Charlie Rangel vies for dumbest democrat title from Dean

[dude1394]

Howard Dean seems to have shut up so he wouldn't continue to show how stupid he is. It's nice to see Rangel stepping up to take up the slack.

A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

[Mavdog]

although I disagree with rangel on the need for a draft, rangel does express a well thought out reasoning behind his position.

second, if the decision is to pursue the option of increasing the troop level in iraq (one of three options, go big, go long or go away) the only way to accomplish that would be by a draft. there are not enough troops currently in the service to increase the number without it.

unless of course you want to lower the already lowered standards of enlistees...not a good idea.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

unless of course you want to lower the already lowered standards of enlistees...

Thank you, John Kerry.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Thank you, John Kerry.

guess you missed the news stories about the skinheads who were allowed to join?

or the hs dropouts who were given a place by the recruiter to get a fake diploma?

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

guess you missed the news stories about the skinheads who were allowed to join?

or the hs dropouts who were given a place by the recruiter to get a fake diploma?

Holy $hit....next thing you know they'll haveta let the fairies in.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

although I disagree with rangel on the need for a draft, rangel does express a well thought out reasoning behind his position.

well....

...if you consider that maybe there's an argument to be made that conscription is government sponsored slavery, and if you also consider that the antithesis of a free country is a country where the citizens are enslaved by it's national government....

....then maybe Rangel's position ain't quite so well thought out.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

well....

...if you consider that maybe there's an argument to be made that conscription is government sponsored slavery, and if you also consider that the antithesis of a free country is a country where the citizens are enslaved by it's national government....

....then maybe Rangel's position ain't quite so well thought out.

cheers

there may be an "argument to be made that conscription is government sponsored slavery", but that argument doesn't fly.

slavery is just that...the slave is owned by someone. in contrast, a draftee a) does not surrender themselves to anyone, b) is paid a salary for their work, c) remains a citizen with all other rights and privilidges, and d) are not a controlled by the state when they are off duty.

the idea that a draft of young citizens into a national service org has many merits. first, it cultivates a sense of citizenship. second, it causes people of varies economic levels to engage people and comradery amongst them. third, it beefs up the ranks of our military.

I'm opposed, but nevertheless I can see the logic.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there may be an "argument to be made that conscription is government sponsored slavery", but that argument doesn't fly.

slavery is just that...the slave is owned by someone. in contrast, a draftee a) does not surrender themselves to anyone, b) is paid a salary for their work, c) remains a citizen with all other rights and privilidges, and d) are not a controlled by the state when they are off duty.

For starters...ownership is a defining characteristic of a certain type of slavery -- chattel slavery, not slavery per se. Moreover, the Constitution forbids *indentured servitude*, a term which conveys no sense of ownership legal entitlement. Whether conscription is *chattel slavery*, ala the American South ca 1860, is not really the point.

ie, if Person A compels Person B (against his will) to travel half-way 'round the world to kill or be killed, in what sense does it really matter whether Person A *owns* Person B? Person A is clearly the master and Person B is plainly the slave. The question of slave ownership only really matters (mattered) in the context of property rights for slaveholders--not for the slaves themselves. As such ownship has no bearing on the question of whether conscription is slavery.

at any rate, the remainder of your points amount to what the slaves are allowed to do in their free time, not whether they're enslaved in the first place. In fact you say this quite explicitly when you say that they "are not controlled by the state when they are off duty."

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the idea that a draft of young citizens into a national service org has many merits. first, it cultivates a sense of citizenship. second, it causes people of varies economic levels to engage people and comradery amongst them. third, it beefs up the ranks of our military.

alex's really brief history of slavery in human history:

a) there's always been alot of it;
b) there've always been people arguing that it has a lot of merits.

....or so says the seventh Veep of these United States:

Compare his [the Slave's] condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.

so yeah, I understand....lot's of really good arguments for conscription. It's all for the greater good, the glory of the state, and it even helps the conscript. I get that.

The question that doesn't get answered is why it's right for one group of people to grab another group of people against their will and send them half way 'round the world to kill or die trying.

Cheers

[dalmations202]

in contrast, a draftee a) does not surrender themselves to anyone, b) is paid a salary for their work, c) remains a citizen with all other rights and privilidges, and d) are not a controlled by the state when they are off duty.

