The rise of American authoritarianism

[grumbler]

yes, but if I decide all muslims are illegal immigrants, then they are deported too.
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

:boggle:  When you get that deep into a hole, stop digging.  You are long since past the point where you need to prove your ignorance.

You can kill them, torture them, jail them indefinately, deny them entry into US territory even while transiting 45 000 ft above said territory.  People who are US residents but not yet citizens could be declared illegal.

Just... wow.  I thought CC's invincible ignorance would be unbeatable, but you've done it.

Also, there could be a witch hunt, with many innocent people deported, for lack of ability to sucessfully defend themselves against an overarching immigration agency. Then, there comes the deportation of legitimate US citizens found guilty of helping/harboring illegal immigrants.  It's not like these people just come to the US and stay there on their own.

You went full Raz.  Never go full Raz.

[grumbler]

Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom?

He hasn't a clue as to what he is saying.  That's what i have been saying all along.

[Martinus]

Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom?

The internets.

[derspiess]

Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Guess I need to try harder.

[grumbler]

Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Guess I need to try harder.

If I can do it, so can you.  Not that being "ignored" by Marti is any great shakes.

[Razgovory]

Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Was this before or after you accused me of being a liar?

[11B4V]

Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.

I am not Canadian, so i don't use wikipedia as the source of my knowledge. 

You are going over that line from being funny to just pathetic.

Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Downright silly.

[viper37]

Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom?

Guntanamo kinda proved that.

[grumbler]

Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom?

Guntanamo kinda proved that.

Your ignorance really is invincible, isn't it? 

Guantanamo proved exactly the opposite, for anyone who is not a willfully ignorant Canadian (and maybe even for one of those they are also a lawyer).

[Valmy]

Guntanamo kinda proved that.

You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

[grumbler]

You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

No, they can't.  The Bush administration tried to argue that, because the detainees were held outside the US, the president could treat them as he wished under his powers as commander-in-chief, and to try them n tribunals set up by fiat.  The USSC struck down that position, and ruled that the detainees were entitled to due process, that only Congress could establish the courts to try them, etc.

[viper37]

Are you drunk?

I was, but that's beside the point.

Laws can be bent with a Congress that supports you.  The actual Congress is very opposed to anything Obama can do, it might not be that way with Trump and there's still the pork barrel bills that can be used to gain support from a few key congresspersons.

It's not like the Congress ever opposed GW Bush for anything he attempted, and it's not like the American public was outraged by the direction taken by the government at first.  As for the courts, the Gitmo case has proven that laws ain't that clear.  Lots of legal rulings contradicting each other and even if ultimately most of it is judged illegal, the President can pretty much chose to ignore the ruling (besides, there's still the Andrew Jackson precedent, even if it is a long time ago in another... well, it's just something that GOP supporters use to quote whenever there was a ruling against the Bush administration).

The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless.  A number of radicals throughout history were counting on that and so far, Trump has gone farther than anyone here would have tought possible, despite the outrageous rethorice and the GOP establishment being opposed to him.

I truly doubt the people voting for Trump would, at the same time, elect totally reasonable house rep & senators to counter-balance Trump's rethorics.

Of course, there is the distinct possibility that he simply won't be allowed to run as Republican candidate for the presidential election, but the "damage" is already done.  This is a movement that started with the Tea Party and it won't stop even if Trump is defeated now.

[viper37]

Guntanamo kinda proved that.

You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

True, but there's nothing that would prevent a future presidential administration from replicating the model, albeit with some changes to flirt with the law.  Afaik, there are still prisoners there, so it's not that easy to deal with terrorists and ennemy combattants in a war against terror.  If Trump decides to expand the war, there will be more prisoners.  What will he do with them?  Keep them interned until ISIS/Al-Queida/whatever new group will appear officially surrenders?

[viper37]

You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

No, they can't.  The Bush administration tried to argue that, because the detainees were held outside the US, the president could treat them as he wished under his powers as commander-in-chief, and to try them n tribunals set up by fiat.  The USSC struck down that position, and ruled that the detainees were entitled to due process, that only Congress could establish the courts to try them, etc.

Yes, and Bush immediatly shut down the detention camp, right?

[grumbler]

The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.