Join Date: May 2002
Thanked 40 Times in 38 Posts
Rep Power: 14
Check the following website:
At that site you will find a list of Executive Orders. You will find that Executive Orders 10995 through 11005 were adopted by John F. Kennedy (not George W. Bush)in 1962. They were revoked in 1969.
Let me explain the significance of those facts. When Chaplain Ammerman spoke to the group about those Executive Orders in 1997, he either didn''t know, or he chose not to disclose to you, the fact that those Executive Orders had been revoked eight years previously. Therefore, he wasted your evening talking about something that no longer existed, and, since that time, you have been wasting our time, and that of many other people, talking about something that was repealed many years ago.
Executive Order 13010, which you indicate is "new," was actually adopted six years ago by William Jefferson Clinton (not George W. Bush) in 1996. It, too, was subsequently repealed in part.
It was well-said by one of our past Supreme Court Justices that the United States Constitution is not a suicide pact. It safeguards our fundamental rights, but not at the expense of our ultimate freedom. The Constitution was written broadly, so that it can adapt to contemporary needs. If the powers that are necessary for our protection are contemplated and authorized by the Constitution, then anything the President might do pursuant to those powers is Constitutionally valid. So far, I haven''t seen President Bush violate anyone''s rights. On the contrary, so far he appears to have given a great deal of serious thought to the matter, to be sure his actions meet the test of the ages. We are holding prisoners of war, but every civilized nation recognizes our right to do that. We are holding people accused of violating our criminal laws until a trial can be held, but every civilized nation recognizes our right to do that. Under our Constitution, if anyone is being unlawfully deprived of his/her liberty by the government, s(he) has a right to file a writ of habeas corpus, to contest the illegality of his/her detention. Thus, even if someone''s rights are being violated, our Constitution provides a lawful remedy for it. If someone''s rights are violated, and if our Constitution fails to provide a remedy, then I will be concerned.
You need to ignore those links that are written by uninformed, misguided, or evil people who delight in shocking people with misinformation.
If you still want to argue about this, don''t bother. I''ve wasted enough time on this silliness. I''d rather be sailing.