Obviously you were never in the military, or have never studied the contract you sign with them.

A soldier
1) does not surrender, but is not a civilian anymore either. He is under the UCMJ instead of the laws of the country ie.. constitution.
2) Is paid yes, but not well considering.
3) Does remain a citizen, but does not have all the other rights. He does not have the "right" to free speech, he does not have the "right" to assemble, he does not have the "right" to say bad things about the Commander in Chief.
4) And he is controlled when off duty. He cannot get drunk and thrown in jail on Friday, show up on Monday for work, and not expect for an Article 15 (loss of time and $$$) not to be filed. He cannot sleep with anyone he wants, there are rules (although selectively enforced). He cannot do any type of drug he wants off duty. He cannot go over a certain number of miles away from his "post" without written permission. He cannot miss work or a move out. He cannot say I am not showing up because "my wife". He cannot quit his job without the possibility of going to jail. He can be fired, sent to jail, or relieved of duty for "Conduct Unbecoming". He does not have the "right" to a trial by a jury of his peers. He cannot sleep while on-duty without the possibility of "death" when caught either by friend or foe.

Soldiers aren't slaves, but they should be respected much more than most in America give them credit for.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Holy $hit....next thing you know they'll haveta let the fairies in.

Thanks, I just spit coca-cola on my monitor and keyboard.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

A soldier
1) does not surrender, but is not a civilian anymore either. He is under the UCMJ instead of the laws of the country ie.. constitution.
2) Is paid yes, but not well considering.
3) Does remain a citizen, but does not have all the other rights. He does not have the "right" to free speech, he does not have the "right" to assemble, he does not have the "right" to say bad things about the Commander in Chief.
4) And he is controlled when off duty. He cannot get drunk and thrown in jail on Friday, show up on Monday for work, and not expect for an Article 15 (loss of time and $$$) not to be filed. He cannot sleep with anyone he wants, there are rules (although selectively enforced). He cannot do any type of drug he wants off duty. He cannot go over a certain number of miles away from his "post" without written permission. He cannot miss work or a move out. He cannot say I am not showing up because "my wife". He cannot quit his job without the possibility of going to jail. He can be fired, sent to jail, or relieved of duty for "Conduct Unbecoming". He does not have the "right" to a trial by a jury of his peers. He cannot sleep while on-duty without the possibility of "death" when caught either by friend or foe.

Soldiers aren't slaves, but they should be respected much more than most in America give them credit for.

I'd point out that all of this applies to volunteers...

[dude1394]

You go charlie. Continue to show us what we elected.

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You go charlie. Continue to show us what we elected.

I saw Rangel say this on the Sunday talk show. I couldn't believe the idiocy. More of that "lunatic fringe" that only includes John Kerry (and I guess so many of the other Democrat leaders).

He was on along with Barny Frank. Both sounded like morons. Neither would say appointing Hastings to the intelligence committee is a bad idea. Frank gave a half-sentence defense of Hastings, then avoided answering by complaining that the questions were unfairly posed, and were meant to put the democrats in a bad light. He complained that the show was advertised as a forum for the democrats to tell their plans to the public. I guess letting us know the liklihood placing an impeached judge at the head of a national intelligence committee doesn't count as letting us know of the plan. Rangel gave a little more support for Hastings, but also avoided things by claiming that he wasn't aware that the CBC had a position on Hastings. "The congresssional black caucus hasn't had a meeting on the issue." he said. But,

. . . the CBC sent a letter to Pelosi affirming the group’s support for Hastings “The CBC sent a letter to Ms. Pelosi just to let her know that the CBC is behind Mr. Hastings 100 percent,” CBC spokesman Myra Dandridge told National Review Online Friday.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...VkNDJiZDQ0ZGI=

[Usually Lurkin]

Here's a link to Rangel from Sunday (the interview Dude referenced above)

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...bctid326745559

[Mavdog]

the following is a letter from hastings to his collegues about the intelligence chair.

my bet is that pelosi will NOT select hastings, but will pick another person who will placate the CBC (and other groups). pelosi is a smart person who can see the negative light that a hastings selection will cast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 20, 2006
Dear Colleagues,
Because I know you and because many of you are mindful of my 14 years in Congress, and in order not to stoke a simmering fire which had the potential to adversely affect Democrats in the ’06 election, I elected not to participate in the “discussion” about whether I should be appointed Chair of the HPSCI.

