bamawrx
Member
Anyone know about this guy? He's going to be our new AG.
...it looks like he would be a useful pivot man for W's soon to be launched Illegals-to-Legals-to-Citizens program.
MBane666 said:I sent a note this AM to Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute on Gonzales, and his response wasn't positive. Gonzales is "rumored" to be weak on RKBA issues, but there doesn't seem to be much hard info out there. I'm sure the NRA will have something posted in the next few days.
Michael B
flatrock said:The only thing I know about him is that he supported holding "enemy combatants" indefinately without legal council or legal recourse.
That's something that scares me much more than the patriot act.
With the Bush administration's policy on enemy combatants, there wouldn't be any judicial review. All it takes is the determination by the President that you are an enemy combatant, and they cease to recognize that you have any rights.
Jeff Timm said:Under the "Law of Land Warfare" as taught to the US Army. Enemy combatants are NOT CRIMINALS nor are they US Citizens.
Bluntly, if they are criminals we have to hang them all. As enemy combatants we quite legally lock them up until the war is over and "Some authority having responsibility over them" surrenders. Then we send them home. Cross reference WWI and WWII. Now there are some questions.
Guy is technically a US Citizen, and is fighting against the US. Give him a fair court martial and hang, shoot or whatever him, in accordance with the LLW. Not a problem. But, the bloke claims he never wanted to be a US Citizen, it was a technicality and he was fighting against the US. The Bush administration determined he was an enemy combatant and we couldn't give him a fair trial and execute him, in the manner prescribed by law.
Looks to me like the Bush admin is bending over backwards to AVOID treating people like criminals.
Geoff
Who had nine years of required Law of Land Warefare courses.
Other disagreements between Ashcroft and Gonzales have been more about style -- particularly the White House's desire to control message -- than about substance.
For instance, an early source of contention between the White House counsel's office and the AG's staff was a letter sent from Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association reversing a Bill Clinton administration position on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. In response to an NRA inquiry, Ashcroft wrote that he believed the Constitution guarantees the individual right to own firearms, not solely the collective right to organize an armed militia.
White House lawyers say they did not object to Ashcroft's views so much as they resented the attorney general committing the administration to a legal position without seeking White House approval.
wQuay said:Geoff,
According to the government, this "war" will be perpetual. I'll take the trial and sentence plz.
What blow will befall conservatives next? Watch the Supreme Court, the composition of which matters more than does the composition of Congress.
Justice David Souter, nominated by the first President Bush, quickly became a reliable member of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc. Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel who came with this President Bush from Texas, may be chosen to fill the next court vacancy. The likelihood of a vacancy during this presidency has given rise to a grim joke among conservatives:
How do you say “Souter†in Spanish? “Gonzales.â€
...reversing a Bill Clinton administration position on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
rick_reno said:Geoff,
I'm not familiar with this subject - but do the Law of Land Warfare rules requires to us be at war as defined by Article 1, Section of the US Constitution? My reading of it clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war, and unless I've missed something the last time this happened was December 11th, 1941.
Unless he was given a trial, that's incorrect.Jeff Timm said:That's right, women and children. The shooting was perfectly legal under LoLW.