Fogbuster

OK, so we that's why we have the checks and balances we do. Thank God, yes.

So, see. It's not "scary" at all, is it !!

//

Pujo

Good, I'm glad you'd support the Supreme Court nixing their interpertation of habeas corpus.

Fogbuster

If it's for the good of the country and not just some small-visioned agenda, of course.

That's a big "if", though.


//

Pujo

So the constitution only applies sometimes, when Clinton is in office but not when Bush is? Otherwise "the good of the country" is very subjective, ask 100 people and you'll get 100 answers on what's good for the country.

Remember that thing about America being a nation of laws and not men?

Fogbuster

You don't have to frame it that way, so contentiously. C'mon.

The issue is vague enough that the Supremes might have to interpret it, right?? So if they say that *in this case*, involving the detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorist actions or ties, then let's hear what the SCourt says.

I think they'll get it right. I HOPE so.

//

Pujo

I hope so to, but the point of a political forum is to discuss what we think is right. BTW, I don't believe aliens captured on foreign soil are entitled to habeas corpus, or any constitutional rights for that matter, just US citizens and aliens who are in this country legally (with green cards or valid visas). There may be some wiggle room there (maybe only US citizens, for example), but saying that the constitution doesn't grant a right because it only says that it can't be denied isn't wiggling, it's playing word games that have nothing to do with reality.

Fogbuster

OK, then, I'll bite. I agree with you, word for word with what you say about habeas.

Just remember, thought, if you say Gonzalez is "playing word games", you need look no further than: "that all depends on what 'is' means" to see a doctorate level thesis on word-gaming.

And don't tell the two are not connected; EVERYTHING is connected. That's why it's so complicated.


//

Pujo

They're all the same. They may pander to different kinds of people, but every politician is in it for themselves. You won't find me singing Bill Clinton's praises.

Fogbuster

Granted, there is plenty of pandering on both sides. Too much pandering.

So, what can we do about making it better? We need to take this to the next level. I, for one, am sick of being sick and tired over the whole mess of self-serving politics.

We need to take it to the level of true public service, something that favors NO ONE above another. A real meritocracy. At least then everyone will be playing on the same field. Same level on the field, same chances for all. That's what lights my fire.


//

Pujo

Everyone says that til they get there themselves. 9/10 of us (myself included) would lose our principles in a New York minute if we were elected to high office. Atheists or religeous people, men or women, white or black, gay or straight, most people fall in the face of the easy life a little corruption and doublethink can bring. Not everyone, there are people who care, and most people probably care to some extent, but our system makes it too easy and rewarding to make bad decisions.