The all things Political Topic - For who in this dark, dream-haunted Land dares Resist the righteous flame of Wrath And Doom themselves to despair and death?

[Malcador]

They should track down who did that though, can't just allow sensitive personal info to be leaked.  Also, people say they will do a lot of things in meetings, hah.

[Gromnir]

@BruceVCthe fact the detainees is not citizens is irrelevant as to whether the camps is deserving the concentration modifier. even in your supplied definitions, is no special exclusion for non citizens, eh? in the US this observation is particular relevant as non citizens is afforded many/most Constitutional protections. right to due process is one such right. in the event o' criminal charges, the right to a speedy trial is also provided to citizens and non-citizens alike. deny liberty for an extended period o' time?  is presumptive requiring a criminal prosecution. 

why do you need a trial or hearing? 'cause is in the Constitution. again, everybody gets due process. period. most folks who enter the US not at designated checkpoints is on buses and trains outta the country w/i days, but if you ask for asylum or have some other legal described right for a hearing, then you gotta be given such a hearing. you think is silly or wrong? change the Constitution. change laws regarding asylum seekers. until then, these folks is deserving their due process. 

if bruce, a non-citizen o' the US, is driving in sheboygan, wi and he gets a ticket for making an improper turn at an intersection, would it be appropriate to imprison bruce for months or years in conditions objective deplorable 'cause the traffic court is backed up? denied liberty 'cause o' a traffic ticket? please. border crossing is not criminal. is a minor civil infraction the equivalent o' a traffic violation. bruce is gonna argue is ok to imprison 'cause bruce is a non citizen and 'cause the facility where he is held is described as a temporary detainment or relocation facility? what the government chooses to name the camps is not relevant. what is relevant is many is denied liberty, w/o due process while suffering legally objective unsatisfactory conditions. perhaps change name o' ice facilities to visitor hostels or immigrant resorts? change name or government designation makes a difference?  

and is best for bruce not to make motivations pivotal. the trump administration, in internal memos, made clear many o' their efforts at the border were designed to be so unpleasant as to discourage other asylum seekers and immigrants from making the journey to the US. were not simple a matter o' unavoidable poor conditions resulting from too few resources for too many people. and if there is too few resources, then as 'tween liberty o' the detainee and the burden on the State, the detainee wins. is not a fuzzy grey area o' the law. like it or not, cost is not an argument which may be used to limit fundamental rights.

you may believe US laws is stoopid. fine. complain the laws and the Constitution should be changed. however, until that happens...

@Guard Dog we musta missed the press conference where the doj announced they were unequivocal not considering the prosecution o' trump for any action related to January 6. such an announcement woulda' been big news and a bit premature. as we stated previous, is unlikely trump is prosecuted for incitement. what is less clear is whether there will be prosecutions for conspiracy to incite. organize events with goal o' convincing a mass o' people to interfere with the electoral college process at the US freaking Capitol? doj ain't gonna go after trump first, but some o' the organizers o' the stop the steal event o' january 6 is gonna be pressed hard, and they is possible they is gonna face a choice 'tween taking the fall or covering for a guy who is no longer capable o' granting self-serving (illegal) pardons.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-capitol-police-officer-gives-his-account-of-the-jan-6-attack

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

I don’t think criminal charges against Trump or anyone have been ruled out. But the farther we get from the event the less likely they become. In any case that was not what the guy in the link was discussing. He was clearly talking about arrests as a prevention measure.

Now, obviously this is not going to happen. Such an arrest would never stand up in court. But at the same time red flag laws should never stand up in court and they do all the time. No one is ever completely safe from the hubris of the state. Rights are a paper shield.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

 But the farther we get from the event the less likely they become.

this is just wrong. depends on the investigation, but one assumes is  gonna take time. is rare a smoking gun situation as is common in movies and tv. kinda amusing, but giuliani helped change the way criminal conspiracy prosecutions occurred. is not 'bout going after trump or perceived ringleaders. find connections 'tween lower and mid-level folks, get leverage and then move your way up the evil food chain. 

