BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: Genie
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:46 AM

In keeping with that old, very true observation, it wouldn't matter whose administration it was. We are supposed to be a constitutionally limited representative democracy, not a monarchy or dictatorship, and no administration should have that kind of power. To use it any any circumstance would be to abuse that power.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:38 PM

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"...remember that one?

just look at this administration...oh, and the last one, too!.....(even a few back, as well)
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: Genie
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:12 PM

True.

But I'm guessing the right wingers just assume that these excessive governmental powers will only be used against "socialists" and "liberals," and I fear that as long as we have a quasi-fascist state (with the big corporations really running the show), they're right.   If the Republicans were able to get such a bill passed and the right-wing activist Roberts SCOTUS were to rule it "constitutional," it probably would be used only against brown-skinned people, Muslims, liberals, environmentalists, true populists, Democrats, etc.

Thing is, in time it would probably come back to bite the very groups that supported its enactment.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:07 AM

That's assuming they can think AT ALL, wch is a demonstrably unfounded assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:48 AM

That's assuming they think for themselves...there was a reason my dad always called the television the "idiot box."

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:50 AM

How can these people claim that government is bad, and then want to hand government that much power? It make-a no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: Genie
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:13 AM

McCain AND Lieberman. That ought to raise a red flag from the get-go.

I don't think McCain would have backed a bill like this a few years back, but he seems to be sucking up to the right wing extremists these days. You know, the ones who are always yelling that we shouldn't have "governmental control?"

Seems to me this bill would be rejected by anyone who claims to respect and value "the Constitution," "freedom," the rights of citizenship, etc.   But there's a frighteningly authoritarian streak among many on the "hard right," and this bill is just one example.

I wonder if something like this could get passed if the Republicans controlled Congress?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain, Lieberman for EBID&P Act
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:27 PM

If McCain is for it..it's already suspect!
GfS

Subject: BS: McCain et al. for EBID&P Act
From: Genie
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 06:44 PM

Look who's pushing for even bigger & more intrustive government!

McCain & Lieberman propose "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act"

[[Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act

Salon.com, By Glenn Greenwald, March 17
[...]
Meanwhile, the bill recently introduced by Joe Lieberman and John McCain -- the so-called "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act" -- now has 9 co-sponsors, including the newly elected Scott Brown. It's probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act. It literally empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect -- including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. The bill requires that all such individuals be placed in military custody, and explicitly says that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," which everyone expects to last decades, at least. It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges.
This bill has produced barely a ripple of controversy, its two main sponsors will continue to be treated as Serious Centrists and feted on Sunday shows, and it's hard to imagine any real resistance to its passage. Isn't it shocking how easily led and authoritarian the French are?

Also: Obama threatens to veto greater intelligence oversight

One of the principal weapons used by the Bush administration to engage in illegal surveillance activities -- from torture to warrantless eavesdropping -- was its refusal to brief the full Congressional Intelligence Committees about its activities. Instead, at best, it would confine its briefings to the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- comprised of 8 top-ranking members of the House and Senate -- who were impeded by law and other constraints from taking any action even if they learned of blatantly criminal acts.
This was a sham process: it allowed the administration to claim that it "briefed" select Congressional leaders on illegal conduct, but did so in a way that ensured there could be no meaningful action or oversight, because those individuals were barred from taking notes or even consulting their staff and, worse, because the full Intelligence Committees were kept in the dark and thus could do nothing even in the face of clear abuses. The process even allowed the members who were briefed to claim they were powerless to stop illegal programs. That extremely restrictive process also ensures irresolvable disputes over what was actually said during those briefings, as illustrated by recent controversies over what Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats were told about Bush's torture and eavesdropping programs. Here's how Richard Clarke explained it in July, 2009, on The Rachel Maddow Show ...]]

Do the Tea Partiers know about this? Do they care?   Or do they assume (ha!) that it could NEVER be used against any of them?

And where is the discussion of this in the "mainstream media?"