Tag Archives: Law

Questioning Mukasey Isn't Fair?

Posted on by
Reply
Bush:  "I believe that the questions he's been asked are unfair; he's not been read into a program -- he has been asked to give opinions of a program or techniques of a program on which he has not been briefed."
Isn't that the point of the hearings?  To ask him questions?  Learn his views?  See if the rest of the country wants him as Attorney General?
"Q Judge Mukasey is experienced in terrorism trials, he's been around. Why is it wrong for him -- or why will you not let him say whether he thinks that waterboarding is illegal torture? THE PRESIDENT: He has not been read in -- first of all, let me put this in perspective. The Congress did pass a law, the Detainee Detention Act [sic], that I signed into law. The techniques we use informed that law and members of the Senate and House -- select members of the Senate and House, both parties, have been briefed on the law. Secondly, he doesn't know whether we use that technique or not."
Use of  "water-boarding" has been confirmed in use.  It's a technique we picked up from the Spanish Inquisition, Pol Pot, and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.  We KNOW what's involved.  It's been described, re-enacted on television, photos from previous wars, etc.  If that isn't enough for him to make a decision, and he's trust-worthy enough to be considered for Attorney General, give him clearance and let him see the papers he needs so that he can form an opinion and answer the question.  It's not that difficult.  The only reason for the current arguement is so he doesn't have to say if he approves or not and can defend the status quo, which would fail to get him approved by the Senate.  They don't want the status quo.  They want honesty, openness, and NO TORTURE.  It's not the huge request the administration makes it out to be. But since he can't answer it, how about someone who is cleared and briefed answer the question?
Q What is your own view about waterboarding? THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to talk about techniques.
Oh.............

Popularity: 1% [?]

Is The President Above The Law?

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States we believe in the "Rule of Law".  A term meaning that everyone must obey the law, and nobody is above the law.  These laws are to be written, public, and challengable in court.

Bush's nomination for Attorney General thinks one man is above this.

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

SOURCE

His arguement basically comes down to the fact that The Constitution is above all laws, and that since the President is required "the defense of the nation" in the Constitution, laws are null and void in pursuit of this goal.

This is NOT a view the nation should embrace.  The defense of the nation can and should be pursued following the Constitution, International Law, and also following our domestic laws.  Violating these ideals has led other nations to dictatorship, corruption, and loss of liberty.  It CAN happen here as well, not just other nations.

The Attorney General is THE law enforcement official in the country.  It's their job to ENFORCE the laws of the land, not make exceptions to them.  If something is illegal, the Attorney General should be the first one to stop the President and his actions.  That was the main problem with the last one.  Gonzales was seen as just defining things and changing them to fit the current Administration.  Not holding the Administration to the law.

Popularity: 1% [?]

ACTION ALERT: Stop the Unconstitutional "Protect America" Act

Posted on by
Reply

The single largest anti-Constitutional contribution to the Bush Regime by the PAA is its effective cancellation of legislative and judicial oversight on warrant-less wiretapping. When this bill was signed into law, the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle and balanced branches principle were completely ignored. The law is set to expire after 6 months. But, unsurprisingly, Bush just announced that he wants those powers to be permanent.

The Protect America Act is a warrant-less eavesdropping bill that expands the power of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It was passed just before summer recess: by the Senate on August 3 (Roll Call 309), and by the House on August 4 (Roll Call 836). George Bush then signed the bill into law on Sunday, August 5.

The Protect America Act gives the federal government the authority to monitor American citizens' phone conversations and e-mails, providing they are corresponding with persons "reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." This bill, which was drafted mostly by the White House, was created in response to the 2005 scandal where President Bush was ridiculed for authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct a secret wiretapping program targeted at persons within the United States.

Take Action!

Popularity: 1% [?]

License and Registration Please....

Posted on by
Reply
Are you a Buddhist?  Hope you're not Tibetan.  If you are China now requires you seek permission before reincarnating.  That's right.  Without permission, once you're dead, you're dead.  Not really sure how they're planning on enforcing this new law, but the goal seems to be to allow China to decide who the next Dali Lama will be.  Yeah.... good luck with that China. Store Here.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Problems with "Nothing to Hide"

Posted on by
Reply
I've been wanting something like this for awhile.  It goes over the arguments of privacy and the argument that "I'm not worried because I have nothing to hide."
Abstract: In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the "nothing to hide" argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the "nothing to hide" argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The "nothing to hide" argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the "nothing to hide" argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
Read the essay here.

Popularity: unranked [?]