Wednesday, June 02, 2004
abuse of power
For those of you, my dear readers, who have not yet been motivated to get up off the couch, put down the remote, and fucking do something, anything -- register to vote, march in the streets, write letters to the editor, call your freakin' elected officials. . . whatever, just fucking do something -- after reading the plight of Ms. Tooran perhaps because you thought, "ooooh, that's just too bad. . . but I'm a citizen. I was born and raised right here in the godamned U. S. of fucking A. and gah-dam-nit I know my fucking rights! They can't treat me like that. It's in the Constitution."
Um, yeah. . . right.
That's probably what this guy thought.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a cheerleader for Jose Padilla. He's hardly a model American and a far cry from Hank Hill, the perfect role model of an ideal civic minded individual. If just half or so of what the American Government alleges is true then the bastard probably deserves to be locked in a dark windowless hole and repeatedly poked with pointed sticks in sensitive places.
If his actions are criminal, then charge him with crimes. It is frightening that the current chief executive has asserted the power to detain American citizens indefinitely and deny them all of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Fortunately, others people, like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, are also concerned about this broad assertion of authority.
I understand that the U.S. Constitution is a complex document, has no pictures, and is quite honestly, a boring read full of verbose sentences such as "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." BLAH BLAH BLAH
But I hope that the person who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (from Article II) would have at least read the damn thing first. And maybe asked someone to explain it to him.
I wonder what part of "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . ." (from Amendment 5) our current President doesn't understand.
|
Um, yeah. . . right.
That's probably what this guy thought.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a cheerleader for Jose Padilla. He's hardly a model American and a far cry from Hank Hill, the perfect role model of an ideal civic minded individual. If just half or so of what the American Government alleges is true then the bastard probably deserves to be locked in a dark windowless hole and repeatedly poked with pointed sticks in sensitive places.
If his actions are criminal, then charge him with crimes. It is frightening that the current chief executive has asserted the power to detain American citizens indefinitely and deny them all of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Fortunately, others people, like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, are also concerned about this broad assertion of authority.
I understand that the U.S. Constitution is a complex document, has no pictures, and is quite honestly, a boring read full of verbose sentences such as "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." BLAH BLAH BLAH
But I hope that the person who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (from Article II) would have at least read the damn thing first. And maybe asked someone to explain it to him.
I wonder what part of "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . ." (from Amendment 5) our current President doesn't understand.
|
Comments:
Post a Comment
