have any of you seen this? land of the free indeed. outrageous!

[Carnivroar]

the terrorists hate america for our freedom and prosperity

[Eric K]

the terrorists hate america for our freedom and prosperity

I hate how I can never see these pictures at work...

I'm just going to assume (given the poster) that it's something to make your statement appear deeply facetious.

My take on it is that it's more from our support to Israel; it's just convenient for extremists to fixate on a religious unifying identity and label the U.S. as the great devil for having a secular and free society. We are, however, betraying ourselves by sacrificing liberty for the sake of the perception of security, in my opinion.

[tertius]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but this is a sticky one... Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (And obviously the 5th, 6th and 9th Amendments with regard to the rights of citizens on trial.) This concept seems to have changed as people took liberty for granted and national crises tested our fortitude.

Erik, do you feel my interpretation of the bill is correct, as I interpreted it above? If I'm wrong, I want to know it, and I'm not deeply familiar with the various bits of law the bill cites, and under which the Executive may detain individuals.

It seems to me that the bill implies that the battlefield -may- be treated as extending to US soil, in that it forces the military to take charge of the trial and imprisonment of anyone, caught here or abroad, that fits the definition contained there-in. The implication is that if the person is caught in the US, and the military must deal with them, ergo the battlefield must include the US, as it is only on the battlefield that the military has the right to imprison or try individuals (who aren't enlisted US citizens). This is somewhat circuitous logic, but that's the law for you.

[Carnivroar]

How come people like Carl Sagan never become our leader? Why do corrupt pieces of shit politicians are always elected instead?

[Mark E. Hurling]

There were grumblings about it even in the wake of the Civil War when a group of citizens were tried as spies in Indiana, but the conclusion was that the suspension of habeas corpus only applied in an actual warzone, when the courts were unable to prosecute citizens (Chief Justice Chase on the Ex parte Milligan Case: "...Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."). So it would appear that supsension of habeas corpus for citizens requires the declaration of war and the absence of an alternative, functioning civilian court system.

The Civil War has some tough law and actions to parse through. I thought about using it as an example, but the conundrums associated with foreign nation and sovereign soil, it seems to me got a little muddled. Likewise with Lincoln's suspension of the Democrat convention in Indiana during the 1863-1864 election champaign enforced by Federal troops. Then there's the farce of a trial that got Mary Surraut hung. Her "trial," sentencing, and execution always seemed to me a railroad of "justice" from start to finish and Stanton seemed more concerned with getting everyone dead and quiet than all else. The rest of them were up to their eyballs in the plot. But the so-called "evidence" used to convict her by military tribunal, AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER AND THE PEACE WAS SIGNED, has left a bad taste with me the more I have learned about it.

[JC]

How come people like Carl Sagan never become our leader? Why do corrupt pieces of shit politicians are always elected instead?

Just a guess, but why would someone not interested in the trappings of power attempt to attain such a position in the first instance?

[Mark E. Hurling]

Just a guess, but why would someone not interested in the trappings of power attempt to attain such a position in the first instance?

You believe that about Sagan? If he wasn't interested in the trappings of power, than why did he accept such high level administrative and managerial positions at various labs during his career? Let alone the billions and billions times he enunciated his own pictured self on TV. Not even a faceless narrator role for him. No sir, he was so self effacing. If he were disinterested in the trappings of power he could easily have remained a lab rat or scope dope in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada. He just didn't want political power on the national level. As for power in his profession? He had an ego just like most of the rest of us. Just more so.

[JC]

I actually don't know who he is save for he did something to do with space for tv in america (if even that is true), it was more of a general statement more akin to the mountain sage living a humble existence in solitude whilst 'having all the knowledge of the universe and no interest in exploiting it' than a specific person who i don't care anything about - he may as well be Patrick Moore for all i care.

[brettd]

Your link there is factually incorrect, and highly biased. The Udall Amendment restricts the applicability of the bill to people which the US has the right to exert military force over (which excludes US citizens), while the bill as it stands require that anyone thought to be a terrorist would be remanded to military custody. This would not be required for US citizens, but it wouldn't be prohibited, either. Those are a world apart.

Further, the Udall Amendment makes the Executive branch justify the incarceration of any and all individuals they are currently holding or could, in theory detain under the laws of war, and verify that they have the authority to do so under existing law.

ahh thank you for clarification

[Carnivroar]

You believe that about Sagan? If he wasn't interested in the trappings of power, than why did he accept such high level administrative and managerial positions at various labs during his career? Let alone the billions and billions times he enunciated his own pictured self on TV. Not even a faceless narrator role for him. No sir, he was so self effacing. If he were disinterested in the trappings of power he could easily have remained a lab rat or scope dope in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada. He just didn't want political power on the national level. As for power in his profession? He had an ego just like most of the rest of us. Just more so.

You make him sound like a bad person. By marketing himself, he inspired a hell of a lot of people. If I didn't read Cosmos, I wouldn't have ever thought of majoring in physics in the first place.

People like him should be our leader.