many o' the individuals who organized the stop the steal event on january 6 are Congressmen and state ag. going after such folks is problematic. doj and fbi sure as hell ain't gonna volunteer information 'bout ongoing investigations save for if they had abandoned such efforts. you actual have bass ackwards. we are months removed from the event in question and there has been virtual no doj or fbi announcements. the silence actual implies there is indeed an ongoing investigation taking place. 

is best to assume folks is being investigated and this doj is far less leaky than the previous incarnation. could be sometime before you hear anything. 

keep in mind, am not suggesting there is gonna be a wave o' indictments forthcoming. am having no such insights. all am saying is you is complete wrong to suggest a few months removed from the event sans charges filed is at all suggestive o' an exoneration o' key figures.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Constitutions... nothing but trouble

Australia sort of has a constitution, but it mostly just outlines the balance of power between state and federal government, the role of the courts, parliament and government. Each state has it's own constitution.

From the internet:

Why don’t we have many Constitutional rights?
The world has changed significantly since Federation. Rights are now at the forefront of many people’s mind. However, the Australian Constitution contains very few written rights. It was a deliberate decision of the writers of our Constitution to trust the democratic process to protect rights.

 

So, there isn't really any constitutional protection of the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, only the laws passed in the federal parliament, subject to change at any time depending on who has a majority.

Edit: I think the only two important stipulations regarding individuals in the federal constitution is the freedom of religion and right to trial by a jury of peers.

 

Edit2:  The only thing I remember about the Danish constitution is the 5th of June being a partial public holiday (celebrating the constitution) which involved people going to large gatherings and drinking a *lot* of beer

[Zoraptor]

The funniest thing about the Australian Constitution is the clause describing which colonies were (meant) to become Australian States: "New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia".

New Zealand OTOH has no constitution. There was an attempt to make one in 1989-90 with the Bill of Rights, but it ended up becoming just plain old law since they didn't want to weaken the idea of Parliamentary Supremacy with something constraining like a Constitution.

 

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

The funniest thing about the Australian Constitution is the clause describing which colonies were (meant) to become Australian States: "New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia".

New Zealand OTOH has no constitution. There was an attempt to make one in 1989-90 with the Bill of Rights, but it ended up becoming just plain old law since they didn't want to weaken the idea of Parliamentary Supremacy with something constraining like a Constitution.

 

Zora its refreshingly rare to find people who accept the numerous structural shortfalls with their country and are so candid about it, I agree 100%  that is a terrible indictment on NZ that you have no Constitution

That is why you must never forget to appreciate your Oz  relationship and how much you  benefit from it  , if I was you I would be actively campaigning to fall under Australia as a  permanent state

Lets be honest, can you think of one reason you shouldnt fall under Australia? Its a win-win and their are no real negative outcomes to this prudent move ?

And you have lots of spare time on your hands at the moment so its not like you cant protest on a daily basis and demand this as a citizen....never forget that you have rights !!!

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

 

 

Edit2:  The only thing I remember about the Danish constitution is the 5th of June being a partial public holiday (celebrating the constitution) which involved people going to large gatherings and drinking a *lot* of beer

That cant be only thing you remember about the important remembrance of your Constitution ....what about when you guys all wear your Viking helmets and celebrate the Colonialization and pillaging  of the British ...that must be memorable?

[Gorth]

50 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

New Zealand OTOH has no constitution.

No public holiday for you! Not even a partial one...

[Gorth]

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

That cant be only thing you remember about the important remembrance of your Constitution ....what about when you guys all wear your Viking helmets and celebrate the Colonialization and pillaging  of the British ...that must be memorable?

To be honest, the only thing I remember is what we were taught in history class as a young kid. Not the specifics of each paragraph, but just what in meant in a historical context, being the basis of a "constitutional monarchy" and explaining why the queen doesn't rule in an authoritarian way like her ancestors on the throne did in ages past. I.e. the elected parliament is responsible for the day to day running of the country and the royal council only assumes executive power in case of a state of emergency (which should encourage politicians to prevent it from happening as that would result in the parliament being dissolved and the monarch becoming the CoC of the armed forces).