The noise and misleading, poorly informed, misinformed, and sometimes venomous attacks on my integrity and character by pundits, politicians, and editors screaming the word “impeachment” (ignoring a Not Guilty verdict in a court of law) in a frenetic attempt to justify denying me a position I have certainly earned and am completely competent to perform requires now that I set the record straight.

Colleagues, some of the things I write you may be familiar with. Some you may not know. It is all meant to edify you so that you have the best information possible in case you are asked about me or read about me in the paper or online.

Recently, I asked our Speaker-elect to set aside 45 minutes to meet with me and Professor Terrance Anderson of the University of Miami. Terry is the most informed person in the world regarding my trial in U.S. District Court, the 3 ½ year investigation by the five judge 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 26 judge Judicial Conference, the seven person impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, the 12 person U.S. Senate trial, and the numerous appeals to courts at every level. In particular, Professor Anderson could explain to anyone interested about our experiences at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. And finally, the decision after my election as to whether or not I should be seated in the House of Representatives.

Having read the above paragraph, you would immediately discover that there is a whole lot of information that is not being discussed at all.

Second, I hope that my fate is not determined by Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools. Nor should faceless and nameless people at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, the L.A. Times, the Dallas Morning News, and others take liberties without at least giving me an opportunity to respond.

I do take Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post’s judgment as partially informed opinion. And, she did speak with me for one hour and five minutes, resulting in a two-sentence quote. And, using excerpts of my trial without asserting that the information came from me, and that the more than plausible explanations before a 12 person jury that heard all of the evidence was accepted by them.

In fairness to the Washington Times when they wrote, “Don’t Do it, Ms. Pelosi” in their editorial, they did give me an opportunity to respond. I called Tony Blankley and he invited me to his Editorial Board. I went and spent 1 hour and 25 minutes explaining every thing about my life that they wanted me to. And, I answered every question asked by them and the board member that did do exhaustive research. But, like everyone else, including Members of Congress, he did not review the trial transcript.

While in this vein, let me mention a few other things about others I mentioned above.
Newt Gingrich opined that it would be an “unmitigated disaster” if I became Chairman of HPSCI. First, I went on the Intelligence Committee when he was the Speaker of the House. Second, I was appointed by then Speaker Gingrich as the only Democrat on a committee headed by Doug Bereuter to study the reversion of Hong Kong and Macau to China. And, I might add, he invited this potentially “disastrous” person to travel with him to Asia. And, I saved him from at least one major protocol gaffes. What irony!

Sean Hannity, who screamed that I was “unworthy” did not deem me unworthy to be co-host, in the studio, in place of Alan Colmes for two days a few years ago.

Michael Barone would not return my calls (3 of them) requesting that he speak with me.
Jonathan Alter, who I did not mention above, did return my call. He was doing a piece for Newsweek on me and other potential chairs. His comment to me after a 45 minute conversation was, “gee, I did not know all of that” and, “you need to get that information out there.” He did not write anything about me at that time.

Friends, some months ago Karl Rove was said to use you, me, and others in our Caucus as poster bogeymen and women to influence the electorate, particularly the Republican base. Obviously, that strategy was not totally successful.

So, what are we to believe? I did not cause us to lose the ’06 election, but I will cause us to lose in ’08? We all know that if I am appointed as Chair, and as I intend with Speaker Pelosi’s tutelage and help to do a very good job, talk about the HPSCI Chair won’t even be an afterthought.

I was impeached and removed after I was acquitted by a jury in a nearly one month federal trial. It is amazing how little importance is given to this fact. It is also baffling. I dare say that a person whose future depended on a decision as to whether or not that person committed a crime would think the chances of receiving justice far more likely in a jury trial than in an impeachment. That is because ALL of the jurors hear and see ALL of the evidence in a trial. In my impeachment proceedings, the evidence was taken and received by a committee, and all members of the committee were not present at all times. The committee then made a recommendation to the House regarding impeachment and to the Senate regarding removal. Most of the congresspersons and senators who voted never saw the evidence. Many of them never read the reports of the committee or reviewed the daily videos. Iraq and the budget are not the only times votes have been cast without adequate review and knowledge of the facts.

