Jump to content
Volvospeed Forums

StickThatClutch

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,353

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by StickThatClutch

  4. So.. High Oil Eh!?

    in Political Discussions

    Posted

    I wouldn't say it's so much harder to drill. They've got some pretty ingenious methods now, even drilling sidways or at another angle once you're down, to get to other spots from one drill position.

    Yeah, but the newer locations are more remote and harder to move product to the consumers?

  5. So.. High Oil Eh!?

    in Political Discussions

    Posted

    the whole "oil is gonna be out soon" too is a bunch of BS, just thought i would state that, at our rate and even our growing exponential rate, oil will be depleted at the year 3046

    freaky huh

    How'd you figure this out? Its not so much oil is going to be gone. Just harder and harder to drill and distribute.

  6. So.. High Oil Eh!?

    in Political Discussions

    Posted

    I figured it out, and it's cheaper for me to actually drive to work than take the bus, and I'd have to walk/ride my bike 2miles to get to a bus stop. This doesn't even take into account what my time is worth, b/c instead of 8mins of driving, my commute would take over an hour each way. Just looking at the other side. ;)

    Haha. Yeah. If I trip to downtown LA I take the train. It actually cost more than fuel. Probably takes more time too. I figure at least I won't get hit by an uninsured motorist.

    Driving is definately easier and many cases cheaper. But if we continue down this path its just gonna hurt harder when we can't be doing this anymore.

  13. Thanks To Bush We Have Lost More Civil Liberties.

    in Political Discussions

    Posted · Edited by StickThatClutch

    wait! let me try.

    In order to really appreciate this concern, you need to recognize the historical aspect of rights infringement. They don't all go away at once, but often gradually. One step in the wrong direction is a slippery slope. That's all I'm saying.

    Yeah, but therein lies a rub. If let's say the President were to step in the Padilla case it would be a huge infringment of the seperation of powers. Padilla's issue is a judicial issue not one of the executive branch. Like I stated earlier, the President's implied power on this matter (his ability to detain a combatant under the joint resolution) was legistalitvely given to him - he did not create it. So historically, it would be a gross misconduct for the executive to step in at this point. There is a legal remedy waiting in the wings. The case will be heard. The only problem at this point is the timing. Even that isn't necessarily an issue of politics. Padilla's outside counsel had a chance. They fibbed it.

    If the executive steps in on this issue its going to be a scarier breach of power. The fact that a single person could alter the long standing legal standards is something much more discerning in my mind than Padilla's case.

    The same people who bee-itch about Padilla not getting his due process will be the same people that will bee-itch if the legal process is sped along by an external force.

  14. Thanks To Bush We Have Lost More Civil Liberties.

    in Political Discussions

    Posted · Edited by StickThatClutch

    Padilla was appointed counsel on his behalf that filed a court motion in the 2nd federal district appeals court. But prior to his filing he was moved to SC which lies in the 4th district. Thus, the appeal did not have jurisdiction and was not heard. Thus, there has a been a motion in the 4th district to hear the case. Lawyers on Padilla's behalf have tried to bump this up to the Supreme court so that they can get an overarching remedy. Problem is that the USSC is now in recess and next term Padillas case may not fit on the docket. There is a good chance Padilla won't be able to have his case heard till 2007.

    He's held in a military brig and thus isn't allowed direct access to council as outlined in the Joint Resolution - which Congress wrote. It is an unfortunate series of events, however, it is a result of the process of the court system (that has been in place for decades) not any political agenda.

    Andrew: Danke. I try with the sigs. :)

  15. Thanks To Bush We Have Lost More Civil Liberties.

    in Political Discussions

    Posted · Edited by StickThatClutch

    He isn't a POW.  Traitor perhaps.  Terrorists normally can't be considered POWs when captured because the US isn't at war with the nation they are a citizen of.  therefore, they have almost no rights.  Padilla is going to be a special case because he does have confirmed links to known terrorists or terrorist organizations.  It isn't like they are going to detain you for eatting at a restaraunt that later is found to be funneling money to a terrorist organization.  It isn't the same thing, but it isn't clearly defined either, which I believe is the point of the article.

    Actually the way that congress defined a Enemy Combatant under the joint resolution allowing the President to hold people under this definition allows Padilla to be held in this state.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0011113-27.html

    The real issue here is the Padilla is a US citizen. If he weren't there wouldn't be such a brewhaha over this case. Under the joint resolution he can be held but under the constitution there are some issues. The problem is which supercedes the other in this case. In theory your constitution rights should be overarching in this respect. However, there is a vague point as to which point you relinquish your citizenship if you choose to attack your own nation.

    Again, Padilla was given legal counsel. The counsel filed in the wrong circuit of appeals and that's why he's been detained for this long. If they had filed int he correct circuit of appeals to begin with the trial would have been long resolved by now.

×
×
  • Create New...