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Gorth said:

To be honest, the only thing I remember is what we were taught in history class as a young kid. Not the specifics of each paragraph, but just what in meant in a historical context, being the basis of a "constitutional monarchy" and explaining why the queen doesn't rule in an authoritarian way like her ancestors on the throne did in ages past. I.e. the elected parliament is responsible for the day to day running of the country and the royal council only assumes executive power in case of a state of emergency (which should encourage politicians to prevent it from happening as that would result in the parliament being dissolved and the monarch becoming the CoC of the armed forces).

 I find that  type of history very boring. I know its important and  some people enjoy it, study it and understand it 

But legal discussions around Constitutions and changes to Constitutions for me  induces somnolence ...I like history about wars and conquest. Thats interesting 

Edited June 11, 2021 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

Ilihan Omar and her “squad” are shrieking about “free speech” after her latest bout of stupid words verbal diarrhea opened her up to a lot of criticism. Freedom of speech for them means they cannot be criticized for what they say. Ironically she was one of ones calling for criminal prosecution for “hate speech”. Typical left winger . Liberty is only what they define it and it’s only for whom they decide can have it. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Ilihan Omar and her “squad” are shrieking about “free speech” after her latest bout of stupid words verbal diarrhea opened her up to a lot of criticism. Freedom of speech for them means they cannot be criticized for what they say. Ironically she was one of ones calling for criminal prosecution for “hate speech”. Typical left winger . Liberty is only what they define it and it’s only for whom they decide can have it. 

https://news.yahoo.com/ilhan-omar-exposes-democrats-deep-110000166.html

I have been following this story and I think her comments are unacceptable and offensive , this is not the first time Iihan Omar has been linked to comments that are anti-Semitic or supportive of Islamic extremism. I am not sure why she is living in the USA or is a member of congress 

And why havent the Democrats fired her because arent they the party that rejects bigotry and these types of views? Can she be fired ?

[HoonDing]

[Guard Dog]

I don’t really care what she said. She can be as offensive as she likes. She is just another filthy rat in the filthy sewer. She can tell the truth or she can lie out of her rat ass. I don’t really care about the words of rats. It’s the hypocrisy of it all just annoys the ****ing hell out of me.

Edit: you know I didn’t think it was possible but I might actually be getting more misanthropic as I get older

Edited June 11, 2021 by Guard Dog

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"I haven’t seen any evidence in either case that domestic courts can and will prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I would emphasize that in Israel and Palestine that this includes crimes committed both by the Israeli security forces and Hamas. In Afghanistan, it includes crimes committed by the Afghan national government and the Taliban. In both of these cases, if courts can’t or won’t pursue justice and we oppose the ICC, where do we think the victims of these supposed crimes can go for justice? And what justice mechanisms do you support for them?"

"We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice."

For the life of me I can't see the problem. I guess some people are addicted to being mad.

[Pidesco]

11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://news.yahoo.com/ilhan-omar-exposes-democrats-deep-110000166.html

I have been following this story and I think her comments are unacceptable and offensive , this is not the first time Iihan Omar has been linked to comments that are anti-Semitic or supportive of Islamic extremism. I am not sure why she is living in the USA or is a member of congress 

And why havent the Democrats fired her because arent they the party that rejects bigotry and these types of views? Can she be fired ?

 

For decades Israel's modus operandi in Palestine has been the equivalent of a school bully that punches a kid when no one is watching and then cries foul when he gets punched back. Except everyone is watching and crying "my antisemitism", instead. I have no idea if Omar is a good person or not, but it's exceedingly clear that she is right in this instance. Pelosi's statement was pretty shameful, though.

[Guard Dog]

You guys are missing the point.

[Raithe]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 I find that  type of history very boring. I know its important and  some people enjoy it, study it and understand it 

But legal discussions around Constitutions and changes to Constitutions for me  induces somnolence ...I like history about wars and conquest. Thats interesting 

Eh, Just go look up the Magna Carta.  Consider it to be a war of political conquest rather than military.

The tensions and dynamics between a King and rebellious Barons.

All the things that lead to the foundations of later constitutions...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You guys are missing the point.

Which is? I can't find anything where Omar called for criminal prosecution of hate speech. When I do search all that comes up are her wanting an ad that pastes her face on a rocket taken down, her sending a letter to Facebook over hosting genocidal hate speech in Ethiopia (during massacres), and introducing a bill that criminalizes police violence against protestors. The first two are pretty standard politician stuff and the last is something that is defending free speech.

