News-Record.com

You might want to send a dictionary that includes "nonpartisan" to the WashTimes. Not everything has an agenda. That could be why folks don't "get" blogging.

Yeah, but it also could have been a space issue ... or the reporter simply could have been unaware of the fact that quoting Reynolds but not a lefty blogger might appear unfair to liberal readers. I realize the Times is a pro-GOP paper, but I don't necessarily see a Republican in every one of its woodpiles. :-)

Lex, where is your rant now that a bipartisan Congress gave Bush the tribunals he was asking for? I remember all your talk about breaking the law, and moral outrage and opposition to the tribunals when the Court ruled against Bush.

Back then, I said "watch how fast Congress passes a law giving Bush the authority he thought he already had".

"The House approved an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects today, setting clearer limits on CIA interrogation techniques but denying access to courts for detainees seeking to challenge their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

The 253-168 vote was a victory for President Bush, who yielded some ground during weeks of negotiations but fully embraced the language that House members approved with support from 34 Democrats and all but seven Republicans. Senators also began debating the measure today and defeated the first of five amendments opposed by the administration. Senators predicted their chamber will approve the legislation Thursday."

I guess you'll be starting those impeachment proceedings now and cart Bush off to jail.

The REAL plan is to wait until Bush is out of office, then have him tried at The Hague for war crimes. Once convicted, he can serve out the term of his sentence as Hussein's cell-mate.

:-)

Back to the subject at hand, a few months ago I would never have predicted that BEFORE the 2006 mid-terms Congress would ever do ANYTHING that wasn't just dead-stupid if not criminal, so it is good to see the "spending database" bill pass.

Have a great day!

Sam, I'm just sad. And if you, a lawyer, are going to cheer about the destruction of habeas, a cornerstone of Western law and liberty since the 12th century, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

That said, the way I read Article I, Section 9, there's no way this passes constitutional muster. It allows suspension of habeas corpus *only* in cases of rebellion or invasion, neither of which is the case now, and even then only when the "public safety" may require it.

UPDATE: And then there's the controlling precedent, Ex Parte Milligan: "The suspension of the privilege of the [71 U.S. 2, 131] writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and on the return made to it the court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of proceeding any further with it."

Just sayin'.

I'm not cheering. I just think your original rant presented this as another slam against Bush for violating the law set by Congress- Now Congress is in on the action as I said they would, so now is your outrage still bipartisan? Should Congress be impeached now too? Pretty quiet on the Lex front now that Bush isn't alone and had the help of a number of Democrats...

I also think you are wrong because the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, not foreigners or POW's or in this case "enemy combatants". Further, the system set up does allow for writs after sentencing. But these matters will probably be litigated, too.

I just think your original rant presented this as another slam against Bush for violating the law set by Congress

Let's test that hypothesis. Which "original rant" are you referring to?

And, your implication to the contrary, the fact that the president is violating the law isn't my only problem with torture, as multiple posts here and on my personal blog on the subject have made quite clear.

Now Congress is in on the action as I said they would, so now is your outrage still bipartisan? Should Congress be impeached now too? Pretty quiet on the Lex front now that Bush isn't alone and had the help of a number of Democrats...

Oh, there's a ton of rage over at the personal blog. I trust you will find it appropriately bipartisan. On second thought, I don't actually trust that you will, but frankly, Sam, your opinion of whether my blog posts are bipartisan enough for your tastes is not real high on my list of worries right now.

I've also been more or less offline since lunchtime yesterday, so I have no idea what amendments were or were not added. I'm guessing that to a large extent whatever changes were made won't greatly affect my take on it, but I'll have to read up.

As for impeachment, well, any member of Congress who voted for this travesty knowing that it violated constitutional standards w/r/t habeas corpus has violated his oath of office pretty much by definition. (And yes, Sen. Gordon H. Smith, R-Ore., I'm talking to you. Ditto Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.) Impeachment is exactly the penalty the Framers envisioned for violating the oath.

also think you are wrong because the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, not foreigners or POW's or in this case "enemy combatants".

Bzzt. Sorry, Counselor, but your claim is overly broad. The Supreme Court has never ruled that the Constitution does NOT apply to foreigners. In fact, it has specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens and noncitizens alike, at least in criminal court. (OTOH, just to name one example, deporting illegal aliens, an administrative rather than judicial procedure, doesn't afford illegal aliens all the protections that a trial on criminal charges would.)

And the protections don't end there, as the Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush, to name just two cases off the top of my head.

Which one of us is the lawyer, again?

Finally, even if torture of noncitizens were, technically, constitutional, it would be a remarkably bad idea for a host of other reasons. I've been quite clear on that, too.

Lex, what "torure" are you talking about??
There has still not been one single case of government sanctioned or directed or ordered "torture" as defined under law, only a few criminal acts by individuals acting outside the law and the scope of their employment.
So could you please cite some legal cases that support your claim, or is this just another of your deliberately misleading assertions in an attempt to attack the Bush administration?
Just because you have an *opinion* that something is torture doesn't make it so under the law.
Thank goodness you have nothing to do with protecting our country.

jaycee, you are lying, misinformed or delusional; whichever, I'm not wasting any more time on you and this subject.

Lex, you think you are a lawyer, but you are nearly always wrong about everything.

