Activism Discussion: Remember On Nov 7 That 73% Of Senate Dems Voted AGAINST The Infamous Military Commissions Act Of 2006

Remember On Nov 7 That 73% Of Senate Dems Voted AGAINST The Infamous Military Commissions Act Of 2006
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS
2006-10-31 01:48:15 EST

That's the horrible constitution-shredding law that made Bush dictator
a couple weeks ago. Only ONE repub Senator voted against it. Like a
lot of you, i talk about how the parties are the same but it's not
quite true. Repugs really are worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Final Passage in the Senate
Party AYE NAY ABS
Republicans 53 1 0
Democrats 12 33 1
Total 65 34 1

Final Passage in the House
Party AYE NAY ABS
Republicans 218 7 5
Democrats 32 162 7
Independent 0 1 0
Total 250 170 12

Annika1980
2006-10-31 11:09:42 EST

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> That's the horrible constitution-shredding law that made Bush dictator
> a couple weeks ago. Only ONE repub Senator voted against it. Like a
> lot of you, i talk about how the parties are the same but it's not
> quite true. Repugs really are worse.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

I was disappointed that many Democrats voted for this unconstitutional
legislation. Perhaps they are figuring that they'll be in chagre soon
and will be able to label their opponents as enemy combatants and have
them locked up forever.

Harold Ford tried to explain his vote by saying, "We're fighting a
different type of war..."
I'd ask him, "If you have to give up your freedoms to fight a war then
exactly what the Hell are you fighting for anyway?" "Call me, Harold."

I was glad to see that there is one Republican Senator (Chaffee from
Rhode Island) that has some sense. He has crossed party lines on many
votes, voting what he believes rather than the party line. Would that
there were more like him on both sides of the aisle.


Larry Bud
2006-10-31 12:24:46 EST

annika1980 wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > That's the horrible constitution-shredding law that made Bush dictator
> > a couple weeks ago. Only ONE repub Senator voted against it. Like a
> > lot of you, i talk about how the parties are the same but it's not
> > quite true. Repugs really are worse.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
>
> I was disappointed that many Democrats voted for this unconstitutional
> legislation. Perhaps they are figuring that they'll be in chagre soon
> and will be able to label their opponents as enemy combatants and have
> them locked up forever.

Or they realize that if they do get into power, they will need a way to
handle terrorists caught on the battlefield other than by getting them
a lawyer.

Otherwise they say "Oh shit... now what?" when they realize they got
what they wished for.


David Morgan \MAMS\
2006-10-31 12:31:36 EST

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message news:1162310982.028917.127250@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > That's the horrible constitution-shredding law that made Bush dictator
> > a couple weeks ago. Only ONE repub Senator voted against it. Like a
> > lot of you, i talk about how the parties are the same but it's not
> > quite true. Repugs really are worse.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

> I was disappointed that many Democrats voted for this unconstitutional
> legislation. Perhaps they are figuring that they'll be in chagre soon
> and will be able to label their opponents as enemy combatants and have
> them locked up forever.

Remember, just like you and I, they too are being blackmailed by the
current junta. ("With us or with the terrorists" has destroyed the media
and free speech in this country). And yes... it could well be *the* law
which allows for expelling and prosecuting corrupt public servants.



Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS
2006-10-31 14:26:20 EST
On 31 Oct 2006 09:24:46 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>annika1980 wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> > That's the horrible constitution-shredding law that made Bush dictator
>> > a couple weeks ago. Only ONE repub Senator voted against it. Like a
>> > lot of you, i talk about how the parties are the same but it's not
>> > quite true. Repugs really are worse.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
>>
>> I was disappointed that many Democrats voted for this unconstitutional
>> legislation. Perhaps they are figuring that they'll be in chagre soon
>> and will be able to label their opponents as enemy combatants and have
>> them locked up forever.
>
>Or they realize that if they do get into power, they will need a way to
>handle terrorists caught on the battlefield other than by getting them
>a lawyer.
>

If they're caught on the battlefied, they are POWs not terrorists.
Got it?


David Morgan \MAMS\
2006-10-31 14:48:19 EST

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1p8fk2pe08kcnfam4vpb0ouu3ak329uoro@4ax.com...
> On 31 Oct 2006 09:24:46 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >annika1980 wrote:
> >> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >> > That's the horrible constitution-shredding law that made Bush dictator
> >> > a couple weeks ago. Only ONE repub Senator voted against it. Like a
> >> > lot of you, i talk about how the parties are the same but it's not
> >> > quite true. Repugs really are worse.
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
> >>
> >> I was disappointed that many Democrats voted for this unconstitutional
> >> legislation. Perhaps they are figuring that they'll be in chagre soon
> >> and will be able to label their opponents as enemy combatants and have
> >> them locked up forever.
> >
> >Or they realize that if they do get into power, they will need a way to
> >handle terrorists caught on the battlefield other than by getting them
> >a lawyer.


> If they're caught on the battlefied, they are POWs not terrorists.
> Got it?


Not according to the current administration... they are "enemy combattants"
and therefore do not fall under the articles of the Geneva Convention which
apply to POWs. This is just more neo-con double-speak.... we tell the US
public that we are at "war" while we tell the rest of the world that there is no
war thus there can be no POWs.







Larry Bud
2006-10-31 15:04:43 EST
> >Or they realize that if they do get into power, they will need a way to
> >handle terrorists caught on the battlefield other than by getting them
> >a lawyer.
> >
>
> If they're caught on the battlefied, they are POWs not terrorists.
> Got it?

Really? What country are they fighting for that signed the Geneva
convention?


Larry Bud
2006-10-31 15:06:45 EST
> Not according to the current administration... they are "enemy combattants"
> and therefore do not fall under the articles of the Geneva Convention which
> apply to POWs.

It applies to POWs who are fighting for countries that signed the
Geneva Convention. So if you can tell me what country they're fighting
for, that would be a start.

Anyway, this Bill does exactly what the Supreme Court told them they
had to do.


Tim Crowley
2006-10-31 15:07:43 EST

Larry Bud wrote:
> > >Or they realize that if they do get into power, they will need a way to
> > >handle terrorists caught on the battlefield other than by getting them
> > >a lawyer.
> > >
> >
> > If they're caught on the battlefied, they are POWs not terrorists.
> > Got it?
>
> Really? What country are they fighting for that signed the Geneva
> convention?

Doesn't matter, "Larry" they are fighting a nation that DID sign the
Geneva conventon.


Laura Bush Murdered Her Boy Friend
2006-11-01 01:10:59 EST

Larry Bud wrote:
> > Not according to the current administration... they are "enemy combattants"
> > and therefore do not fall under the articles of the Geneva Convention which
> > apply to POWs.
>
> It applies to POWs who are fighting for countries that signed the
> Geneva Convention. So if you can tell me what country they're fighting
> for, that would be a start.
>
> Anyway, this Bill does exactly what the Supreme Court told them they
> had to do.

HAHAHA. And when did the SC tell congress to drop habeas corpus??
THINK

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron