Representative Foley turns out to be a secret card-carrying member of NAMBLA.

[TAP]

But Bushco also passed a recent bill that simply removes a suspect?s right to challenge his detention in court. Expanding the definition of an "enemy combatant" to very vague terms. It has been widely reported that the language in the bill makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/

Legal scholars are debating whether the Military Commission Act [MCA], passed by Congress on September 29 and soon to be signed by President Bush, applies to U.S. citizens. The answer is more complicated than one would think.

First: Under Sec. 948a(1) an unlawful enemy combatant is ?(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents ?; or (ii) a person who?has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal?.? Use of the word ?person? suggests that citizens may be detained as unlawful combatants.

But second: Sec. 7(a) denies habeas rights only to aliens. Thus, a citizen who is detained as an unlawful combatant would appear to have habeas rights to challenge his detention.

Moreover, third: Sec. 948b states that ?[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.? In other words, only non-citizens may be tried by a military commission.

My conclusion:  A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

[The Dog]

Um, what do the last two posts have to do with Foley?   

Stay on topic please.

[Bud Fox]

My conclusion:  A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

Yes, the appeals "process" is called combatant status review trials, but what remains to be seen is whether by de facto, they'll be given access to adequate counsel and representation when they're rotting away in their undisclosed dungeon cells. But if if there is no habeus corpus, you essentially disappear into the prison system, so pray tell, how does one "appeal" under that circumstance?

This bill is a gross miscarriage of democracy, an evil, vile thing worse than any terrorist act, an act of fascism meant to undermine the very foundations of democracy. Bud Fox hopes all the fear mongering war loving assholes are proud of it.

[TAP]

Um, what do the last two posts have to do with Foley?   

Could you email Dennis Hastert and get him to stay on topic too? Thanks.

"But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we've tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism -- and we've worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it -- and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well." - Hastert on Limbaugh, relating the fallout of the Foley resignation to the war on terror.

[TAP]

My conclusion:  A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

Yes, the appeals "process" is called combatant status review trials, but what remains to be seen is whether by de facto, they'll be given access to adequate counsel and representation when they're rotting away in their undisclosed dungeon cells. But if if there is no habeus corpus, you essentially disappear into the prison system, so pray tell, how does one "appeal" under that circumstance?

This bill is a gross miscarriage of democracy, an evil, vile thing worse than any terrorist act, an act of fascism meant to undermine the very foundations of democracy. Bud Fox hopes all the fear mongering war loving assholes are proud of it.

I really don't know anything about it, was just reporting what I'd just read on a somewhat independent (libertarian) site.

[Surfrider]

I am speaking in general terms.? I sometimes disagree with some of the cases that these people criticize from the ACLU.? Just as the ACLU is a left-leaning organization, these people are all far right journalists.? I, however, think that both sides are correct, legally speaking, part of the time.

That sure seems like a safe answer to me..........

It's not a safe answer.  I have been trying to explain this to you for a while, but you still have not figured it out - there is a difference between political ideology and legal interpretation.  Just because someone is an originalist does not mean that they always end up on the side that supports the conservative cause.  I, however, look at the law from an originalist perspective.  However, right-wing groups and left-wing groups look at it from a political perspective.  People like O'Reilly and many other just don't get that distinction.  Here is an example: I was listening to Michael Savage yesterday on my ride back home from work.  He was talking about how Bush apoointed liberals to the Court because the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a religion case involving the the teaching of Islam at school.  To me, that was the originalist/conservative position to take.  You can't cry out when the Supreme Court misinterprets the religion clauses re christianity and then argue for them to misintepret the clauses re Islam.

Everything comes down to Bush with you.? First, Bush is not my man.? Second, I think the torture/denial of a trial to overseas combatants is not governed by our Constitution.? I don't see how you can say these people should have the benefit of our bill of rights?? It really has nothing to do about redefining anything.? Now, if you want to talk Geneva conventions, then I will agree with that there have been some violations.

You supported Bush since day one dude. Then changed your user name when the shit started to hit the fan. They should be afforded the rights of the GC and Bush doesn't want that. But Bushco also passed a recent bill that simply removes a suspect?s right to challenge his detention in court. Expanding the definition of an "enemy combatant" to very vague terms. It has been widely reported that the language in the bill makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

Who was I?  Popmetal?  I support Bush on certain things, but I am not a blind follower.  More often than not, I am defending him against the left-wing position.  However, I have many criticisms of him and think that he has been a terrible President.  The fact that you think that I was such a supporter, but now criticize him should demonstrate to you that I don't follow lock-step.  I, however, have never heard you criticize anyone on the left. 

[Bud Fox]

Drudge Blames Kids for Foley?s Actions

Drudge transcript from FireDogLake:

Clip #1:  And if anything, these kids are less innocent ? these 16 and 17 year-old beasts?and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet ? oh yeah ? you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture.  You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies.  Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth?  The kids are egging the Congressman on!  The kids are trying to get this out of him.  We haven't got the whole story on this.


Clip #2: You could say ?well Drudge, it?s abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet.? Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven?t...they were talking about how many times they?d masturbated, how many times they?d done it with their girlfriends this weekend...all these things and these ?innocent children.? And this ?poor? congressman sitting there typing, ?oh am I going to get any,? you know?

Fox's dirty tricks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

[Bud Fox]

Matt Drudge said on his fascist radio show that it was the page's fault, something one routinely hears from child molesters. Hannity, points the finger at some ancient incident as if it is somehow supposed to excuse Mr. Foley's activities. Making excuses for Republican pedophiles that include blaming the kids for "enticing" this pervert, man, most people are reaching for a vomit bag.

Fox news names Foley a Dem.

What a bunch of nazi cunts.

[The Dog]

Um, what do the last two posts have to do with Foley?   

Could you email Dennis Hastert and get him to stay on topic too? Thanks.

"But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we've tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism -- and we've worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it -- and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well." - Hastert on Limbaugh, relating the fallout of the Foley resignation to the war on terror.

haha yeah, i read that yesterday too.  amazing.  I love how he throws in 9-11 and the war on terror HAHAHA.  That has A LOT to do with a naughty IM convo right? 

and I'd email Hastert, but he'd probably deny receiving it 

[Bill 213]

HAHAHAHAHA holy shit, fucking Fox news and douchebag Bill O'Reilly are trying to pass Foley off as a Democrat now? ? Those douchebags will do anything to smear something.  And it wasn't just a one time error.......this was like 3 or 4 times during the program.


Bill O'Reilly of course is okay since he only sexually harrassed older women via the telephone.

[SLCPUNK]

HAHAHAHAHA holy shit, fucking Fox news and douchebag Bill O'Reilly are trying to pass Foley off as a Democrat now    Those douchebags will do anything to smear something.  And it wasn't just a one time error.......this was like 3 or 4 times during the program.


Bill O'Reilly of course is okay since he only sexually harrassed older women via the telephone.

Pass the loofah.............

[SLCPUNK]

I want to see the right wing members of this board stand up and say this is wrong:

1) Wrong to cover up for a pedophile (congress)

2) Wrong for the right to attack the victims of child abuse (attack the messenger)

3) Wrong for their mouthpiece, AKA Fox news, to try and label  Foley a Democrat once he is caught trying to fuck little boys.


What a national disgrace this party is.  Neoncons working a smear job against the children who were targets of their in-house child molester. Absolutely despicable!

[TAP]

I want to see the right wing members of this board stand up and say this is wrong:

I'm kind of a left leaning libertarian Brit who lives in NYC, so probably not really who you're looking for.

1) Wrong to cover up for a pedophile (congress)

2) Wrong for the right to attack the victims of child abuse (attack the messenger)

3) Wrong for their mouthpiece, AKA Fox news, to try and label  Foley a Democrat once he is caught trying to fuck little boys.

If congressmen can't have cybersex with minors, then the terrorists win - it's as simple as that.

[TAP]

HAHAHAHAHA holy shit, fucking Fox news and douchebag Bill O'Reilly are trying to pass Foley off as a Democrat now   

AP did it too, though they corrected themselves.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010172.php

[SLCPUNK]

A blame the liberal media and Clinton for this whole mess................

[GeorgeSteele]

Looks the GOP will dodge yet another bullet...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15129898/

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., the congressman who sponsored the page at the heart of the recent Capitol Hill sex scandal furor and initially said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "knew about the e-mails that we knew about," including one in which Foley asked the page to send his picture, has now backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.

"I guess that's a poor choice of words that I made there," Alexander told AP.

[SLCPUNK]

Looks the GOP will dodge yet another bullet...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15129898/

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., the congressman who sponsored the page at the heart of the recent Capitol Hill sex scandal furor and initially said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "knew about the e-mails that we knew about," including one in which Foley asked the page to send his picture, has now backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.

"I guess that's a poor choice of words that I made there," Alexander told AP.

Guess he got the call to change his story quick.

What a bunch of losers.............

[Mom]

If congressmen can't have cybersex with minors, then the terrorists win - it's as simple as that.

Quote of the fucking year...

[Drew]

What a national disgrace this party is.  Neoncons working a smear job against the children who were targets of their in-house child molester. Absolutely despicable!

So we are in agreement then now? Cause that makes two of them.

[SLCPUNK]

What a national disgrace this party is.  Neoncons working a smear job against the children who were targets of their in-house child molester. Absolutely despicable!

So we are in agreement then now? Cause that makes two of them.

Are you going to stand up and admit this was all wrong?

Are you going to hold the NeoCon run Congress accountable for covering this up?

Hold the right wing media spin machine accountable for it's smear job against the victims of an internet pedophile stalker?

Are you going to speak out against this or not?

Your silence only indicates that you condone this behavior.