www.ditl.org

Been in the news for a few days but thought I'd post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvI49OyHFnw
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html

In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.

That would have been scary.

That guy is so f*cked up.

glad it didn't happen.

Doesn't that violate some rather important laws?

Wait...Cheney...disregard.

Dude, he shot a guy in the face and got him to apologize.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Doesn't that violate some rather important laws?

Wait...Cheney...disregard.

The youtube blog I posted goes into some of the laws that it would violate. Many going back to the 19th century.

While I agree with the sentements here, if there was a similar situation in some Trek episode and Janeway decided not to sweep in with whatever she had to hunt down and stop some alien bombers despite relevant laws, regulations, or maybe even the prime directive, I'm pretty sure most of you would be calling her stupid for it.

Actually, many of us have taken her to task for that type of disregard for local law. And that example presupposes an actual threat, not just the fact of someone having a different skin tone than Cheney.

Mikey wrote:Actually, many of us have taken her to task for that type of disregard for local law. And that example presupposes an actual threat, not just the fact of someone having a different skin tone than Cheney.

Well, I didn't say that if she DID go in that you guys wouldn't take her to task for that as well...

But the date of that memo is a month after 9/11. While eight years of no large scale incidents have cast a different light on things, at that particular moment in time I don't think many people felt there was "no actual threat".

Also it sounds like he was more considering the option than doing it. If there was a second large scale incident on 10/11/01 like a bombing, even I'd start getting tempted to support something like that.

sunnyside wrote:But the date of that memo is a month after 9/11. While eight years of no large scale incidents have cast a different light on things, at that particular moment in time I don't think many people felt there was "no actual threat".

Beside the point. Fresh fear =/= an actual incident.

You guys have police for this, heavily armed police at that (SWAT). The thought of martial law being declared for what would certainly be a small group of lightly armed psycho's is ludicrous. You guys didn't call out the military for the Washington sniper, Ruby Ridge or Waco (and they apparently had .50 cals). What's different about this? The guys are brown?

Cpl Kendall wrote:You guys have police for this, heavily armed police at that (SWAT). The thought of martial law being declared for what would certainly be a small group of lightly armed psycho's is ludicrous. You guys didn't call out the military for the Washington sniper, Ruby Ridge or Waco (and they apparently had .50 cals). What's different about this? The guys are brown?

Probably -- O, and we didn't have a VP who thought he was more powerful than God? Remember: