Bush invalidates Fifth Ammendment by Executive Order

[Undertoad]

If you want to determine truth from a fair conversation with people, don't start by demanding "I'm mad as hell! Who's with me!"

Googling for the phrase "there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination" finds it in use in two places:

1. Progressive blogs who are furious at Bush for the use of the phrase in this EO.

2. Previous uses of the phrase in other EOs.

Having myself believed in several sky-is-falling slippery slopes, I can only suggest to you that you have fallen into the same trap as I did ten years ago. I was pretty certain we were on the slope. And I was convinced of it by people more worried than I, using crazy rhetoric exactly like this thread title.

The only thing that finally convinced me otherwise was the passage of time. It turned out that, after ten years of my cautioning against the slope, we are no closer to the bottom than we were back then.

So, wow. I'm wiser now, but what a pain in the ass I must have been. I can only thank my remaining friends for having the patience to deal with me during those times.

-

You are wrong about this, Biggie. If need be, let time be the judge. It's always the final arbiter after all.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you want to determine truth from a fair conversation with people, don't start by demanding "I'm mad as hell! Who's with me!"

If I see a house on fire, I'm not going to undertake to determine truth from a fair conversation with people, I'm gonna yell "FIRE!" You're right on one part though: this is *my* house on fire, and I am mad as hell.

On the subject of truth, fair conversations and such, what is your opinion of this recent Executive Order? You've only said "you're wrong, Biggie". I'd like to know your mind on the subject.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Googling for the phrase "there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination" finds it in use in two places:

1. Progressive blogs who are furious at Bush for the use of the phrase in this EO.

2. Previous uses of the phrase in other EOs.

What's your point? I can understand why progressive blogs would be furious with Bush's language and actions--no surprise there. I can just as easily understand writers at the other end of the spectrum giving it a pass. So what?

My objection is that, in my layman's understanding, this phrase overrides the protections (or obstacles, if you're on the other end of the scale) offered by due process. It's a big deal, it's in the Constitution. It's a direct negation of an important part of what makes ours a more perfect union. Furthermore, it's a part that *I* can easily see myself benefiting from.

I don't have much power, not even a tiny fraction of the power the government has. Nothing approaching the physical force that can be brought to bear, nothing like the financial resources available to the government, nothing close to the legal power, whether it's interpreting the existing laws, or, indeed, making *new* laws at the stroke of a freakin' pen. I do have the shared devotion to our country, shared by those that would be assigned (or volunteer) to defend me. And in their arsenal, due process is a powerful tool.

Due process would let other people see what's happening. The facts, as the government sees them and as I see them, would have the chance of an equal hearing. Maybe my side will not prevail. But perhaps one of those judges or juries would have a different opinion than the government, yay me. But without due process, I don't get the chance to even have my day in court. That is a problem for me, a big problem.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Having myself believed in several sky-is-falling slippery slopes, I can only suggest to you that you have fallen into the same trap as I did ten years ago. I was pretty certain we were on the slope. And I was convinced of it by people more worried than I, using crazy rhetoric exactly like this thread title.

I don't know where your head was at ten years ago, but I do know what I wrote in the thread title. What's your objection to it? Crazy rhetoric? Are you kidding me? I suppose I could have refined it thus:

Bush's recent Executive Order invalidates *part of* the Fifth Ammendment.

Ok, protection against self incrimination remains intact. Likewise double jeopardy remains illegal, blah blah blah. Really? Sorry, that's not my thread title. I don't find the one I did use to be much like Chicken Little at all. Did you read the EO? Do you disagree on the facts I've presented. Nevermind your dislike of my tone, do you or don't you agree that this EO overrides the due process protections of the fifth ammendment?

I may seem combative on this point, but seriously, if I'm wrong on the facts, I sincerely want to be reassured that our Constitution is intact. And if it's not, if our ship of state has sprung a leak, you're damn skippy I want everybody to know about it. I'm not combative, I'm worried.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The only thing that finally convinced me otherwise was the passage of time. It turned out that, after ten years of my cautioning against the slope, we are no closer to the bottom than we were back then.

So, wow. I'm wiser now, but what a pain in the ass I must have been. I can only thank my remaining friends for having the patience to deal with me during those times.

I'm glad you made it through those ten years. I'm glad your friends stuck by you.
-

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You are wrong about this, Biggie. If need be, let time be the judge. It's always the final arbiter after all.

Wrong about what? Have I said something untrue? Have I misquoted someone? I have said that this EO is wrong, and I have said why I think so. Please tell me what you think is wrong here.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by BigV

If I see a house on fire, I'm not going to undertake to determine truth from a fair conversation with people, I'm gonna yell "FIRE!" You're right on one part though: this is *my* house on fire, and I am mad as hell.

recognizing house fires