Home Depot Store Security

[HeyBub]

The good folks in Gitmo are not criminals and are not subject to the criminal laws of this country. Likewise they are not entitled to the safeguards and rights afforded to criminals.

[Country]

They were grabbing power from the people. It was one more excuse to be able to stop and check out any citizen at any time with only the suspicion that they might be illegal. A cop would be able to use that excuse anytime against anybody they want.

Yes, those Mexicans that support the AZ law should feel ashamed and so should any other freedom loving person.

-C-

[The Daring Dufas]

Then why on earth is our Affirmative Action administration trying them in civilian court?

TDD

[HeyBub]

Damned if I know. Ignorance of the law, I presume.

I keep trying to knock down canards the progressives put up:

1. "We can't keep people locked up without a trial!" Sure we can. We do it all the time. Those found in civil contempt (i.e., non-payment of child support), Juveniles (who, under the law have no criminal capacity), Contagious desease carriers, Illegal immigrants (held under civil deporation rules), Emergency mental health declarations, and many classifications.

We can't lock up accused CRIMINALS without a trial, but enemy combatants are not "criminals." They do not get a right to a trial by jury, legal counsel, indictment by a grand jury, or their own witnesses. They are, moreover, probably not subject to the restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment."

1. "The president has no authority in this matter..." Check his Article II powers. As C-in-C, the president has ABSOLUTE power over military operations and neither the courts nor the Congress can gainsay his decisions. As one appellate judge put it "If the president's actions are unacceptable, the remedy is the next election."

And so on...

[Kurt Ullman]

Michael Connelly quotes a friend of his who says the worst thing that can happen to a defense attorney is to have a client who is actually innocent.

[chaniarts]

try reading the bill instead of parroting what you've read elsewhere. this statement is incorrect.

[Oren]

The funniest I've seen was a young man that was sentenced to six months in federal prison.

"What are you locked up for?!"

"Um mm, harassing a bear!"

I nearly lost it. After we talked I went and read his file and it was true.

His claim for defense was that the bear ran up a tree and he just standing there watching it . The Park Ranger saw different.

[The Daring Dufas]

What gets to me are the morons who keep claiming that The President has powers that he doesn't have then claiming that he doesn't have powers that he does have. It's mind boggling.

TDD

[HeyBub]

This wasn't you, was it?

"Police in Edmond, Oklahoma, said the pair were caught stuffing items under their belly fat and breasts by workers at a TJ Maxx department store. The officers claim [the suspects] had hidden FOUR pairs of boots, THREE pairs of jeans, a wallet and gloves to the value of $2600." (emphasis added)

Each item averaged almost $300!

[HeyBub]

Heh!

Check this out. That small orange blob at the bottom of the tree is a cat named Jake. According to the news report, Jake was declawed, else the bear would be in really deep doo-doo.

[The Daring Dufas]

I was over at my friend's place today and he is the guardian of a Rotwiener, a tiny Wiener dog who thinks she's a Rottweiler. My thumb is bigger than her snout but the little bitch will challenge anything. The funniest thing it the world is to see her go after a big laid back dog and the big dog looks down at this tiny Tasmanian Devil dog bouncing off of him and gnawing on one of his toes and I could swear the big dog has a WTF expression on his face/snout. The big dog's foot is bigger than the Rotwiener's head and I know he could flick the little dog across the yard with a wave of his paw but the good natured pooch just looks down at the crazy little bitch and may lick her head every now and then but it makes her crazier. It's side splitting funny. :-)

TDD

[jw]

I hate to tell you this, but they have you on a video camera, got your license plates recorded, and you are being followed by the Secret Service Police and possibly the FBI too. It's just a matter of time before they pull their guns and handcuff you as they haul you to prison. Say goodbye to the free world......

[jw]

Stick it on the door, the alarm will keep blasting forever until someone finally finds it.

[Red]

When his political platform was "change", most people thought he meant "...Washington". He really meant "....everyone outside Washington".

[krw]

Well, we've seen what Demonicrats get us. Bankrupt.

[Robert Green]

That would be (quoting directly from the Constitution): The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Absolute? That's just nutty. You really enjoy rewriting history, don't you? Of course the President's actions can be checked and not only by the elective process. One merely needs to know recent history as in Youngstown Sheet and Tube vs. Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court threw out President Truman's seizure of the nation's steel mills, which he had defended as an emergency measure in wartime. It's probably important to note that the President, even though CinC, can't declare war. Only Congress can. Hardly an unchecked and absolute military commander. Congress can certainly refuse to fund any war the President chooses to fight, but spineless as they are, probably never would, even if Obama attacked Canada.

Or take the Pentagon Papers case. Justice Black, a former Klansman, joined the majority in ruling that when assertions of Presidential power collide with the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, in that case), that pesky old Constitution wins hands down. It was written very clearly to PREVENT the executive from becoming a dictator because no one wanted another King George. That deliberately weak executive role left Presidents far less powerful than they would like to be and perhaps *need* to be. It has resulted in numerous attempts to "reach" farther than they are allowed to.

A more recent example from 2006:

"The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it. Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions."

This wasn't just a "Bush thing." There have been near constant attempts by both parties to stand this pretty clear-cut balance of powers on its head (FDR, Truman, Nixon, Bush and many more all tried) but the fact is that the President can indeed be checked (eventually), even in wartime, when he attempts to arrogate power to himself that he is not entitled to by law. That fact that they *sometimes* get away with it doesn't make it legal. The loophole most who try to end-run the Constitution rely on is that the Court can't *restrain* them from doing something illegal, only rule that is was illegal or unconstitutional once they've done it.

