QuoteJanuary 03, 2012
Obama Signs Defense Bill Allowing for Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial
President Barack Obama has signed into law a $662 billion military spending bill that authorizes the government to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. In a signing statement attached to the bill, Obama said he was signing the bill even though he had "serious reservations" with parts of the bill dealing with detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Sections of the bill were opposed by key members of the Obama administration including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Human rights groups assailed Obama for backing down on his initial threat to veto the legislation. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said, "President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law." Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union has also been a vocal critic of the legislation. He recently appeared on Democracy Now!
Chris Anders, American Civil Liberties Union: "This is so broadly written, it would become a permanent feature of United States law, so that 10 years, 20 years down the road, any president could still use this power to have the military pick up people and indefinitely detain them without charge or trial, potentially for years, potentially for life."
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/3/headlines/obama_signs_defense_bill_allowing_for_indefinite_detention_of_us_citizens_without_trial
Surprised this is not getting reported more widely. A lot of uproar surrounds all kinds of gun control laws, food regulations, even states rights over gay marriage, but this is the fucking biggest assault on liberty there can be - habeas corpus this effectively suspends is the most precious right people defend when fighting tyrannies.
I really don't get it either....
Hilarious how Obama has all these "severe reservations" but signs it anyway.
He's so full of shit.
Too bad the Republicans aren't any different - they'd sign it without claiming "severe reservations".
Questions to the lawtalkers:
- under what circumstances under this law can someone be detained, supposedly indefinitely?
- is such a detention in line with the U.S. constitution?
Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.
They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 03:39:52 AM
Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.
They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.
Seriously? That's your answer? What about protests, campaigns etc? If my country was passing legislation like this I would be up in arms. And on Languish, if you don't even bother posting about this, you should just stop posting threads at all - because nothing is as important.
So, as they say, it ends with a whimper. Land of the free my ass.
Is this the one that states: section 1031 or 1032 cant remember right now?
This is what you are talking about,, Right? "(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 04, 2012, 03:26:35 AM
Hilarious how Obama has all these "severe reservations" but signs it anyway.
He's so full of shit.
Too bad the Republicans aren't any different - they'd sign it without claiming "severe reservations".
I don't actually know what the law says, but it sounds like it's a rider. Something added to an appropriations bill. The President either has a major military budget fight with Congress or just signs the damn bill. Since no law like that would pass constitutional muster and would be struck down in the first case it was in there is likely little danger. Don't know why it was added to the bill though. Maybe the GOP was trying to provoke a budget battle over military spending.
So why does the American Congress not have some rule on seperation of concerns? It shouldn't be possible to add completely unrelated stuff to a bill. Have a vote on each seperate measure. That increases transparency too.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 03:46:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 03:39:52 AM
Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.
They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.
Seriously? That's your answer? What about protests, campaigns etc? If my country was passing legislation like this I would be up in arms. And on Languish, if you don't even bother posting about this, you should just stop posting threads at all - because nothing is as important.
So, as they say, it ends with a whimper. Land of the free my ass.
I've already posted about this here.
Quote
So, as they say, it ends with a whimper. Land of the free my ass.
Show me where it states that US citizen can be detained by the military w/o trial
I'll help you out. Can you site anything different?
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United
States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident
alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
States.
And this is why we need a line item veto. That said, this is the text that Thomas (that's the Library of Congress's legislative research site) provides for H.R. 1540, which Thomas says was presented to and signed by the President (and which the President, in his signing statement, also asserts to have signed):
QuoteSEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
...
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
It's kind of late, so maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm pretty sure it says that the executive may not be required to put a U.S. citizen in military custody. I see nothing in there contravening a U.S. citizen's right to an attorney, a fair and prompt trial, etc.
Yo, B4, I'm not sure where you're getting the Sec. 10
32 from. The bill I'm looking at, H.R. 1540, puts that text in Sec. 1022(b)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 04:12:24 AM
And this is why we need a line item veto. That said, this is the text that Thomas says was presented to and signed by the President:
QuoteSEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
...
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
It's kind of late, so maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm pretty sure it says that the executive may not be required to put a U.S. citizen in military custody. I see nothing in there contravening a U.S. citizen's right to an attorney, a fair and prompt trial, etc.
Yo, B4, I'm not sure where you're getting the Sec. 1032 from. The bill I'm looking at, H.R. 1540, puts that text in Sec. 1022(b)
I pulled out of s. 1867. so 1032-10=1022 :D
Oh and your exactly right.
