You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/...05ixgPwoRAw_IE
The arrogant refusal of the 'activist' right wingers who control the Supreme Court to let justice be done in this case is one of the worst Court decisions in
The arrogant refusal of the 'activist' right wingers who control the Supreme Court to let justice be done in this case is one of the worst Court decisions in decades.
With this Court in charge, all the executive branch needs do is say 'state secret' and you have lost your right to due process of law.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. What was done was a clear violation of this man's rights. He was suing for chicken-feed and was clearly only interested in asserting his (and your) rights. The Supreme Court refused to let his case be heard, even in private by a federal judge
On the heels of the Blackwater scandal and the smokescreen the State Dept. has thrown up to protect Blackwater and its employees for having to take responsibility for its actions, why should anyone outside the US take American claims to serve the interests of international justice seriously?
This is dangerous for all and a disgrace to the nation.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
how many judges on the court have been appointd by GWB? I doubt its "his" court most have been and will be there longer than GWB will be in office. But thanx for headline it does look good no matter how inaccurate
how many judges on the court have been appointd by GWB? I doubt its "his" court most have been and will be there longer than GWB will be in office. But thanx for headline it does look good no matter how inaccurate
I think he's meaning it in a general sense. While he hasn't appointed all of them, he's appointed two that will (often) side with his line on thinking. That's not to say they'll make incorrect decisions, but when it comes to certain things. . .they might lean toward a conservative stance. In other news, does it sicken anyone else that the Supreme Court will decide things based on political persuasions? I mean. . .isn't the rule of law indifferent to party politics? Guess I'm dreaming.
Now, on to why the case won't be heard. From what I've read, the Court has to decide which cases to hear and, for purposes of preventing a majority rule, only four justices have to agree to hear it out of the nine. But, in a politically charged case like this (which hasn't been touched in 50 years according to the article), is it any shock that it wasn't brought before the court?
My personal opinion though is that it's sick. I totally agree that this should have been heard. No reason why it wouldn't and no reason to presume that a judge. . .scratch that. . .our HIGHEST RANKING judges can't keep confidentiality about national secrets if told to. If they can't do that, maybe they shouldn't be ruling on law.
EDIT: Also, I do think that it's a bit misleading to say that activist right wing judges are refusing to let this be heard. As I stated, it only takes four justices. There are 4 that regularly vote to the left. Three that almost always do. Just sayin. . .
__________________
Just for Hatter
Last edited by SmytheKing; October 9th, 2007 at 10:06 PM.
This would have been a lot worse a lot earlier if Souter hadn't turned out the way he has.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom
actually i think it's both good and bad... where Crawford really sacrificed Kopitar to the benefit of Brown and O'Sullivan, Murray is sacrificing Frolov and O'Sullivan for the benefit of the two players this organization has hung their hat on.
the key would be how far Murray can go before Frolov loses patience and O'Sullivan goes into an emotional cocoon.
how many judges on the court have been appointd by GWB? I doubt its "his" court most have been and will be there longer than GWB will be in office. But thanx for headline it does look good no matter how inaccurate
Facts don't matter here re makeup of the Supreme Court. Bush is the devil, that's all, move along, nothing to see here.
A good headline indeed.
I liked the piece from the article:
"El-Masri's case centers on the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, in which terrorism suspects are captured and taken to foreign countries for interrogation. Human rights activists have objected to the program."
Human rights activists have objected to this program, huh? Maybe I missed a press release sometime back, but what is human rights activists' "official stance" on terrorism (you know, hi-jacking, suicide bombings, snipers, not letting Iraqi citizens get on with their lives...saying certain countries [plural] should be wiped off the face of the earth)?? Any comment from these "activists?"
And bottom line, no matter what happened to this man, the same thing would have happened to him no matter who was President (Clinton, Gore, Kerry - take your pick), and then this wouldn't even be a thread.
Boggles my mind how this guy was the President of the United States for 8 years.
The freedoms and reputation of the U.S. that my Grandfather helped secure during WWII are now gone. It's a sad state of affairs in our country right now.
I worry because I don't see light at the end of the tunnel with any of the canidates running for President in 08'.
Bush isn't the devil, he's just a really really bad representative of our country.
Facts don't matter here re makeup of the Supreme Court. Bush is the devil, that's all, move along, nothing to see here.
A good headline indeed.
I liked the piece from the article:
"El-Masri's case centers on the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, in which terrorism suspects are captured and taken to foreign countries for interrogation. Human rights activists have objected to the program."
Human rights activists have objected to this program, huh? Maybe I missed a press release sometime back, but what is human rights activists' "official stance" on terrorism (you know, hi-jacking, suicide bombings, snipers, not letting Iraqi citizens get on with their lives...saying certain countries [plural] should be wiped off the face of the earth)?? Any comment from these "activists?"
And bottom line, no matter what happened to this man, the same thing would have happened to him no matter who was President (Clinton, Gore, Kerry - take your pick), and then this wouldn't even be a thread.
Oversimplified for simple people.
The way we treat beings over whom we hold a measure of power says a lot about us. I have no respect for people who torture helpless animals, similarly I have no respect for people who torture helpless criminals.
But, I suppose it is easy to turn a blind eye to things like this when the people being tortured are brown.
I actually don't think the Supreme Court has much jurisdiction anyway. It's more a Federal Appeals Court matter.
It didn't happen in America, it didn't involve US citizens, why would it involve a Constitutional question?
Quote:
The way we treat beings over whom we hold a measure of power says a lot about us. I have no respect for people who torture helpless animals, similarly I have no respect for people who torture helpless criminals.
But, I suppose it is easy to turn a blind eye to things like this when the people being tortured are brown.
I actually don't think the Supreme Court has much jurisdiction anyway. It's more a Federal Appeals Court matter.
It didn't happen in America, it didn't involve US citizens, why would it involve a Constitutional question?
no one's proven torture
First of all your first assertion is incorrect. The court is in fact "conservative" I think the ratio is 5-4, and generally I think people on courts like that rule according to the law and not politics.
And no ones proven torture because?....
These people have no legitimate recourse. No court will hear them, thereby denying them the opportunity to prove their case.
Thirdly, these incidents do in fact involve U.S. Citizens, but since its not the americans being tortured, or interrogated aggressively(because changing the name of the action makes mid westerners happy) it doesn't matter. Like I said, denying people the basic human rights that John Locke espoused is easy for us when the people are brown.
First of all your first assertion is incorrect. The court is in fact "conservative" I think the ratio is 5-4, and generally I think people on courts like that rule according to the law and not politics.
Calling a court liberal or conservative is different from political philospohy.
"Conservative" in this sense is "strict constructionist" and in that regards, the balance is 5-4 against, with Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas
now you'll have people argue that Kennedy is a "conservative" but read his opinions and look at who he sides with. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens
Bush's Supreme Court Wipes Its Ass With The Constitution 
BIG JOE
