jorgelito

I agree with you on that, DC. If you have ever watched a Parliamentary session and the PM question thingy it's awesome. When I was in DC, my roomates and I loved watching C-Span and marvel at the Brits in action (the other MPs are good too). Tony Blair (regardless of whether you like or agree with him) is fantastic to watch in action. He is simply an amazing speaker and politician.

While I do like the British system in many ways, I am partial to the US checks and balances.

Oh DC, I sympathize with the whole "Taxation Without Representation" thing out there. It certainly seems like someone messed that one up.

I voted for Clinton twice, Gore once and Kerry once. As a conservative (erstwhile moderate), I certainly do NOT take responsibility for George Bush's actions, thank you very much. I take accountability and responsibility for MY OWN actions.

scout

This thread has really made me think about a lot of things the past few days. I've come to the conclusion that every single Democrat that voted for Gore or Kerry in the primaries are responsible for the past 6+ years. Who knows what would have happened if said Democrats had nominated someone that wasn't so far left. In a nutshell it's not much of a choice when you have to decide between inconveniencing a few extremist Muslims with a military court or face a full frontal assualt on the Second Amendment.

Rekna

Scout what is this full frontal assault on the Second Amendment you speak of?

Willravel

Kerry and Gore were not far left. Badnarik and Cobb were far left. Also, Kerry and Gore technically won. Did you vote for Bush?

host

Please scout, consider where we have come from, and how we are slipping away from possessing any credibility or authority, in the eyes of the rest of the world, and in the eyes of a growing number of Americans. How do you prevent crimes against treaties and the US constitution, if you are carrying them out, or supporting authorities who do, even by your silence in the face of it happening?

....AND THE FOLLOWING IS the standard THAT WE ONCE HELD A PEOPLE OF ANOTHER NATION TO...A PEOPLE, WHO, UNLIKE US...COULD BE EXECUTED FOR THE SLIGHTEST PROTEST, PROVOCATION, OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE AUTHORITY THAT BRUTALLY DICTATED TO THEM. Still....we held them to a "standard" that almost none of you, even see your own silence as a problem, in a nation where there is still some opportunity to take responsibility, and object loudly to what is happening....to the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the US constitution, that you have witnessed being committed by our elected leaders. WERE WWII US Military commanders wrong to hold ordinary Germans accountable, or are too many of us, wrong now....not even able to admit that they have some responsibility for illegal aggressive war in Iraq, and possibly in Afghanistan, and for the treary violations that have resulted in "rendition" by the CIA, the creation and internments in Guantanamo prison, the oppression in the Patriot Acts, and by the treatment of Jose Padilla by the US doj. The latest offenses to the US contitution are described in the thread OP, and suspension of habeus corpus and breaking of provisions in international treaties, are among the crimes committed agains the US people, and the world!
Our grandfathers in the US military, forced Germans living in a town that had nothing directly to do with the atrocities committed there by nazi ss troops moving concentration camp prisoners through that town, to go into the woods and fields and build coffins with their hands, dig up dead victims, place them in the coffins, and carry them through their town, mourning their deaths.

Are the grandchildren today....of those WWII soldiers, more like them, more like ordinary Iraqis or like the young Australian in the thread OP, who has been held at Guantanamo for the past five years.....or more like the Germans who kept saying that "they didn't know"? Are we even as sound in our own integrity and belief systems, in the face of what our leaders have been doing in Iraq, and in interpretation of treaties that our past leaders have ratified and signed, as German civilians living under the iron grip of a brutal dictator, when we react as if we have no responsibility, let alone an admitted obligation to recognize, question, and object to official criminality?

dksuddeth

Unless I'm mistaken, scout can correct me if I am, he would be referring to rep. McCarthys resubmission of the AWB (assault weapons ban) that sunsetted in 2004. The bill is H.R. 1022 and goes so much further than the 1994 bill did. He may also be referring to Illinois' new gun ban....or just the majority of democrats in general.

how was badnarik far left as a supposed libertarian?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

dc: actually i didnt have a specific parliamentary system in mind when i posted that--i was thinking more about a general context within which votes of no confidence are possible.
but in the uk case, you're right of course.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

On issues, he was less conservative than Kerry.

Rekna

I guess it comes down to what is more important. Owning an assault rifle or being granted habeas corpus and a trial by jury.

So tell me which is more important the right to openly bear arms or the right to a just legal system?

host

....Rekna....you have just, I predict....with that one sentence question, permanently obscured the core topic of this thread....