Oh and so far the score is
USA.... 1
Gay Polish Lawyers...... 0
Well, I don't wanna say for sure that there's nothing in there that authorizes military detention for American citizens on American soil. I've not read the bill closely, and there seems to be some concern from people who have? But if that is all there is to it, I don't see how one can jump from "non-U.S. citizens, if they are found to be part of al-Qaeda, must be kept in military custody, and thereafter sent to Romania or something" to "U.S. citizens, regardless of cause, can be put into a military prison without judicial oversight."
I'm not exactly for what I do see in there--like, I think killing actions, such as the killing of al-Alawki, are a-ok, but detention without judicial involvement is stupid, counterproductive and barbaric. But neither am I especially worried that it signifies the end of American liberty.
I have asked people to show where it states differently since this hoopla has started(not here) and no one can produce.
Until they can, I say they are full of shit.
I just don't like to state something authoritatively until I've done more than three minutes of work on it. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 04:26:08 AM
I just don't like to state something authoritatively until I've done more than three minutes of work on it. :P
When is bs started you should have in on some of the Gun Boards. Holy Shit! I could find nothing stating what they claimed and wasted far too much life reading it. But, if someone can produce something in
black and white stating otherwise I'll be the first to admit; "Yea, you got something there"
I think he ran off to find another :tinfoil: blog.
Marty the score is still USA 1, Gay Poles 0
Where'd you go??????
YES WE CAN!
Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2012, 04:32:27 AM
Marty the score is still USA 1, Gay Poles 0
I think you're missing a few zeroes in there.
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2012, 04:33:56 AM
YES WE CAN!
:lmfao: Wasnt his latest on Letterman or Leno.....I Think We Can?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2012, 04:32:27 AM
I think he ran off to find another :tinfoil: blog.
Marty the score is still USA 1, Gay Poles 0
Where'd you go??????
I'm at work. My hour is worth 430 euro (that's about $560), so unless you are willing to pay that, I am not going to waste time on research. I was quoting a news source which also quoted people who apparently researched this. I trust them more than some random redneck on the internet.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 04:57:32 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2012, 04:32:27 AM
I think he ran off to find another :tinfoil: blog.
Marty the score is still USA 1, Gay Poles 0
Where'd you go??????
I'm at work. I am also posting a news piece. I trust news sources more than some random redneck on the internet.
Dont trust a redneck, I wouldnt :lmfao:. Read the document instead of regurgitating bullshit. You wouldnt let a redneck be more informed than you ...Would you? Surely that couldnt stand.
The challenge still stands.
Pay for my time then.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2012, 04:01:13 AM
So why does the American Congress not have some rule on seperation of concerns? It shouldn't be possible to add completely unrelated stuff to a bill. Have a vote on each seperate measure. That increases transparency too.
Because that would stop Congress from doing things like this, which they don't want.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 05:05:53 AM
Pay for my time then.
How many ADHD kids does it take to change a light bulb?
Wanna go bike riding?
Ok, reading this:
QuoteSEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
...
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
This provision introduces a mandatory obligation of the US military to hold any such person in custody, and the highlighted language exempts US citizens from that obligation but lack of an obligation is not a prohibition as far as I am aware, unless US statutes are written in some bizarre manner where this is the case. :huh:
If the legislators wanted to make sure that a US citizen
cannot be detained under section 1022, they would have included the same language as under section 1021 instead (there is a presumption that if the legislators address two things differently, they were aiming at different meaning in each case):
Quote(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
Although admittedly the wording here is also quite ambiguous so that this could be interpreted that all of these cathegories of people are exempted only if captured or arrested in the United States (and not just "any other person").
I see the GPL team consistently misses this part--
Quotewho is captured in the course of hostilities
lulz.
What he said
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 06:31:59 AM
I see the GPL team consistently misses this part--
Quotewho is captured in the course of hostilities
lulz.
So? Noone is arguing that indefinite dention of US citizens is allowed under any circumstances, just that it is allowed under certain circumstances.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 03:16:19 AM
QuoteJanuary 03, 2012
Obama Signs Defense Bill Allowing for Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial
President Barack Obama has signed into law a $662 billion military spending bill that authorizes the government to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. In a signing statement attached to the bill, Obama said he was signing the bill even though he had "serious reservations" with parts of the bill dealing with detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Sections of the bill were opposed by key members of the Obama administration including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Human rights groups assailed Obama for backing down on his initial threat to veto the legislation. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said, "President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law." Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union has also been a vocal critic of the legislation. He recently appeared on Democracy Now!
Chris Anders, American Civil Liberties Union: "This is so broadly written, it would become a permanent feature of United States law, so that 10 years, 20 years down the road, any president could still use this power to have the military pick up people and indefinitely detain them without charge or trial, potentially for years, potentially for life."
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/3/headlines/obama_signs_defense_bill_allowing_for_indefinite_detention_of_us_citizens_without_trial
Surprised this is not getting reported more widely. A lot of uproar surrounds all kinds of gun control laws, food regulations, even states rights over gay marriage, but this is the fucking biggest assault on liberty there can be - habeas corpus this effectively suspends is the most precious right people defend when fighting tyrannies.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2012, 05:16:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 05:05:53 AM
Pay for my time then.
:lmfao: Cop out
Not really. Marti has always been willing to say stupid shit for free. It should cost a lot of money to get him to say something even half-way intelligent; he will need to pay for several meals and at least one night's sleep before he will be able to come up with something to say.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 03:39:52 AM
Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.
They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.
The military should be gutted. But it is not like the President is dictator for four years. A Ron Paul as President would be unable to either repeal the civil liberty threatening laws, pass his nutty gold standard law, or dramatically reduce military spending. It would just be him fighting with Congress and the Executive Branch bureaucracy ineffectively for four years. And there is the obvious issue that his winning the GOP nom would be a repeat of the Goldwater and McGovern candidacies.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2012, 04:01:13 AM
So why does the American Congress not have some rule on seperation of concerns? It shouldn't be possible to add completely unrelated stuff to a bill. Have a vote on each seperate measure. That increases transparency too.
No and for there to be one they would have to pass it. And why would they do that?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2012, 05:21:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 05:05:53 AM
Pay for my time then.
How many ADHD kids does it take to change a light bulb?
Wanna go bike riding?
Why bring Mongers into this?
:P
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 08:46:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 03:39:52 AM
Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.
They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.
The military should be gutted. But it is not like the President is dictator for four years. A Ron Paul as President would be unable to either repeal the civil liberty threatening laws, pass his nutty gold standard law, or dramatically reduce military spending. It would just be him fighting with Congress and the Executive Branch bureaucracy ineffectively for four years. And there is the obvious issue that his winning the GOP nom would be a repeat of the Goldwater and McGovern candidacies.
Mmm...I think he might able to do the 1st, at least in part.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 08:58:09 AM
Mmm...I think he might able to do the 1st, at least in part.
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and caucus for him in April. God forgive me.
But it will probably be entirely symbolic since Romney will have wrapped it up by then anyway. The Democratic Primary in 2008 was unique in my lifetime as being a Primary that was not entirely a symbolic gesture by Texas voters.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 08:48:19 AM
No and for there to be one they would have to pass it. And why would they do that?
The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 09:03:24 AM
The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.
Did they? I thought what they did was give the Confederate President a line item veto (that and a longer term) which I guess is pretty similar in effect. Ironic that the Confederate President was so much more powerful than the US President at least Constitutionally considering what the Confederacy was supposed to be about in the first place.
i have read this debate and after careful deliberation my judgment is for 11b4v. Marty has had his ass kicked by a drunk redneck who used to schlep a rifle for uncle sam for a living
in marty's defense i assume that english is his second language and he is a pollack (albeit a high priced one) so reading the united states code may be tough for him as it is for many new american law students
additionally, my guess is marty reads the code like a lawyer from a napoleonic code jurisdiction and is clueless as to how an american lawyer would read the text given the federal constitution's applicability to all statutes and the body of common law jurisprudence that guides us in our interpretation of similar existing federal statutes... that is to say i suspect marty comes from a jurisdiction where the statute stands alone as a text (although he still loses -- likely because his english is poor) as opposed to reading the statute in the context of applicable extrinsic factors such as decisional law and the constitution
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 09:03:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 08:48:19 AM
No and for there to be one they would have to pass it. And why would they do that?
The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.
these are still parts of the florida constitution and i believe effective at curtailing legislative abuses
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 09:03:24 AM
The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.
Did they? I thought what they did was give the Confederate President a line item veto (that and a longer term) which I guess is pretty similar in effect. Ironic that the Confederate President was so much more powerful than the US President at least Constitutionally considering what the Confederacy was supposed to be about in the first place.
They gave him a term limit as well, he could only serve one.
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
America is exceptional and an inspiration to the people of the world. Given that fact why are you not studying our statutes for inspiration and enlightenment?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 09:25:01 AM
They gave him a term limit as well, he could only serve one.
I had forgotten that. One six-year term.
I don't think I ever noticed the line-item veto Valmy pointed out. It isn't written very clearly, but that is exactly what it is.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
Fixed for accuracy.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
And here comes the fit. Next stage of
Martiniusism is storming off.
I await developments.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to consider these things *before* you come out guns blazing?
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 05:05:53 AM
Pay for my time then.
:console: It's okay Marty, nobody is willing to give me that kind of money for my time either.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
When you play chicken little you need better back up :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to consider these things *before* you come out guns blazing?
Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer ...
Interestingly enough, the converse is the very reason why I never post about how fucked up i think any given Polish law might be, despite what some Polish journalist or internet blogger may have written about what he thinks of the given law. Having not spent any time in Poland, I also steadfastly avoid critiquing freedom in Poland or the lack thereof.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to consider these things *before* you come out guns blazing?
Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? :huh:
Actually, I try to make sure it's from a good source before I post a new thread.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer and I post stuff from blogs not goddamn statutes.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to consider these things *before* you come out guns blazing?
Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? :huh:
No but we don't always run off half cocked assuming its accuracy either.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? :huh:
Of course not. That's why they usually qualify their conclusions and don't call people ignorant rednecks for pointing out their errors. As I used to say on Paradox, you can be a dick, and you can be wrong, but you shouldn't be both at the same time.
First let's look at the whole thing: (with some bolded parts for emphasis):
QuoteSEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
Looking at the law, it does not represent any change in the policy that has existed over the last 10 years concerning the detention of al Qaeda terrorists.
The statute covers only people who satisfy ALL the following characteristics:
+ they are either a member of Al Qaeda or an organization acting at the direction of or in conjunction with Al Qaeda
+ they must have personally participated in planning or carrying out an attack on the US or its allies
+ they must be captured "in the course of hostilities" as authorized by the AUMF
The statute provides, as the Supreme Court has required, that any such detention be subject to the law of war (i.e. including Geneva).
The law thus appears to be consistent with current detention practice and actually represents an improvement over some of the practices of the prior administation.
There is of course a big constitutional issue raised here that is the actual source of Obama's objections but is not raised by either the ACLU press release or Martinus. The law raises very serious separation of powers concerns because it mandates that the Executive Branch must take specific actions with respect to matters traditionally viewed by some to be withing the discretion of the Executive. That is, Congress is arguably trying to micro-manage the Presidents exercise of Article II war powers. The legislation implicitly recognizes the problem by providing the waiver procedure in (a)(4) and by conferring some discretion and "outs" in the implementation procedures in subsection (c)(2).
Finally, looking at the prior section - 1021 - this merely confirms that Congress has authorized detention of AQ and AQ associated bad guys under the AUMF. As both the Bush and Obama adminsitrations took the position that this was so, all this does is confirm that was indeed the intent of Congress in passing the AUMF.
In addition, 1021 includes subsection (e) which provides: "(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
Thus, the law also confirms exactly what Lemonjello said - it doesn't change the previously existing legal and constitutional framework regaring detention of US citizens, LPRs, or any other persons captured within US territory.
:unsure: So do I have to kiss my liberty hello again?..
So in other words, any fighter who either belongs to AQ or to any organization deemed friendly to AQ is now legally considered an unlawful combatant and thus stripped of both the protections of the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war and habeas corpus in the United States?
EDIT: I'm not being cheeky here, I genuinely ask out of curiosity as I don't understand why legally this can merely target AQ by name and not cover, say other transnationals entities or even national from states in covert hostilities with the US, like North Korea or Iran.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 12:38:27 PM
:unsure: So do I have to kiss my liberty hello again?..
Just be comforted your liberty has been gone for awhile and this law is just enshrining its current um...not thereness.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 12:38:27 PM
:unsure: So do I have to kiss my liberty hello again?..
I tried kissing my liberty once, but I wasn't that flexible.
Quote from: Drakken on January 04, 2012, 12:38:32 PM
So in other words, any fighter who either belongs to AQ or to any organization deemed friendly to AQ is now legally considered an unlawful combatant and thus stripped of both the protections of the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war and habeas corpus in the United States?
