Bush - Retroactive Immunity

[Oxygon]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/42339/

I cannot believe this crap! I swear to g-d if this gets thru this country has lost its last brain cell...

... also, this can be defunct if the law is determined to be unconstituional later?

Right...? OR have they thown that away yet along with any good sense???

[docfeelsgood]

i would say that it will become law by the supreme court refusing to hear the case , imho.

[primemignonite]

Oxygon...

The Constitution is very clear about "ex post facto law", in that it commands that none shall ever be made, and, there is no exception to it, expressed or implied.

Since it has been done in the past as it is right now, WHAT, then, are we to make of the seeming oddity?

I would offer two possibilities for your consideration:

1. that they simply do it 'by mistake' (doubtful)

or

2. that matters are not really as they seem, and that, in fact,
we are no longer UNDER the Constitution, as we are
encouraged to believe, nor are the municipal/corporate
States, but rather, both being quite outside of that
document's obligations and protections, "rights" having
been long ago statutized and codified into 'privileges'.

Consider, if you will, that in the Constitution at Article I, paragraph 10, it commands that "No State shall . . . make any thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts."

Well then, just WHAT do the States think they are doing with the paper-and-ink trash they trade in, on a day-to-day basis? Fair question? I think so.

Yes, do let us ASK and DEMAND answers to be forthcoming to these, as well as sundried other 'anomalies', now so baffling to us.

"We want information."

"We WANT information!"

"Well . . . you WON"T get it!"

Put very simply: MOST THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY SEEM !

Will the American people EVER get that creepy feeling within the pits of their stomachs that "We . . ." have truly 'been had', and 'big time'?

How much more of this BS will it take for meaningful numbers to arrive there, with that unmistakable sensation of pre-doom within?

James

P.S. As for "Doc's" suggestion, this is the gambit by which the illustrious robed-ones waltz around explanation 2. A pat little game they have, one which shall never surcease by exercise of our little pencil and paper VOTE!

[primemignonite]

Oxygon,

Also, there is this:

The prohibition against making of law ex post facto, is even more important to those who might be accused of wrong-doing, pursuant to it.

With the possibility of that sort of after-the-fact law making, anyone at any time might be criminalized.

For example: say that you or I did some thing fifteen years ago that happened to be perfectly legal at the time. Passage of the vile, illegitimate species of law now in-question, could declare thereby that what was done back then IS NOW illegal, with prosecutions against then proceeding, AS IF the activity had been illegal ALL ALONG!

As for making law that de-criminalizes a previous act or acts, that is something else altogether. Yes, it IS effecting of things done previously, but, it is on the order of a relief rather than the reverse - persecutorial - and so, it is often permitted and done.

Technically, offenses discovered to have been committed before any de-criminalization, are still prosecutable under the past existing law, unless specifically rescinded, but, usually are not post the time of effectiveness of the new de-criminalizing statutes - the principle behind this being that lawmakers often latterly re-think laws previously made, and that the activities put newly into question should no longer be viewed as prohibited, the result being expressed in the form of a new law, which out of fairness, should also be applied retroactively. This is the essentially 'de-criminalizing' effect of it, as they say.

This is almost exclusively pertaining to mala prohibitum, and almost never to mala in se. We do not say one year that murder is prohibited and in the next that it is, nor do we do likewise with other acts in-and-of-themselves criminal offenses against society.

This complicated minuet of prohibitions should stand as a lesson to the effect that law conjured out of mere thin air and imaginations, done up so as to effect some social change or re-arrangement of thinking, is by nature, both capricious, arbitrary and therefore, logically indefensible.

The problem here that, I think, you are objecting to in this case, is the purpose-built political aspect of it, and, in addition to that, it potentially upsets prohibitions to some behavior or practice that, by right, should continue to be prohibited, which of course, would be wrong to allow to occur.

This is my understanding of the subject, generally.

Can one not easily see how utterly ROTTEN such a legal machination as criminalizing law crafted after-the-fact, truly is? It is just on account of those horrific features of it, that The Founders EXPLICITLY FORBADE IT, and yet, we now abide it being done, as they, the treasonous law makers, often proceed-on, heedless of the prohibition and the logic standing behind it.

We suffer greatly on account of our educated ignorance. As I have observed as well as experienced, the inculcated, stubborn cussedness that is purpose-built into we 14th Amendment "US citizens", is now all but insuperable. The contrarist bone now grown around minds these days, is simply too thick to be penetrated.

Will we wake up in-time to survive the present criminal syndicalism now just coincidentally in-control of all the armed forces, as well as our local police, essentially?

Personally, I don't think so . . .