The more I look into this the more it looks like a whopping nothingburger.

[BruceVC]

56 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I don’t really care what she said. She can be as offensive as she likes. She is just another filthy rat in the filthy sewer. She can tell the truth or she can lie out of her rat ass. I don’t really care about the words of rats. It’s the hypocrisy of it all just annoys the ****ing hell out of me.

Edit: you know I didn’t think it was possible but I might actually be getting more misanthropic as I get older

@kanisatha you opinion on Islamic extremism  in the context of my email would be great 

GD I dont need to tell you this because I know you a patriot who does care about his country, albeit you have some  issues with government, and you know the importance of service for your country as you did military service and even if you didnt do military service you would respect the contribution people in the military make. But can I tell you why you should care about what she says ...and this would differ from  event to event in the sense " we dont have to care about everything politicians say "

9/11 is and  always  will be real and significant . The facts are irrefutable and so is the outcome. The USA and by proxy all Western Democracies were targeted by an Islamic extremist group and this was the beginning of the global war on this type of extremism.

These extremists ended by spawning into different groups that targeted and killed, and still do,  all citizens of all countries. ISIS has killed more Muslims in the ME than any other group and ironically do you know their false Caliphate ( created in 2013 and ended in 2019 ) established in the ME was destroyed by a joint Arab army with the US and Russians providing air power and some special force training only ....but the months of hard fighting on the ground was done by Arab, Kurds , Turks and most incredibly Iranian and Saudi forces working together. Thats how bad ISIS is, even the Sunnis and the Shias in the ME will work together to defeat them. Here is an excellent link about the fall if ISIS for those interested

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/23/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-isis-caliphate

But why this matters is since 9/11 thousands of US and other  countries citizens have died fighting and defeating Islamic extremism. But it started in this latest era with 9/11 so if you dispute or question 9/11 you are basically dismissing the likes of ISIS and the horrors they, and other extremist groups, inflict on the world. The US military has had thousands of its soldiers die in this important war and Islamic extremism is losing but  its something the US is directly connected to 

So how can any member of the US congress who is suppose to represent the citizens of the US question 9/11 or compare the US army to the brutal and barbaric Taliban

We should all be offended because all our countries are impacted by different types of terrorism and its real and ongoing, its not some hyperbolic SJ campaign

Thats why  you should care about certain things Omar has said 

Edited June 11, 2021 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

33 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

For decades Israel's modus operandi in Palestine has been the equivalent of a school bully that punches a kid when no one is watching and then cries foul when he gets punched back. Except everyone is watching and crying "my antisemitism", instead. I have no idea if Omar is a good person or not, but it's exceedingly clear that she is right in this instance. Pelosi's statement was pretty shameful, though.

Im a little  disappointed you have that opinion, please dont misunderstand me but I dont feel like this type of debate now...I dont have the mental energy because I want to focus on ELEX...I am loving that game 

Maybe later if you still want me to change your mind   

[Malcador]

I always feel sorry for the people being questioned by legislators, so often it's so much theatre, heh.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Raithe said:

Eh, Just go look up the Magna Carta.  Consider it to be a war of political conquest rather than military.

The tensions and dynamics between a King and rebellious Barons.

All the things that lead to the foundations of later constitutions...

I know how important the Magna Carta is but I doubt I would appreciate reading it. I know why Constitutions exist and how important they are to any Democracy.....no Constitution equates to no sustainable Democracy or economy for any country  in almost  every example I can think of

But I dont enjoy reading them at all, I am happy for others to explain or interpret what our various Constitutions stand for. I know the things that could impact me like nationalization and where in the SA constitution this is unconstitutional but thats all I know 

I leave it up to the Gromnirs and GD's  to debate, I always find it interesting even if I dont understand some of what they discuss 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by BruceVC

[kanisatha]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

@kanisatha you opinion on Islamic extremism  in the context of my email would be great

Sorry @BruceVC, I very strictly stay away from any and all political discussions anywhere online, and especially so on highly charged topics. It is a very sad reality today that far too many people are incapable of or outright do not want to have civil discourse with anyone who even mildly disagrees with them.

Also, what email?