My life was voted on in that same manner.

In a jury trial, the evidence is the only consideration. In an impeachment, politics is central. A trial is of the first priority. The impeachment proceedings compete with votes in the various committees who are holding simultaneous hearings and with votes taken on the floor. The protections mandated in a jury trial are substantially reduced in an impeachment. The list of differences goes on and on.

These differences are not necessarily so egregious in view of the fact that the purpose of an impeachment is not to determine whether a crime has been committed but to determine whether to remove a constitutional officer from his position. The hearings are only a means to that end.

The germane question is, if I have not been convicted of a crime, should impeachment in and of itself prevent me from being chair of a committee in Congress.

There are several reasons why it should not. First of all, the Senate had the option to prohibit me from holding federal office. It specifically chose not to. The ordinary meaning of that act is that impeachment is not to be a bar to my being elected to Congress and consequentially should not be a bar to my being as great a congressperson as my talents allow me to be.

Second, I have been on the Intelligence Committee for seven years. Like Jane, Silvestre, Bud, and others, I have been entrusted with America’s secrets. And, I have never violated that trust.

Colleagues, I am sure each of you knows well the high importance of protecting classified information. Further, you may be aware of how Members conduct oversight.
What you may not know is the extent of my involvement in learning about our nation’s intelligence operations. Please consider the following:

I have visited and consulted with more than 30 intelligence stations around the world over the past several years.
I have visited ports in Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Singapore, West Palm Beach, and Seattle.
I have visited, consulted, or spoke to Joint Terrorism Task Force offices in Chicago, Boston, Miami, and the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, and NATO on three occasions. Others that come to mind are Langley (three times), NSA, Tampa’s Macdill Air Force Base, and Southcom.

Returning for a moment to the impeachment, during that period I learned more than I already knew about how the government had not played fair in its attempt to convict me. Preeminent among these findings is the fact that the FBI tampered with the evidence to trump up their charge that I lied. It was whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst of the FBI who came forward with the revelation that Fred Malone in the FBI laboratory cut the strap of a man-purse of mine (they were popular in the ‘70s) and then testified that the lab determined that I had cut the strap to provide myself an alibi. That and additional revelations about improper FBI conduct in my case caused Judge Sporkin of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia to state that if he had the constitutional authority, he would reverse the impeachment. (Incidentally, Judge Sporkin was a Reagan appointee.)
Friends, I was not convicted of anything in a court of law. Ever. I was acquitted by a federal jury after the United States of America spent $40,000,000.00 and left no stone unturned in its attempt to convict me. I have served the people of Florida’s 23rd District honorably and with distinction for 14 years.

Obviously, I could write a book or two about the politics of my impeachment. Suffice it to mention how my impeachment was initiated: concomitant with my indictment, the Congress passed 28 U.S.C. 372, the Judicial Conduct and Disability and Reform Act. The law required implementation in the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts. Then Chief Justice Warren Burger appointed the Chief Judge of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, John Godbold, to implement the above-referenced law.

Two and one half weeks after my acquittal, in a regularly scheduled meeting of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and after the conclusion of the agenda of the day, Judge Godbold made the following statement, “Judge Hastings has been found not guilty, and no one has filed a complaint against him.”

Two judges, William Terrel Hodges (Middle District of Florida) and Anthony Alaimo of Brunswick, Georgia, in testimony before the U.S. House Impeachment Inquiry said they went to dinner that night, and among other things, discussed Judge Godbold’s entreaty. They said they took it to mean that Judge Godbold wanted a complaint filed.

Standing alone, the matters related would not sound any alarm. That would ignore the fact that the law, 28 U.S.C. 372 requires the Chief Judge of the Circuit where a complaint is lodged to determine the meritoriousness of the complaint. In this case, that would be Judge Godbold.

It gets more bizarre. Judges Alaimo and Hodges awakened the Clerk of the 11th Circuit that same night at or about midnight. They retrieved from the Clerk newspaper clippings and used them as the basis of their complaint against me.