A one-way ticket to some out-of-the-way South Seas isle might be in order for consideration, and somewhat sooner than later, I would urge.

If and when 'they' panic, our entire social set-up will become totally unbuckled, and not you nor I will wish to be around - I promise!

Ugliness now unimaginable will manifest totally, and at that point the only way out will be the horizontal exit.

James

[ken_behrendt]

In times of war, democratic governments reserve the right to suspend any or all of the provisions of their constitutions in the interests of "national security". That means that the Bill of Rights must be considered to be conditional in nature. Indeed, any or all of the provisions of a country's constitution can be suspended selectively with regard to any group of citizens that the government selects during time of war. Consider, for example, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII while no effort was made to intern German Americans or Italian Americans.

Generally, I do not mind the suspension of such rights IF there is a real need for them and their suspension in temporary. The danger is that temporary might turn out to be a permanent situation which is how a lot of Third World military dictatorships get started.


ken

[primemignonite]

In times of war, democratic governments reserve the right to suspend any or all of the provisions of their constitutions in the interests of "national security". That means that the Bill of Rights must be considered to be conditional in nature. Indeed, any or all of the provisions of a country's constitution can be suspended selectively with regard to any group of citizens that the government selects during time of war. Consider, for example, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII while no effort was made to intern German Americans or Italian Americans.

Generally, I do not mind the suspension of such rights IF there is a real need for them and their suspension in temporary. The danger is that temporary might turn out to be a permanent situation which is how a lot of Third World military dictatorships get started.


ken

Ken...

I beg to differ with what you wrote and almost uniformly.

I don't know about other governments' constitutions, such as any might have, but ours is very explicit as to who can do what and under what conditions.

Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

Only the Congress has the power to declare suspension of our Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

F.D.R. ordered the interment of the Japanese during WWII, citizens or otherwise, pursuant of his "implied powers", as Commander In Chief of all the armed forces, in time of war. He was perfectly within his rights to have done it, as well as many other things. (As to whether or not he should have, that is another matter for argumentation to be done at another place.)

That war was Constitutionally declared by the Congress assembled, and was, in all ways, proper and legal, and it was a grand occurrence of it's sort probably forever to remain unique. All other like-actions prosecuted since, have NOT been Constitutionally declared as wars, and so, fall short of being legally describable as such, Constitutionally. As a result, we hear painfully-conjured euphemisms such as "police actions", "military interventions", etc. to describe and supposedly justify them.

Here, our constitution itself cannot be "suspended", Ken, only by Amendment can this be done, and then only piece-meal. Mere statutes cannot effect this, nor can resolutions, nor any other thing other than the so often attempted, and subsequently ignored, 'illegal', which they now do with almost contemptuous impunity, so inured to it they have become.

They exploit 'gray areas' and implications-inferred, in order to 'bruise the intent', sometimes mortally. For example, we now observe the awful spectacle of Congress preparing to cede it's undoubted authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, to the Executive, and even worse, to be used by him selectively, and in-secret!

Again, alluding back to Doc's well-made point, actions taken pursuant to this particular nefarious law, when signed into being, are most likely never to come up for judicial review, on account of it's novel provisions amounting to circular-secrecy, so, without representation afforded, which is effectively denied to those accused under it, there most likely WILL BE NO APPEALS occurring; therefore little or no judicial notice of any illegality possibly inherent, is likely to be taken. It was purpose-designed to be that way; no doubt of it.

This particular iteration of wickedness is a pat-game, and is an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS ONE, for it allows to the Executive for the first time in our history, the privilege to act in-secret, and unaccountably in unilateral suppression, and this most easily translates into actions of POLITICAL suppression!

Not being a Nazi or a Communist, DO YOU NOT find this most likely possibility to be a wholly un-acceptable one, Ken? Are you of such a mind as to consider giving up your rights for security.

Well, if not, I DO, and in this I am not alone . . . however . . . judging by all the non-responses I get here to what I write, or borderline-idiotic ones, even, one might reasonably come to think otherwise.

Let's wake up, damn it! We are all at THE precipice of a unique and mortal danger, and this is NOT 'business-as-usual" time!

The Constitution does not allow any power to the Article I, nor to the Article II, nor to the Article III branches of our government, to transfer it's duties, rights or privileges, to other branches, much less to outside entities. The original reasoning behind this was so as to effect a viable WORKING SEPARATION of the various assigned powers and duties, so very carefully set-out and defined.

As was the case with the power to create (coin) money in specie, it ceded this power illegally to an organization outside the government, which it created especially as a 'corporate peculiar', the Federal Reserve. (Look in the phone book and you will not find the FED in the "Government" section, only in the "White Pages"! Why do you think this is?)

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never said one way or another, that what they did was right or not, as regards it's creation and on-going, outrageous monetary syndicalism. Why would they, for these days Great Whore Necessity trumps all that is right, sadly.

(To be fair, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is mostly appellate, and was allowed very little that was original. It is partly on account of this fact, that what they can possibly do originally, is distrained ab initio.)

From since the time of Lincoln, both the Congress and the Executive have rather often skirted-the-legal, in what it has been attempted and often succeeded at, and, as Doc pointed out, this then being handled by the Courts by choosing NOT to look at relating cases, as in the instance I cited above.

READ the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; all of the original reasoning behind the thinking that lead to the Grand Document. It is mostly all there, and should be taken advantage-of.

There is nothing "conditional" about the Bill of Rights, Ken.

Almighty God gave these to us so as to exercise our free-wills unmolested, to come to faith or denial, and the Bill of Rights heroically attempts to preserve them, but, one by one, those worshipers at the alter of Great Whore Necessity have chipped them away, and now we have the sad spectacle of an entire army of citizenry, such as yourself, apparently, supporting and even defending what is, by all that is right, indefensible!

This situation we find ourselves in now, is dreadful in-the-extreme; it is HORRIFYING beyond all measure when looked at square-on. What you said and seemingly believe, and wrote out, serves but to further underscore this terrible reality.

I think you really do not know of what you seemingly approve. It is but a matter of assembling puzzle pieces properly (authentic ones, as separated from those that are born of mere opinion or fraudulent), and the true realities will soon dawn, as-perceived.

As it is with the Bessler Wheel, up to this point at least, "utopia" may or may not materialize, but until one of them IN ACTUAL FACT does, then lets do be careful in advocating anything mostly dependant upon their happy manifestation. Fair enough?

Read the description in The Declaration as to THE SOURCE of our rights as pre-existing any mere human description of them. It is here where the atheists and their like need-not-apply, nor, I am sad to say, apparently are some agnostics, most tragically.

This stands is yet another reason I am so adamant as to why the kind is so very deadly to humanity, in-general, in that they can rationalize into their thinking ANY OUTRAGE according to the measure "the ends justify the means".

No, Ken, if you are one of those who also can, then you are simply outside the Pale of right. I truly hope that this is not the case, and out of respect, will presume it in your favor.

If we are now to be accepting of the proposition that Human Rights are mere inventions of mens' minds, Ken, then let us declare here and now, on this this very page, that all rights are defined, created and enforced ONLY by us humans, for one another.

If so-done, would YOU, then, be filled with golden confidence, hope and peace-of-mind, this to be based upon dependance upon your fellows' good will, and perfect Golden Rule performance?

Well, I will say here with all force of conviction and power at my disposal, that contrarily to whomever might be accepting of it, IT IS UNACCEPTABLE to right-thinking minds and shall not be allowed! It is simply insufficent a guard as it is dependant upon our known human ways, and the inherent potential for wickedness and common service-to-self.

I am sorry to have to say it, but we are simply not good enough to be creating of any such a thing as our own cut-and-try 'rights', one example of proof standing for this assertion being the popularly-known activities of our elected "re-presentatives". Their utter unsuitability to attending to almost any clean task for us, in our name, they almost DAILY PROVE!

Have you not noticed this?

You wrote SO cavalierly that you do not ". . . mind the suspension of . . ." of your rights, blah, blah, blah!

Well, many, many others of us most certainly DO, Sir!

Sincere Regards,

James

P.S. As I think we all know, in times of declared emergency, 'martial law' can be declared. This must be what you basically allude-to. This is regional in-nature and supposed to be temporary until any emergency is cleared. Yes, suppression of certain rights can occur, this being out of necessity.

It is 'General Martial Law' that is the big bad one, and is QUITE different in nature and effect. Posse commitatus goes out the window and the military assume police powers with the local constabularies being Federaized.The new law of secrecy and suppression just about to be put upon us, is just as it would be in times of Congressionally declared war or insurrection, but only in times of peace, as is the case now. The "War on Terror" is in name only, being as yet Constitutionally undeclared, which the Congress could do, if it wanted.

Now, all the forgoing is ASSUMING that we are presently UNDER the protections of the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights, which I am beginning to seriously doubt. If we actually were, an outrage such as the existence of so-called 'administrative law', could not possibly exist. Think about it.