EDIT: I'm not being cheeky here, I genuinely ask out of curiosity.
According to MM,
QuoteThe statute provides, as the Supreme Court has required, that any such detention be subject to the law of war (i.e. including Geneva).
Sounds like such detentions are subject to the law of war (i.e. including Geneva). The Geneva Conventions allow for trials of persons suspected of war crimes.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 09:12:07 AM
i have read this debate and after careful deliberation my judgment is for 11b4v. Marty has had his ass kicked by a drunk redneck who used to schlep a rifle for uncle sam for a living
in marty's defense i assume that english is his second language and he is a pollack (albeit a high priced one) so reading the united states code may be tough for him as it is for many new american law students
additionally, my guess is marty reads the code like a lawyer from a napoleonic code jurisdiction and is clueless as to how an american lawyer would read the text given the federal constitution's applicability to all statutes and the body of common law jurisprudence that guides us in our interpretation of similar existing federal statutes... that is to say i suspect marty comes from a jurisdiction where the statute stands alone as a text (although he still loses -- likely because his english is poor) as opposed to reading the statute in the context of applicable extrinsic factors such as decisional law and the constitution
Yep. This was why I was wondering if there's some other section where it says (not that it would matter in the long run, but it could cause someone some trouble) "Oh, BTW, notwithstanding Amendments IV, V, VI, VIII, and XI of the U.S. Constitution, and superseding any other statutory authority, if blank is satisfied, American citizens may
totally be detained by military authorities forever without trial."
P.S. I've been misspelling "supersede" for years. :o
Quote from: JoanThus, the law also confirms exactly what Lemonjello said - it doesn't change the previously existing legal and constitutional framework regaring detention of US citizens, LPRs, or any other persons captured within US territory.
I said it first. Not as well, but I still want credit for being up at 4 a.m. to sleepily oppose foreign lawyers citing alarmist blog posts as authority.
I did not even know we had any liberty left to kiss goodbye.
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 04, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
I did not even know we had any liberty left to kiss goodbye.
It's restricted to civilians.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 01:34:56 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 04, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
I did not even know we had any liberty left to kiss goodbye.
It's restricted to civilians.
:lol:
I must say Lusti has been a shining example to keep me from ever being tempted to join the reserves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 10:05:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? :huh:
Of course not. That's why they usually qualify their conclusions and don't call people ignorant rednecks for pointing out their errors. As I used to say on Paradox, you can be a dick, and you can be wrong, but you shouldn't be both at the same time.
:yes:
Yeah that's when you go oh, the source I had stated it wrong. Sorry guys!
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:18:51 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 09:12:07 AM
i have read this debate and after careful deliberation my judgment is for 11b4v. Marty has had his ass kicked by a drunk redneck who used to schlep a rifle for uncle sam for a living
in marty's defense i assume that english is his second language and he is a pollack (albeit a high priced one) so reading the united states code may be tough for him as it is for many new american law students
additionally, my guess is marty reads the code like a lawyer from a napoleonic code jurisdiction and is clueless as to how an american lawyer would read the text given the federal constitution's applicability to all statutes and the body of common law jurisprudence that guides us in our interpretation of similar existing federal statutes... that is to say i suspect marty comes from a jurisdiction where the statute stands alone as a text (although he still loses -- likely because his english is poor) as opposed to reading the statute in the context of applicable extrinsic factors such as decisional law and the constitution
Yep. This was why I was wondering if there's some other section where it says (not that it would matter in the long run, but it could cause someone some trouble) "Oh, BTW, notwithstanding Amendments IV, V, VI, VIII, and XI of the U.S. Constitution, and superseding any other statutory authority, if blank is satisfied, American citizens may totally be detained by military authorities forever without trial."
P.S. I've been misspelling "supersede" for years. :o
:huh:
any legislation that has to contain the phrase "notwithstanding the constitution" is by definition likely doa
so i guess the answer to your question would have to be "so what if it did".
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 10:05:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? :huh:
Of course not. That's why they usually qualify their conclusions and don't call people ignorant rednecks for pointing out their errors. As I used to say on Paradox, you can be a dick, and you can be wrong, but you shouldn't be both at the same time.
:yes:
Yeah that's when you go oh, the source I had stated it wrong. Sorry guys!