As Justice Kennedy wrote in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195 "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is.'

It also seems you've forgotten about the most basic check on Presidential misconduct: Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.

If we allow *any* president to throw a US citizen into permanent detention with no one knowing where he is being held or why, how does that make us any different than Stalin and the KGB? It doesn't. It also sounds like you haven't thought out whether you really want Obama to be able to take a dislike to you, label you an enemy combatant and make you disappear with no chance of judicial review, because that's what it sounds like you're arguing for. I didn't want Bush making people disappear, nor do I want Obama doing it.

Due process is the cornerstone of all our judiciary and for good reason. The Supreme Court thought that preserving the concept of habeas corpus was something very important. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

- we now return you to your not even decently marked Off Topic excursion into "The Constitution - For God's sake, it doesn't say THAT!"

-- Bobby G.

[HeyBub]

Do you have difficulty in understanding "Commander in CHIEF"? Neither the Youngstown case nor the steel mill episode (or the Pentagon Papers case) involved the military. The court went on at length about the president's authority in the Prize Cases. It concluded that it would be impossible, both practically and legally, for Congress - or the courts - to get involved in the strategy or tactics of waging war.

I agree that only the Congress can DECLARE war, but the president has unfettered authority to WAGE war. Remember, Clinton WAGED war on more countries than any president since FDR.

You are correct in that Congress can cut off funding for military operations. Teddy Roosevelt once asked Congress for an appropriation to send the "White Fleet" on an around-the-world tour, thereby demonstrating our nation's ability to operate globally. Congress declined to provide the money.

Roosevelt quipped: "Well, I have enough money to send the fleet HALFWAY around the world! Let's see if Congress will pay to get them back."

You make a good point. However, I NEVER start off-topic threads (well, maybe once or twice but they were clearly marked as such). That said, I don't allow what I believe to be in error to go unchallenged either.

[HeyBub]

Show one. Just one.

[Robert Green]

OK then, if his power over the military is absolute why can't he wave his magic wand and create all-gay divisions in each service and put an end to DADT? The idea that he has absolute power is absolutely bogus. Someone with a high school civics background knows that the concept of absolute power is *exactly* what the Founding Fathers were trying to eliminate from the new government they were creating. The idea that the CinC is the unquestionable overlord over all things military overlooks reality.

I believe that what you may be trying to say is that in times of "invasion or open rebellion" there are exceptions to habeas corpus and unusual "one-off" events. My recollection is that most of of the recent SCOTUS rulings have clearly rebuffed the "President can do anything he chooses in time of war" claims that the Bush adminstration was advancing. As I said, it's not a partisan thing. Every administration back as far as I know to Jefferson has tried to push the envelope in some way. The US presidency was designed to be weak, and as the world places more (unwarranted) blame at the feet of Presidents, they have responded by logically seeking to expand their powers. It's a natural outgrowth of being blamed for something you can't control: You want the ability to control that thing you're being blamed for in the future.

If all that is true, and in reality only partially so, what would prevent Obama from sending troops to Canada because he had secret information that Canada was planning a surprise invasion? Under your interpretations of the President's powers, no one could stop him if he really, really wanted to send them. The truth is that the President faces many impediments to the exercise of his power of the military, including the entire Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's the reason why there's no "Big Pink One" Division or "Bad Ass Black" Brigade.

Yes, the POTUS has great latitude over approving battle plans and even things as critical as selecting and approving the targets for the two A-bombs that we've dropped. But it's not absolute in any sense. And it's not without serious review. In other words Congress and the SCOTUS can't micromanage him, but they certainly can hold him responsible for his actions.

But thank God he got them over with in a hurry compared the slow motion agony of AfRaq. The Clinton "police actions" at least had very much more clearly defined goals and exit strategies. Mission creep, the bane of the US military for a long, long time should have been dead and buried by the time we got to Iraq. It is hammered into the head of every officer at every phase of their military education. I was stunned to see Rummy make a mistake as classic as willingly fighting a two-front war. He just kept allowing the perpetual expansion of the mission until, for Fu3k's sake we found ourselves building Muslim "democracies" with American blood and treasure. What the heck?

Remember that Newt was quite willing to shut down the Federal government in his showdown with Clinton. Do you think a President as dynamic as either of the Roosevelts could exist today? I don't. Bush tried, I believe, but he was as hamstrung as anyone who followed FDR. The politcal climate has seriously changed as well as the speed of communication and reaction. Both seriously cut into the margin of time a President has between taking a controversial action and having the SCOTUS scuttle it.

Ditto. (-:

All I am asking, rather stridently, is to put those two stinkin' letters in the subject line to make it easier for people who just want to read home repair info and couldn't care less about all things political. I think the worst thing about political discussions is that it makes enemies out of people who might not otherwise feel that way and that ill-will follows into the advice given on home repair topics. How many times have we seen someone shoot down another's advice over trivialities that have more to do with "gotcha backs!" than anything else?

If it seems I'm picking on you, I'm not. The reverse is true. We often disagree but unlike many others, you're aware that being insulting is counterproductive to winning converts to your point of view, which I believe is important to you. That's a welcome quantum leap over some of the more childish postings I see. Hopefully you'll set an example to be emulated, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

-- Bobby G.

[HeyBub]

Doesn't count. Subject was: "WAY OT: Loon Over MyYammy" [11/21/2010]. (emphasis added)

And my exact statement, which you Dowderized, was "However, I NEVER start off-topic threads (well, maybe once or twice but they were clearly marked as such)."

Have you found an OT thread I started that wasn't so marked yet, or are you still thrasing, feeling ashamed, and vowing to strike back by exaggerating harder?