I find it odd and disturbing that many more of us are concerned about about legal constraints on the load capacity of our firearm's ammo clips, and on the firing rates of the rounds, than we are about our allegedly accountable federal executive officials, interpreting treaties and clauses of our own constitution in ways that give them self anointed authority to "render", subject to inhumane treatment, hold indefinitely without trial or a hearing, to read our mail, listen in on and record our private conversations, to sneak into our homes and "look around", without a judge....or us....knowing that it happened....and to wage aggressive war on deliberately contrived accusation.....

roachboy

can this not become yet another version of a gun control thread please?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Rekna

Sorry I took DKs bait.

The_Jazz

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

scout

What exactly makes one part of the Bill of Rights more important than another? Is it because one directly affects you and the other only indirectly if any at all? I just think it's pretty damn convenient for the Democrats to point all these fingers while taking the back door to deny the rights of other Americans.

Don't get me wrong, I am just as concerned about all the other injustices and loss of rights as you but I find it particularly disturbing that most Democrats have little conscience in regards to rights granted us that don't necessarily fit their picture of a perfect world. Then to top it off I get on here and find out I'm responsible for it all because I voted for Bush. Here's a clue, you don't even have to buy it because today it's free. If the Democrats nominate someone that doesn't have all every single member of the gun control lobby in their back pocket frothing at a chance to further limit our rights perhaps the White House in '08 is viable. Be as concerned about all of our rights, even if it doesn't interest you or concern you because it's important to one of your fellow Americans. Don't pick and choose the ones you feel are important. One is as important as the next, thats why every single one of them was included on that piece of paper we all hold so dear. Has any of you noticed that most of the Democrats elected in the previous election that allowed the Democrats to take control of the House and Senate was fairly conservative? That alone should be clue enough.

And don't blame me because I voted for Bush. So far the only ones inconvenienced by his lack of fortitude regarding our rights have been extremist assholes that feel it's their duty to kill everyone that doesn't subscribe to their particular interpretation of the Koran. And no that still doesn't make it right but to me that's the lessor of the two evils. Thank you for your time.

And yes DK was correct on all counts.

dc_dux

If you look at the facts, gun rights groups spend far more money exercising their first amendment rights to influence candidates than gun control groups:

Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The National Rifle Association is by far the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats. The leading contributor among gun control advocates is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, which has given $1.5 million over the past 15 years.

If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period.

By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/

It is also common knowledge that these gun control groups do not want to ban all handguns; they simply want registration and a waiting period for hand guns. and yes, banning semi-automatic weapons....positions held by a majority of the country. And as you and DK probably both know, the Supreme Court has never ruled that registration and other such limitations are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.

IMO, it is the lying, threatening and intimidating tactics of the NRA that are more harmful to the political process than any actions by gun control advocate groups.

/end threadjack with same old arguments..but it had to be said

*****
Back to the OP.

Last week, Repub Senator Arlen Spector submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking the Court to hear Guantanamo cases that challenge the Military Commissions Act:
Its not clear if or when the Supreme Court will take up the cases, but it is good to see this law will not go unchallenged by concerned members of Congress of either party. (no, I dont know why Dems didnt join in the amicus brief..but shame of them)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

That's what i've been saying for a long time now, to anyone that will bother to listen. Every single point of the constitution AND the BoR is every bit as important as every OTHER single point. Where we start to lose those rights is when some people kick back and say to themselves 'well that doesn't affect me' instead of thinking 'that COULD affect me someday'. The right to bear arms now could be your right to habeaus corpus tomorrow or even further erosions of your privacy rights. Without totally and completely demanding of your representatives ALL of your rights, they could be whittled away over time and then you'll realize that it's too late.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

to be closer to the OP, this is really a failure of the supreme court in upholding the constitution. As evidenced by thomas jefferson so long ago......

"The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." [Sept 6, 1819]

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarcy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal...knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." [Sept 28, 1820 letter to William Jarvis]

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary."

it's really our own fault since we didn't hold our legislators totally responsible and demand removal of judges who ruled arbitrarily against the constitution.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rekna

In light of the recent Iran/British troops event how do those of you who support the use of torture and other extreme interrogation methods feel about the accuracy of the information obtained from those methods. Here we have the British troops saying they were in Iranian waters but now they say they weren't and just said it so they could go home. These people weren't tortured but the fear of being in a kangaroo justice system got them to admit to crimes they did not do. Isn't it reasonable to assume that our interrogation methods do the same?