I fear that something else very dark is at work here, and we are mainly ignorant of it, and it's true nature. It is very possible that those who advocate for the existence of uni-lateral (adhesion) contracts being the primary source and reason for it, are, after all, correct. If so, this would qualify as a truly DIRTY setup indeed, simply because so much remains HIDDEN, and in the face of that, we are naturally helpless. The decrepit Fourteenth Amendment 'US citizenship' WOULD blend nicely with that belief, alright.

I say that that which can exist ONLY under the rock and cannot survive the light of day, cannot in ANY way be healthy, nor be of the Province of Good.

[docfeelsgood]

James-chief cynic; Once again "AMEN" !!! i have been busy and not able to keep up. But dont look like you need much help. YOU SIR, seem to hit the nail on the head everytime !! Now Ken being catholic, and from what i've seen if your catholic it doesn't make much difference what ya do as long as ya tell somebody !!!! "Doc"

[ken_behrendt]

James wrote:

If we are now to be accepting of the proposition that Human Rights are mere inventions of mens' minds, Ken, then let us declare here and now, on this this very page, that all rights are defined, created and enforced ONLY by us humans, for one another.

Unfortunately, that tends to be the case. What we in the good ol' USA consider "human rights" might be considered the aiding and abetting of anarchy and chaos in other states! You write as though you feel the US Constitution is somehow chiseled in granite and will/must endure for eternity. Sadly, all of the great codes and declarations of mankind will, eventually, when they are perceived as no longer useful for the maintenance of the society that spawned them, be modified out of existence. Where is Hammerabi's Code or the Magna Carta now? They have been relegated to the history books and the average guy in the street may never have heard of them.

Times change and the principles upon which societies are orgainized will also change. I bet if we could jump in a time machine and zip ahead several hundred years that we would find, assuming it still exists(!), a United States that is far different from what we see today. Assuming that our present Constitution is still used and not just a curiosity in the Library of Congress, we would find that it is being interpreted far differently than it is now or was a century ago.

What really matters in the long run is how the average guy in the street feels. Is he comfortable? Does he feel secure? Are his basic needs being met? In short, how hopeful does living in his present society make him feel? If all of the answers to these questions are positive then, most likely, whatever organizing principles exist in his society will be accepted and revered. If the answers are negative, then whatever organizing principles exist will be held in contempt and ripe for modification or elimination. This is how it has always been and, most likely, always will be.

I look, eventually, for some global government to arise, perhaps from the present United Nations, that will organize humanity into a cohesive world state where differences due to education, economics, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. can be eliminated as much as possible. The citizens of such a system will inhabit a world where their basic needs are amply met and in which they will be free to fulfill their maximum potential. They will be free from petty local dictatorships and other organizations that exist to exploit rather than help them.



Doc...

I'm really only a "nominal" or non-practicing Catholic (but I do attend Christmas and Easter Mass if my more devout friends make an issue of it). I realized a long time ago that I had problems accepting much of the dogma that "good" Catholics are expected to believe and promote. However, I respect the modern Catholic Church in its efforts to promote world peace and eliminate poverty.

I look forward to the day when all of Earth's disparate religions can be replaced with a single global religion based on trying to adhere to the highest possible moral and ethical standards. This religion or philosophy will be one that people will logically realize will, through its practice, lead to the best life possible in the here and now. It will de-emphasize ambiguous prophecies and stop trying to define afterlife existence for people. It will be a religion or philosophy that will celebrate the innate potential in humanity and will not be negative toward the advance of technology.


ken

[scott]

Sadly, all of the great codes and declarations of mankind will, eventually, when they are perceived as no longer useful for the maintenance of the society that spawned them, be modified out of existence.

Like habeas corpus? Congratulations, Ken.

What really matters in the long run is how the average guy in the street feels.

You really are a republicrat, aren't you? Majority rule is just another form of tyranny. The founders understood it.

-Scott

[BootCamp]

Well then, just WHAT do the States think they are doing with the paper-and-ink trash they trade in, on a day-to-day basis? Fair question? I think so.

The States think they are using FEDERAL reserve notes.

BC

[Trev]

Some recommended listening:

www.senderberl.com/rense_jones_100206.mp3

Trev.

[ken_behrendt]

Scott wrote:

Like habeas corpus? Congratulations, Ken.

Habeas corpus is certainly an important principle in modern democracies, but there can even be times when it is subject to suspension. However, such suspensions should only be initiated after much deliberation and of a temporary nature.

Although I find the terrorists contemptable, I think that their present detention must end and that they must be given fair trials and a chance to defend themselves in a public court of law. No doubt, some of those who were rounded up were non-combatants and their detention is causing their families much distress. Most likely, when our sluggish legal system finally comes around to again securing their human rights, they will be released and compensated richly at US taxpayer expense.


ken