Colleagues, you need to know that neither of the Judges was present at any time during the trial proceedings that led to my acquittal. One is from Tampa, Florida, the other from Brunswick, Georgia. I was on trial in Miami, Florida.

Also, the transcript of that trial had not been prepared. How in Heaven’s name could these people file a substantive complaint? The answer is obvious; they could not and did not.
So that complaint led to the remaining events that are so convoluted, voluminous, complex, and mundane that it would boggle the mind.

I commend to you two rather definitive pieces regarding my circumstances. One by Professor Terrance Anderson (mentioned above), the other is the floor statement of Senator Arlen Specter, the Vice Chairman of the Hastings Senate Trial Panel.

As I said earlier, no one knows more about this matter than Professor Anderson. And Senator Specter did the real heavy lifting on the Senate Trial Panel. (There were other statements, pro and con, though none more comprehensive.)

Colleagues, I know you have many, indeed, too many matters to attend to. I implore you, though, to please give this matter as much time as you can. I have no choice but to live with this decision. I have labored hard here for 14 years, and I will make you proud if I am selected to Chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Most Sincerely,
Alcee L. Hastings

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Holy $hit....next thing you know they'll haveta let the fairies in.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MavKikiNYC again.

[Mavdog]

Pelosi passes Hastings for Intel chair By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
21 minutes ago



In a decision that could roil Democratic unity in the new House, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi passed over Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record) Tuesday for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.

Hastings, currently the No. 2 Democrat on the panel, had been aggressively making a case for the top position, supported by members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Critics pointed out that he had been impeached when he was a federal judge and said naming him to such a sensitive post would be a mistake just as the Democrats take over House control pledging reforms.

"I am obviously disappointed with this decision," Hastings, D-Fla., said in a statement thanking his supporters. "I will be seeking better and bigger opportunities in a Democratic Congress."

He learned his bid for the chairmanship was unsuccessful during a closed-door meeting with Pelosi on Tuesday.

In a statement, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Hastings has made national security his highest priority. "He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so," she said.

In a sign of the bitterness that has surrounded the debate, Hastings closed his statement by saying: "Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet."

The Black Caucus had no immediate comment.

A Democratic congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity about internal party deliberations, said Pelosi has not yet decided who will get the position when the new Congress convenes in January.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, is next in line in seniority and is considered a strong contender for the job. Still, naming him would be a snub to the current senior Democrat on the panel, Jane Harman of California. Her committee leadership term expires at year's end, and she could be reappointed by Pelosi. Yet the two are believed to have deep differences.

Hastings, who came to Congress in 1992, was charged in an FBI bribery sting but acquitted by a federal jury in 1983. Some judicial colleagues said Hastings fabricated his defense, and their allegations led to his impeachment by the U.S. House in 1988. He was removed from the bench by the Senate the following year.

In 1997, the Justice Department found an agent had falsely testified against Hastings, but no action was taken to reopen his case.

In 2000, Democrats passed over another member of the Congressional Black Caucus — Rep. Sanford Bishop (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia — for the senior Democratic spot on the intelligence panel. Party leaders had agreed to give the position to Harman when she ran for Congress after an unsuccessful bid to be California governor.

[dude1394]

Poor CBC democrats...always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

[Drbio]

The Party of black man did what?!?!?!?!?

[Epitome22]

"The Party of black man did what?!?!?!?!?"

They just appointed Black men to chair Ways & Means, The Judiciary committee, Homeland security, and Majority Whip. That's what they did.

They also appointed a black woman to chair the administration committee.

Not to brag. I know the GOP would be just as generous to their black republican representatives. Too bad they don't have any.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

"The Party of black man did what?!?!?!?!?"

They just appointed Black men to chair Ways & Means, The Judiciary committee, Homeland security, and Majority Whip. That's what they did.

They also appointed a black woman to chair the administration committee.

Not to brag. I know the GOP would be just as generous to their black republican representatives. Too bad they don't have any.

Big deal.

If you're representin' as a Democrat, you're making it sound like the D-party is way color-conscious. But if they try to make this a FUBU Congress, the meaning of that acronym could change.