Annie Get Your Gun: District of Columbia v. Heller

Filed under: Politics — one June 26, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

District of Columbia v. Heller has been heard by the Supreme Court and a decision has been reached:

In part: “Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Yes, the Supreme Court has finally issued a definitive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that interpretation does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of state militias. This is a great day to be an American, but I must say my excitement was a bit dulled when I read some of the opinions from the Supreme Court Justices themselves.

Scalia: the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”

I agree with his ruling, but the guy shouldn’t be using scenes from movies in his legal arguments. If something like that ever happened in real life, it’s certainly the exception rather than the rule. Even when I agree with Scalia I’m seeing some odd silliness in his opinions.

John Paul Stevens: the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” Such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Are you kidding me, Stevens? You don’t see any disconnect between a government founded by average citizens revolting against tyranny and same government later imposing strict limitations on citizens’ ability to defend themselves?

Stephen Breyer: “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Honestly, this is why I’m still a Republican. What the heck is Breyer thinking? I’m going to ignore his specificity of “loaded handguns” right now because if that was his point he could have stopped there. He went on to say, “in crime-ridden urban areas”. Why? I think it’s a clear tip-off that the man has a completely nonsensical understanding of the situation in a “crime-ridden urban area”.

Apparently he either seems to think that people who live in these areas are all criminals, or that somehow their posession of a handgun in the house would contribute to further crime in the area. Similarly, by qualifying his statement with “in crime-ridden urban areas” he implies that he would feel less strongly if someone kept a loaded handgun at their home in a quiet suburban neighborhood.

It doesn’t seemed to have even crossed his mind that someone living in a crime-ridden urban area might actually have need to defend themselves and their home, and that if homeowners in such an area had the ability to defend themselves there might even be less crime there in the long run.

Really, it blows my mind that Breyer singled out high-crime neighborhoods as if there was some definitive link between homeowners there and the crime rate. Interpreting the second amendment is one thing, but that comment reveals to me someone who is horrifyingly insulated and out of touch.

Spread the Word These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • co.mments
  • Technorati
  • Ma.gnolia
  • blogmarks
  • TailRank
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us

Supreme Court Guantanamo Decision

Filed under: Politics — one June 19, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
I am disgusted by all the right-wing nonsense I've seen about this recent decision the Supreme Court made which states that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to due process. Perhaps the best example of this is Antonin Scalia's dissent.  His legal argument has virtually no legal points and simply scaremongers about how if these accused terrorists get to stand in front of a judge people are going to die.
 
The Supreme Court didn't say that these detainees should be set free. They didn't even say the detainees get the same rights as U.S. citizens. All the Supreme Court said was that these detainees get to go in front of a judge and make the government prove they have good reason to keep them in prison.  If the government doesn't have enough evidence or other information to convince a judge that an individual prisoner is a potential threat that should be detained, then why on earth should we be detaining them?
 
Consider for a moment if we had Osama bin Laden at Guantanamo Bay, if that man used this Supreme Court decision to get himself a court date and then went in front of a U.S. judge and said he should be set free, then the U.S. military gave all their reasons and evidence the man should not be set free, what do you think the chances are the judge would set Osama bin Laden free?  0% ?  Maybe slightly lower?
 
But let's consider what would happen if the Supreme Court decision had gone the other way. A friend of yours is on the phone with relatives overseas and the government is listening into the overseas conversation without a warrant (they're doing this already, but if the new FISA bill passes today or tomorrow it will grant immunity for past illegal actions, if you don't like the sound of that, make noise to your congressman and senator) and they misinterpret something and arrest your friend, shipping them off to Guantanamo.
 
You say it couldn't happen, but you're wrong.  All it takes is for one person to make a mistake, because the Bush administration has removed all the checks and balances from the system.  Now your friend is in Guantanamo and s/he is saying, "But what about my rights? I'm an American citizen!"
 
Well, if s/he could go in front of a judge and prove that, then everything would be fine, but if this 5-4 vote had gone the other way then your friend would have no recourse. There would be no one to listen to pleas of citizenship, or any other pleas. Your friend would have no rights whatsoever.
 
