least that's what I got out of the whole show. The most oft repeated statement was something like, Well, I don't agree with you on this view or that but I'm gonna vote for ya anyways.
Like we never could have guessed.
Ve vere chust followink ordters.
I wouldn't put too much stock in his pledge to support Roe v. Wade since, as AG, he is supposed to, is legally obligated to uphold current laws. However, I expect him to discontinue the use of RICO laws (enacted to combat gangster conspiracy) to prosecute abortion protesters. He strikes me as far more clever than Ashcroft (yeah, who wouldn't?), so I fear he will be more successful at furthering the Republican agenda.
I do find his advocacy of torture and his disregard for the Geneva Convention ("quaint") deeply troubling. Seems kinda odd that hiring an illegal nanny is grounds for disqualification, but advocating the holding of citizens incommunicato indefinitely is not.
In spite of very poor spelling, a lot of it comes down to understanding responsibilities and integrity. The US AG is to enforce the law of the land. He is not to make law, or change law. He is not a legislator, and therefore his personal views on Roe are irrelevant. It is sad that this has to be explained yet again. I hope the law is changed, but that is not the job of the AG.
As for enemy combatants, they have no rights, as far as I am concerned. They do not live under the laws of this land and cannot appeal to those laws to defend their attempts to subvert by illegal means. If they want things to change, then they need to change. So long as American soldiers lives are at risk, necessary means should be used to gain information that may lead to the saving of lives. I cannot understand why the personal comfort and care of people who hate this country and are trying to destroy it are preserved at the risk of the lives of those who are defending it. We certainly need a good dose of common sense and reality.
My suspicion is that poncho's reading of section 802 is probably tilted beyond recognition. I have looked for some info on it, but can't find any from a reputable website. Here is the section in question:
Section 802 of the Patriot Act, "Definition of Domestic Terrorism," reads:
"[T]he term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ... (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or ... (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
Not sure what is wrong with that. It basically says that if you use intimidation or coercion, or anything worse, or if you endanger human life you are guilty of domestic terrorism. And it says you can't disrupt the government by assassination or kidnapping. Horrors of horrors ... Why should we forbid such reasonable tactics as endangerment of human life, intimidation or coercion, assassination, kidnapping, or mass destruction??? Are we really so primitive that we think those things ought to be allowed?
Here is what is interesting:
1. Poncho complains that the present administration approved the use of intimidation and coercion in Iraq.
2. Poncho complains that intimidation and coercion are forbidden by the Patriot Act.
That is inconsistent. Make up your mind. If you are against it, then be against it. Don't be politically expedient to be against it when you can attack Bush with it and to be in favor of it when you can attack Bush with it. If you are against intimidation and coercion in Iraq and think it should be punished, then you have no beef with section 802 since 802 prohibits the very thing you dislike (allegedly). If you think intimidation and coercion should be tolerated, then you can't condemn the tactics used in Iraq ... at least you can't be consistent while doing so. You need to make up your mind (and thinking ahead would prevent you from being found in such inconsistency).
The Patriot Act may be overdone. It is likely that no one complaining about it has actually read and studied the whole thing. It will come out in years to come. In the meantime, don't we Christians have more important work?
I'll get back with on this Pastor Larry. Right at the moment I do have more important work to do. Don't go away..
Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land. It is a ruling on one specific case. But the political costs to challenge that are high and might affect the pensions and plans of our "conservative" politicians. Too bad our "Pastors" don't want to make an issue of it.
Can we refrain from the use of ethnic slurs?
You show a misunderstanding of government. Roe affirmed the application of the law and is therefore the law of the land. Court cases are used that way, and they are referred as the law for the sake of simplicity. No one thinks that Roe was the act of Congress. We all understand that the judiciary has the right to interpret the law and that is what they did ... very badlyy.
I don't care about any of that. I do care about doing it the right way. Doing it the wrong way can have negative affects and solidify opposition to it. The civil war and abolition was a good example of that.
I am perfectly willing to make an issue of it, though there may be some pastors who won't. I am glad you aren't talking about me. I know many pastors willing to make an issue, but many like myself understand the realities of the situation and understand what is going to be effective in changing it.