Yep. I think almost all of us have done that at some time or another. We might not be the thread starter, but there have been many, many threads that have linked and/or quoted a news article or blog with a story about a new law or new interpretation of existing law that have seemed outrageous, but then when someone has actually looked up the wording of the statute/interpretation, etc., it's turned out to not say what the account presented in the opening post said or suggested it said, and then people who had expressed outrage have said, "Oh, that's not bad. It doesn't say what we were told it said". Preferably without using a long run-on sentence. ;)
I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. <_<
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:18:51 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 09:12:07 AM
i have read this debate and after careful deliberation my judgment is for 11b4v. Marty has had his ass kicked by a drunk redneck who used to schlep a rifle for uncle sam for a living
in marty's defense i assume that english is his second language and he is a pollack (albeit a high priced one) so reading the united states code may be tough for him as it is for many new american law students
additionally, my guess is marty reads the code like a lawyer from a napoleonic code jurisdiction and is clueless as to how an american lawyer would read the text given the federal constitution's applicability to all statutes and the body of common law jurisprudence that guides us in our interpretation of similar existing federal statutes... that is to say i suspect marty comes from a jurisdiction where the statute stands alone as a text (although he still loses -- likely because his english is poor) as opposed to reading the statute in the context of applicable extrinsic factors such as decisional law and the constitution
Yep. This was why I was wondering if there's some other section where it says (not that it would matter in the long run, but it could cause someone some trouble) "Oh, BTW, notwithstanding Amendments IV, V, VI, VIII, and XI of the U.S. Constitution, and superseding any other statutory authority, if blank is satisfied, American citizens may totally be detained by military authorities forever without trial."
P.S. I've been misspelling "supersede" for years. :o
:huh:
any legislation that has to contain the phrase "notwithstanding the constitution" is by definition likely doa
so i guess the answer to your question would have to be "so what if it did".
That's what I said... ;)
Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?
It would raise serious concerns here.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:26:50 PM
That's what I said... ;)
Well that is the thing, if there is legislation that seems to violate a part of the Constitution (the Fourth Amendment seems to get run over alot) they just do not mention it. Like the laws that redefine how wars are waged, in direct violation of the Constitution at least in what it says in black and white, they just do not address the issue. I think the problem is how hard it is to change the Constitution and how sacred it is perceived. When it needs to be worked around for expediency, it seems you just ignore it or come up with some convoluted justification. I mean if there was not this fanatical and politically powerful gun lobby the Second Amendment would be pretty much ignored.
In my totally amateurish perception natch.
Quote from: MartinusIncidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?
That sort of language gets reasonably often, e.g. long-arm statutes establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants often include language "to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States" or similar.
QuoteIt would raise serious concerns here.
Why? Surely the legislature can act within its constitutional powers? My understanding is that the only thing that language is for is to clarify how the statute should be interpreted. It would
always be limited by constitutional language, regardless of that clause, but the statute itself need not be relegislated if it violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional authority in any given application.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:26:50 PM
That's what I said... ;)
Well that is the thing, if there is legislation that seems to violate a part of the Constitution (the Fourth Amendment seems to get run over alot) they just do not mention it. Like the laws that redefine how wars are waged, in direct violation of the Constitution at least in what it says in black and white, they just do not address the issue. I think the problem is how hard it is to change the Constitution and how sacred it is perceived. When it needs to be worked around for expediency, it seems you just ignore it or come up with some convoluted justification. I mean if there was not this fanatical and politically powerful gun lobby the Second Amendment would be pretty much ignored.
In my totally amateurish perception natch.
If you mean that the constitution is basically what courts (and to a lesser degree the executive and legislature) say it is, then yeah. The only way around that would be to draft a highly detailed constitution that ran into the hundreds of pages. And that would be an ugly thing, unable to evolve--and even worse, it probably wouldn't even work.
On balance, the vague crappiness of our constitution is something of a virtue.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 02:37:53 PM
Well that is the thing, if there is legislation that seems to violate a part of the Constitution (the Fourth Amendment seems to get run over alot) they just do not mention it. Like the laws that redefine how wars are waged, in direct violation of the Constitution at least in what it says in black and white, they just do not address the issue. In my totally amateurish perception natch.
What are you talking about? Where in the Constitution does it define how wars are to be waged? The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but it doesn't say anything about
how wars are waged, unless I'm having a massive brain fart and have forgotten a whole article or something.
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 02:59:39 PM
What are you talking about? Where in the Constitution does it define how wars are to be waged? The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but it doesn't say anything about how wars are waged, unless I'm having a massive brain fart and have forgotten a whole article or something.