First, let's take your ignorant statement:

"The Supreme Court has never ruled that the Constitution does NOT apply to foreigners"

Try that in court, a right confer by negative inference. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. If this were true, and foreigners had rights, then a Frenchman who is mad at his country could sue in a U.S. Court for violation of his rights for something that occured in France by the French government. So smarty, you show your complete lack of understanding of the law, especially jurisdiction.

Second, your claim about application of constitutional rights to criminals is correct- but that is different than what we are talking about here. You are right for example, if an illegal alien commits a crime IN THE UNITED STATES- he/she would be entitled to constitutional protections regarding criminal procedure.

However, POW's & enemy combatants are 1) not considered criminals; 2) commit their acts on foreign soil; and 3) are not being detained for a violation of a federal criminal statute- rather they are detained for acts of war.

Under your foolish thinking, a POW/Enemy Combatant in U.S. custody anywhere in the world would have the right to carry a gun (4th Amendment), the right to vote, and all other constitutional rights. Wrong.

Elon has a nice new law school in Greensboro. Perhaps you should apply there, Lex considering you think you know so much about the law. Maybe then you would have a chance of getting it right.

You are almost always wrong when you start playing lawyer on your blog. I am not the only lawyer who thinks so. I have discussed some of your ridiculous assertions with other lawyers who read your blog, and your ignorance is often stunning.

Sam, what I said was that what YOU said about the law was overly broad. And it was. Full stop.

As for these other lawyers, if I'm so badly misinforming the public, by all means have them get in touch.

Torture by who's definition, Lex? Would throwing baloney on them be considered torture?

As I read the legislation, it looks like that will be the president's call from now on.

...And we all know he just can't be trusted with that because he's a Republican...

Speak for yourself. I don't trust ANY president with that power.

Lex wrote:
"Speak for yourself. I don't trust ANY president with that power."

Hello?? Please go back to Civics 101, Lex, you missed a class somewhere.
We elect the President to represent US, and we specifically give him powers the rest of us don't have in order to work in our stead.

Out back smokin' the day they covered separation of powers in eighth-grade social studies, were we, jaycee?

Hey, Lex, you must have been smoking yesterday, because the bill that just passed by Congress (the legislative branch) gave that authority to the President (the executive branch). What were you saying about civics and separation of powers?

Yeah, and at least two Republicans who voted for it are on record as saying it's unconstitutional but they voted for it anyway, Sam. So your point would be ... ?

I guess right now my point would be that you talk in circles every time you are wrong or contradicted by the facts or have one of your smart ass comments backfire on you.

Yes, Lex is the master of pretzel logic.

It's the classic double speak while seizing on ONE tiny word you write in your post and say he says "back it up" -- when it was clearly written incorrectly by Lex 4 months ago, but you just can't find it with this crappy site search!

What I find just so annoying about this is: why does Lex OF ALL PEOPLE think he has the world cornered on constitutional law?

The best I can tell Lex is a 47 (or so) year old reporter of marginal success who has been an editor of marginal success at a paper that is a marginal success in a one-newspaper town.

I just am lost as to why Lex even goes on and on about this as if HE is the one person whose going to be quoted by the Supreme Court next week. I can hear it now from John Roberts: "Well, we weren't going to take up this issue against a sitting President during wartime, but we read Lex Alexander's blog and, well, it's constitutional crisisville, population everyone."

Seriously, this is just stupid.

How about this Lex: focus on something that is local and that you can actually have an impact on. This is a waste of EVERYONE'S time. (Or, how about actually doing REAL work for the website to make it better. Your "advisory role" is worse than doing nothing. Take your gloves off, end this blogging waste of time and -- oh I don't know -- make the site better! I'm sure Steven and Charlie can use the help.)

You're going to ALWAYS be right in the end and even if you aren't you'll just spin it back around so you seem that way. In the end, Greensboro is being neglected by a reporter or editor or whatever you are because you're trying to play the blogging Woodward and Bernstein (without even getting off your butt to actually interview people).

I seriously don't even see how these posts further the agenda of the News & Record. (Well, other than help propel their liberal agenda. But, that just isn't helping to attract readers...)

Oh, and then there are the classic sign off lines:

'Nuff said
Just Saying
So There

What is next?
Nah, nah, nah
Your mama

Just thought I'd pass on this email I received from Jaycee:

"I've been banned from posting on the N&R "The Lex Files." I posted a response after Lex's snide comment to me about separation of powers and social studies and then noticed it had been deleted. When I tried to post again, it told me I could no longer post comments here. I challenged him once again to substantiate his false claims. I guess he can't handle the truth.
Censorship is alive and well at the N&R."

Other individuals I have spoken with, including some that are not ideologically aligned with me, but have pointed out Lex's errors in the past, have informed me of similar behavior by Lex.

So, Lex, are you going to delete this, too? If this is your way of handling a blog sponsored by the N&R, perhaps a conversation with your boss is in order. JR and I don't see eye to eye on a lot, but he has always been honest in his dealings with me. I don't think he'd appreciate the way you edit your blog and ban those you don't agree with. I don't think that is the idea behind these N&R blogs.

kudos lex.

Kudos- yeah, I suppose Sean believes in censorship. I'm not suprised.

Yeah, I banned jaycee. I haven't deleted his past comments, though. Anyone who goes back and reads them will probably wonder why I didn't ban him a long time ago.

What do any of these comments have to do with the original topic?

Beau, the whole concept of an "original topic" is so 2003.