To deny someone the right to tell a judge why they believe they shouldn't be in a prison camp is despicable. To equate giving that right to someone with somehow setting guilty people free to commit crimes is downright dishonest, but what's worse is that not granting that right flies in the face of the Constitution.
 
Guantanamo Bay is sovereign territory and has been for a century. Where the U.S. government has sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution is the law. That's it, that's the bottom line and there is no way around that. The four judges who voted against this decision should be ashamed, and any lawyer who has read their dissenting opinions should instantly realize how shameful and pathetic these men are — political toadies who so clearly put partisan politics ahead of the law and Constitution that they can't even pretend to come up with a real legal reason they disagree with the decision to grant Guantanamo detainees due process of law.
 
They should be ashamed and they should be shamed publicly, but the mainstream media so often doesn't look beneath the surface because it's too much trouble and their viewers wouldn't care anyway. Right?
Spread the Word These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • co.mments
  • Technorati
  • Ma.gnolia
  • blogmarks
  • TailRank
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us

More FISA Woes…

Filed under: Politics — one @ 8:00 pm

Remember when the Democrats said they were going to hold up the Iraq budget until the President agreed to timetables for withdrawal, then they got elected and caved into everything the Bush administration demanded, but called it a "compromise"?  Well, something similar is occurring once again.

The Bush administration has been illegally wiretapping American citizens and major U.S. telecom companies have been complicit in this, giving the government the access it needed to do the illegal spying. Congress has before it a FISA bill which will retroactively grant immunity for all illegal wiretapping done in the past, and permit wiretapping without a judge issuing a warrant going forward. This bill has been shelved a number of times because public outrage was just enough to convince congress they shouldn't pass it — but they're really anxious to pass this bill, perhaps in part to grant immunity to those among themselves who were involved in allowing the President to continue his illegal wiretap program.

There are some in congress who are against it — and those who are, are against it passionately and with good reason because it completely flouts the 4th Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Democrats in congress have done no better than the Republicans since getting elected, capitulating to the demands of this administration on issue after issue.  Stand up and make noise, because we can't let our 4th Amendment rights be one of those issues that Democrats cave in on.

A word on FISA law: Originally the law contained a provision that no warrant was needed to begin a wiretap in an emergency so long as a judge signed a warrant within 7 days.  This point was blatantly ignored by Bush when he discussed this issue, and he made it sound as if someone would have to go around knocking on doors late at night begging for a judge to sign a warrant just so they could fight al-qaeda. That was never the case, but his intellectual dishonesty won him changes to FISA law.

Now the FISA court has over a 99% wiretap approval rating. You can barely put a warrant on the desk without it getting signed — but that wasn't enough for the Bush administration either. They don't see why warrants should even be necessary — and they aren't if the administration is wiretapping phone calls between foreign nationals and other foreign nationals, but the problem is they are wiretapping phone calls between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, but insisting those U.S. citizens aren't having their 4th amendment rights infringed because there is a foreign national on the phone.

If that argument doesn't seem to hold much water, don't worry because they'll move quickly into full scare mode and try to convince you that in a time of war it's silly and downright dangerous to the nation to worry about people's rights — that if you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about.  Don't let them push this load of garbage on you.  Those rights are there to protect you against exactly what the Bush administration is doing: going on fishing trips, looking for an excuse to claim someone is doing something wrong.

…and then, if they had one more vote on the Supreme Court, they'd throw that person in an overseas prison and he or she would never be granted to opportunity to stand before judge and force the government to prove it had a good reason to hold you.

Essentially, this administration is turning our government into Big Brother, they're watching, they're making themselves judge, jury and perhaps executioner and worst of all, many Democrats are going along with it. Make yourself heard and stop this.

Spread the Word These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • co.mments
  • Technorati
  • Ma.gnolia
  • blogmarks
  • TailRank
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us

<<< Previous Page - Next Page >>>
Calendar

December 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031