Oh for fucksake.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 02:34:15 PM
Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?
That's not exactly what the statute says.
What the cited section does is set forth an interpretive rule for the Courts to apply that it was not Congress' intent to alter existing law. Thus, if the courts are presented with two or more possible interpretations or applications of the statute, they are being instructed to apply that interpretation which does not result in an alteration of prior law on the issue, including (especially!) constitutional law.
I can't think of any reason it would be improper for Congress to include in legislation guidance on how that legislation should be interpreted and applied and an explanation of the law's intent. In fact, Congress might be well served doing that more often.
Quote from: Drakken on January 04, 2012, 12:38:32 PM
So in other words, any fighter who either belongs to AQ or to any organization deemed friendly to AQ is now legally considered an unlawful combatant and thus stripped of both the protections of the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war and habeas corpus in the United States?
Not so.
First it is not enough to belong to an organization "deemed friendly to AQ" The organization must either be directed by AQ or acting in coordination with it.
Second, it is not enough to belong to such an organization. The person must also have actually participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or one or more of its coalition partners, AND they must also have been captured in the course of such "hostilities" under the authority granted in the AUMF. Thus, a person who is an active AQ but did not plan attacks on the US or its allies is not subject to this law. An active AQ member who carries out terror attacks on non-coalition members is also not subject. A terrorist who plans or even carries out attacks on the US is also not covered unless in AQ or an organization acting in coordination with AQ.
Third, as I interpret the law and in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, Geneva applies.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 02:23:54 PM
I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. <_<
Your first of many mistakes.
It's as valid a source as Leno or Letterman and usually at least marginally funny.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
any legislation that has to contain the phrase "notwithstanding the constitution" is by definition likely doa
Not in Canada!!!111 :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
It's as valid a source as Leno or Letterman and usually at least marginally funny.
Seems to me Leno and Letterman play the setup a lot more straight than Stewart. Stewart's not a punchline guy so he needs the story itself to be the joke.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
Quote from: MartinusIncidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?
That sort of language gets reasonably often, e.g. long-arm statutes establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants often include language "to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States" or similar.
QuoteIt would raise serious concerns here.
Why? Surely the legislature can act within its constitutional powers? My understanding is that the only thing that language is for is to clarify how the statute should be interpreted. It would always be limited by constitutional language, regardless of that clause, but the statute itself need not be relegislated if it violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional authority in any given application.
The problem I see with this is twofold:
1) it is not precise enough - it essentially requires the executive to interpret constitution/caselaw in order to act - which could cause problems,
2) there is an issue in assessing constitutionality of such legislation - since the legislation is technically within the bounds of constitution, but it may be applied outside of its bounds due to the above-mentioned ambiguity but there is no way to strike it.
It's essentially saying "executive is permitted what it is permitted".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 04, 2012, 03:06:21 PMI can't think of any reason it would be improper for Congress to include in legislation guidance on how that legislation should be interpreted and applied and an explanation of the law's intent. In fact, Congress might be well served doing that more often.
Hmm that would be considered inappropriate in our legal tradition since there are established methods of interpreting the law by the courts and the legislative cannot affect that per se - you can look to their intent, sure, but the literal interpretation takes precedence.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2012, 03:58:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 02:23:54 PM
I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. <_<
Your first of many mistakes.
I disagree. The US is a nation of complexities and paradoxes. TV comedy shows, podcasts and Hollywood movies explain it to me sufficiently. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 04:32:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2012, 03:58:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 02:23:54 PM
I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. <_<
Your first of many mistakes.
I disagree. The US is a nation of complexities and paradoxes. TV comedy shows, podcasts and Hollywood movies explain it to me sufficiently. :cool:
Mistake #1: Spell his name correctly.
Timski.
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
Quote from: MartinusIncidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?
That sort of language gets reasonably often, e.g. long-arm statutes establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants often include language "to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States" or similar.
QuoteIt would raise serious concerns here.
Why? Surely the legislature can act within its constitutional powers? My understanding is that the only thing that language is for is to clarify how the statute should be interpreted. It would always be limited by constitutional language, regardless of that clause, but the statute itself need not be relegislated if it violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional authority in any given application.
The problem I see with this is twofold:
1) it is not precise enough - it essentially requires the executive to interpret constitution/caselaw in order to act - which could cause problems,
2) there is an issue in assessing constitutionality of such legislation - since the legislation is technically within the bounds of constitution, but it may be applied outside of its bounds due to the above-mentioned ambiguity but there is no way to strike it.
