Quote:

---

All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The White House announced the shift in policy on Tuesday, almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

US detainees to get Geneva rights
Slowly, but surely, it works.

---

Quote:

---

this gives me hope that Bush and Cheney will be tried for treason

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

this gives me hope that Bush and Cheney will be tried for treason

---

I wonder if Slick will say at that point - see ! the system works !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
After wiping his *ss with the Constitution for years, this gives me hope that Bush and Cheney will be tried for treason

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If we get a conviction, it works! If we don't get a conviction, it works! Circular logic. Stupid.

---

Quote:

---

SO-what kind of evidence would show that the system DOESN'T work? (In your world, no such thing exists.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course the system would be working, even more effectively, if the voters were more discriminating in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
...And if everyone has the same vision of a perfect world where we'd all live together in a big shiny castle on a hill with all the cotton candy and chocolate we could eat...and, and pony rides and fluffy bunnies, and...

---

Quote:

---

Another benefit of the System is that, even if the voters aren't as discriminating as some might like, it moves too slowly to let massive changes take place in a short time. Things can't get irreversably out of hand before enough of the previoulsy less discriminating figure something's going off the tracks and vote for the other guys in the next election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
That would include signing statements, unitary executive, exploiting supposed "gaps" between US and international law, secret programs without informing congress, 'preventative' war, throwing elections with partisan Secretaries of State and election workers, re-classifying previously unclassified and de-classified documents, deliberately slowing up FOI requests, coercing and muzzling scientists and technocrats, etc ....

he's marked all the problems like big red x's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Later this year, we'll see if the voters' judgement improves, from your point of view.

---

Quote:

---

Wow, thats an ironic comment. "Treason" is specifically defined as 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'. This in turn gives you hope that Bush will be tried for 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'.

---

Quote:

---

The ruling your applauding is about 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' in accordance with our treaty obligations.

---

Quote:

---

If we get a conviction, based on evidence and the working of the legal process, it works! If we don't get a conviction, because there's not enough evidence to either start the process or convince a jury, it works!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe this could be seized as a real opportunity. Seriously, is anyone proposing actually shoring up our constitution to cover all the holes the neo-cons have found? It reminds of hiring playtesters for video games, with the specific aim of discovering game-breaking strategies and loopholes. We owe GW a great debt of gratitude for uncovering the weaknesses in our system. We could even throw in a pie in the face and a nice long prison term while we're at it. Sort of our way of saying 'thanks'.

SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- You're still using circular logic because you haven't considered a situation where the evidence exists but an indictment or conviction doesn't happen... DOH!! That is exactly the case where the system DOESN'T work.

---

Quote:

---

Also, there are cases where the evidence doesn't exist but a person is convicted anyway. We know that never happens either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Instead of focussing in on all the wrong that this administration is doing, shift focus to how to make it right.

Nice, SergeantX. Nice!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
BUSH WAS NOT ELECTED. And it has nothing to do with discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral vote and everything to do with pervasive intentional fraud.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe this could be seized as a real opportunity. Seriously, is anyone proposing actually shoring up our constitution to cover all the holes the neo-cons have found? It reminds of hiring playtesters for video games, with the specific aim of discovering game-breaking strategies and loopholes. We owe GW a great debt of gratitude for uncovering the weaknesses in our system. We could even throw in a pie in the face and a nice long prison term while we're at it. Sort of our way of saying 'thanks'.

---

Quote:

---

Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because "the system" hasn't moved its bowels yet doesnt' mean it's a dead issue. And it's sure not a dead issue because you say so! Slavery was a 'dead issue' too... until it wasn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because "the system" hasn't moved its bowels yet doesnt' mean it's a dead issue. And it's sure not a dead issue because you say so! Slavery was a 'dead issue' too... until it wasn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You don't understand analogies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, I see the point of this thread.
It may not be perfect, but our government's far from a totalitarian nightmare.

Do I 'get' it? Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment

---

Quote:

---

As far as the law is concerned, Bush is the President. As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections. In a bit over two years, it'll be a moot point anyway, because Bush will have served his second term and can't be re-elected. If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.

---

Quote:

---

You just have to have faith that, in the long run, the people will eventually get it right.

---

Quote:

---

Please explain the relevance of your slavery comment to the topic at hand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer implies that as long as an issue is not in courts it's a "dead issue". Slavery was the same: It was settled law and a "dead issue"... except that popular opinion was seething both ways. At a time when the courts had settled the issue and the legislatures were not taking it up, it was a very lively popular issue. Not "dead" at all... just invisible to someone who only looks to "the system" for validation.

Get it?

---

Quote:

---

The thing is, it doesn't matter if SignyM and Rue and everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother.

---

Quote:

---

Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

The thing is, it doesn't matter if SignyM and Rue and everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother.

---

So it doesn't matter what "the people" think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Sigh. And if enough people are convinced that it's a "dead" issue then nothing happens.

---

Quote:

---

In the meantime, think about it. If you're NOT trying to shut people off why does it look like that, and what ARE you trying to do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, you missed an important point:

Sigh. And if enough people are convinced that it's a "dead" issue then nothing happens.- Signy

Hey! You figured it out! -Geezer

So why are you trying to convince people that everything is a dead issue? Follow the logic backwards.-Signy

---

Quote:

---

"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again... Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.
----------
If the people can convince someone to take that action (impeaching the president), that's fine. That's the way it works, and I think it's a pretty good idea.
----------
Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.

How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.

If you can do this and get Bush impeached, or convicted, or whatever, more power to you. The system worked. If you and those who think like you can't convince enough people to convince their reps to do it, then you fought the good fight and lost, and the system worked.
----------
I'm trying to say that in the real world of the American system it doesn't matter a damn what you as an individual think. It matters what you and enough other people who'll bug their congresspeople to do something think. Majority rules, unless it's unconstitutional. This applies even if the majority decide to sit on their butts and do nothing.

I don't doubt that you passionately believe you are right. You may be right. But if enough other people don't agree with you to move the legislative process forward, you're not going to accomplish anything for a while. Maybe later they'll come around to your point of view. It's happened before. How long did it take for women to get the vote? You don't have to give up, but you must realize that the system takes time. Wishing doesn't make it so. You have to sell your ideas. Think long-term. Maybe Bush is good for your eventual goals, as others have noted above.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


You just have to have faith that, in the long run, the people will eventually get it right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, but only as long as there are those ready to glue big giant neon signs to the butts of the shmoes that think they are above the law.
Checks and balances are not just for use by the government, but for the (hopefully) enlightened public as well. Properly played, it should all come out in the wash, but there will always be a percentage of creeps that make out off the system, and cover their tracks all too well.
I guess what you're saying is that any other system lets that percentage get obscene.

The battle goes on Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The only way you'll have perfect government is with perfect people, and aside from SignyM and Rue I don't know that many. I think that, on balance, we do pretty well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't believe I have to explain this. Geezer understands me, why don't you?

---

Quote:

---

Geezer implies that as long as an issue is not in courts it's a "dead issue". Slavery was the same: It was settled law and a "dead issue"... except that popular opinion was seething both ways. At a time when the courts had settled the issue and the legislatures were not taking it up, it was a very lively popular contention. Not "dead" at all... just invisible to someone who only looks to "the system" for validation.

---

Quote:

---

Get it?

---