Here in Michigan, a teenager just beat the baby out of his pregnant girlfriend. The most they can charge him with is assault and they can't charge her at all even though she was complicit. So don't act like we don't care and don't want to make an issue of it. We do. I am well aware of it, but we have to have a real solution, not a "feel good" one.
Who used an ethnic slur?
Ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry. There is NO CHANCE that this Court will even make an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.
You are correct, and thanks for making this point. I am not a fan of Gonzales, but at least he acknowledges that.
Deb is referring to the comment referencing the German heritage that she and I share.
They have already appointed pro life judges and most people (especially on the other side) think they will continue to. That is the first step on the road of overturning it.
That wasn't an ethnic slur. It was a silly piece of nonsense. But it certainly didn't attack anyone based on ethnicity, or even less based on heritage. I thought I had missed something serious.
I am of solid German heritage, and proud of it. But I am not proud of the Nazis, or those who ran the gas chambers and then claimed that they were "just following orders".
I a like fashion, I am a Christian, and grateful to be one, by God's mercy and grace. But I am not proud of fellow believers who excuse the inaction of our officials to oppose THE KILLING OF 4000 INNOCENT AMERICANS EVERY DAY with the same pathetic excuse of "just following orders".
I was. </font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't make any sense, PJ. YOu mentioned pastors who don't want to make an issue of it. That, by default, cannot be talking about me. If you think it is, then you show how uninformed and unwilling to be informed you are. You have read enough of me in here to know that I am unashamedly pro life and am willing to do something about it. I do want to make an issue of it and you know that. You took another cheap shot and hoped that you wouldn't get called on it. As I have pointed out in the past, I am consistently pro life (including the defense of innocent Iraqis for whom some don't think we should be fighting), and I will make an issue of it. Where you and I differ is on how to accomplish change. You decided to try to change it by voting for someone who never had a chance in the world to win. Peroutka had no chance to change it. That, to me, is not making an issue of it. That was an ill advised fantasy trip. It wasn't going to work. We need real change, not the kind that comes by protest votes that are never heard.
I don't know of anyone here who is. I appose the killing of all innocent people, including the 4000 or so babies that are killed each day. But no one is ordering them to be killed. And no one is "just following orders." We cannot have AGs who decide which laws they are going to enforce. That is the simple truth, and deep down you know that. You don't want an AG making his own law up.
Keep in mind, this was the guy who, as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, cast the deciding vote to overturn a law that required a minor to notify her parents before getting an abortion.
Of course he'll defend Roe vs. Wade. He went far beyond that in Texas.
Larry, you continue to make excuses for politicians who have absolutely no intention of moving to outlaw abortion. You may be satisfied with them, but I'm not.
Bush fought HARD to pass socialized medicine, and got it.
How about "follwoing the law" for illegal immigration? No, there Bush and co. will be fighting their own constituency to bring in as many immigrants, legal and illegal, as possible, granting amnesty to illegals.
Bush is reportedly gearing up for a big fight over Social Security. Oh how I wish he were gearing up for a fight over abortion. But guess what?? He's not. And he's not going to. Do you care?
They fight for what they want. Abortion isn't even on their agenda. They won't fight to outlaw abortion, because they don't care to stop it.
Why do you settle for their excuses, when 4000 INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE BEING MURDERED EVERY DAY?
PJ, you know very well that I am not making excuses for anyone. Bush has plainly stated his opposition to abortion and plainly stated that he does not believe the culture is ready to change yet. He is right on that. He has appointed pro life judges and many think he will for the Supreme Court. I am not satisfied with what they have done. You know that.
No, he didn't. But that is another topic.
No, not really. Again, this is a multi faceted issue that doesn't play well in the simple world you like to live in. Things are complex. There are no easy answers.
Some don't care to stop it. Others simply see the realities of trying to stop it, realities that you are not willing to see.
I don't. Your question is based on an untrue statement. They are not doing enough. They are doing more than would be done by your plan which would have elected Kerry. That is not much, but it is something. Stop asking questions based on false premises, and stop making false accusations agaist me.