It's essentially saying "executive is permitted what it is permitted".
1)is a problem, but one courts are well-equipped to deal with
2)is not as much of an issue as you suggest; much legislation is potentially unconstitutional as applied by the executive; much, if not most, legislation also involves preliminary interpretation by the executive; again, errors occurring in this process is why the judiciary must and does exist.
The language exists because the line of constitutionality can be vague and shifting--indeed, in our country more than many with more rigid constitutional structures. Like I said, my main exposure to that sort of addition is in long-arm statutes, where state legislatures are subject to faraway CCoA and USSC decisions. The addition of such a clause permits legislation to be as flexible as courts. This has some not inconsiderable legislative convenience and social utility, even though it's really nothing more than a helpful interpretive reminder.
Sure, people whose rights are violated in the executive's good faith, or not so good faith, attempt to carry out a law, have to actually go to court, but they would have to do that
anyway, even if the statute was written without that language.
America confuses and scares me. :huh:
Good.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer ...
Interestingly enough, the converse is the very reason why I never post about how fucked up i think any given Polish law might be, despite what some Polish journalist or internet blogger may have written about what he thinks of the given law. Having not spent any time in Poland, I also steadfastly avoid critiquing freedom in Poland or the lack thereof.
I don't post about how fucked up Poland is because I don't give a shit, and neither does anyone else.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 04, 2012, 07:14:25 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on January 04, 2012, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer ...
Interestingly enough, the converse is the very reason why I never post about how fucked up i think any given Polish law might be, despite what some Polish journalist or internet blogger may have written about what he thinks of the given law. Having not spent any time in Poland, I also steadfastly avoid critiquing freedom in Poland or the lack thereof.
I don't post about how fucked up Poland is because I don't give a shit, and neither does anyone else.
+1
Quote from: Martinus on January 04, 2012, 04:57:32 AM
I'm at work. My hour is worth 430 euro (that's about $560), so unless you are willing to pay that, I am not going to waste time on research. I was quoting a news source which also quoted people who apparently researched this. I trust them more than some random redneck on the internet.
Okay, it's time to come clean. Who the fuck has been paying Marty that much by the hour to post here all this time?
No one is paying Marti that by the hour if that's what he bills out at...firm has its expenses to cover not to mention a desire for some level of profit above and beyond that.
I would guess the markup is somewhere between 50 and 75%.
I sorta support Mart on the research issue. I'd say fuck y'all too.
I don't know how many of Tim's lazy ass questions I've ignored in the past few months.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
I sorta support Mart on the research issue. I'd say fuck y'all too.
I don't know how many of Tim's lazy ass questions I've ignored in the past few months.
Yeah but the difference is that you don't throw a hissy fit when someone points out that you've made a mistake. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
I sorta support Mart on the research issue. I'd say fuck y'all too.
I don't know how many of Tim's lazy ass questions I've ignored in the past few months.
The issue is not about Marty refusing to be bothered to do any research, it is is standard
desire compulsion to believe anything negative about the US, and being perfectly willing to expend consierable energy railing about how screwed up it is, while not being capable of just admitting he was wrong, and the article was full of shit.
It is what we love about him though. He would not be nearly as interesting if he was rational and reasoned, we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers. Marty fills an important niche.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
He would not be nearly as interesting if he was rational and reasoned, we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers. Marty fills an important niche.
:lol: Tru dat. He rounds out the bell curve.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
It is what we love about him though. He would not be nearly as interesting if he was rational and reasoned, we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers.
Hooray!
Well, I tried defending Mart. By trying, meant a sympathy pat on the back.
He should do what I do and get all my information from John Birch newsletters, Chick tracts, stuff from lucid dreams and out and out fabrications.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers.
:unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers.
:unsure:
That's four. I'm pretty sure we have more lawyers than that.
The Canadian lawyers don't count, have you seen how they dress? Bunch of foppish pettifoggers.
PLEAT THE WORLD.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2012, 01:11:56 PM
The Canadian lawyers don't count, have you seen how they dress? Bunch of foppish pettifoggers.
:punk:
Quote from: Maximus on January 04, 2012, 09:45:38 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers.
:unsure:
That's four. I'm pretty sure we have more lawyers than that.
As long as reasonable still appears to be open, I'm calling dibs
I'll take well informed. The others are probably beyond my grasp.