🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@taky

Ok, as I said its not a topic I have interest in discussing.

@icedquinn @se7en @Eris @Pat

@Eris

Credibility to what? I never said 9/11 wasnt an inside job, never said it was.

@icedquinn @se7en @Pat

@se7en

1) I worked at FEMA at the time of 911 as a consultant.

2) I'm not discussing the incident

3) Pat has you blocked. So you might as well stop talking to him.

@icedquinn @Pat

@se7en

Building 7 looked fish, and im not saying events of 9/11 didnt look fishy, I get that. But other than that I dont want to hear your speculations as to why. Cause even if some shit went down, neither you nor anyone else has a clue what it was.

@icedquinn @Pat

@se7en

I really dont give a shit about conspiracy theory nonsense. Keep that to yourself.

@icedquinn @Pat

@Pat oh I must have missed that. Did he use it offensively? I saw the use of "nigga" but it didnt seem to be used in an offensive way to me.

Or am I missing something. I usually block for offensive uses of the word myself. Blocked a few today already.

@Pat

One could make the argument that for the 24 hours around the event of 9/11 they could have suspended HC. But that wouldnt get them very far anyway. They were only on american soil for a short period, so thats too small of a window for them to use HC in any concerning way... but yea, technically yes.

@icedquinn @se7en

@Pat Who was that?

@icedquinn

By the point there is an invasion on US soil things will be too fucked for anyone to care about Habeus Corpus honestly.

@se7en @Pat

@se7en

Its the day "These United States of America" turned into "The United States of America" :)

@icedquinn @Pat

@icedquinn

Due process is suspended by war too, its what lets me shoot you in the face if I consider you the enemy even if you arent actively aiming a gun at me. The constitution makes alot of exceptions for war time, you get some limited due process of course, but much of it, like habeus corpus can be suspended.

Now to be clear it is only during **invasion** or **rebellion**. So the war has to be on american soil in order to suspend the right. Which seems like a fair distinction.

@se7en @Pat

@icedquinn

Right in the constitution, Article I, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

@se7en @Pat

@Pat

The restriction only applies when it isnt wartime. So its not really a loophole, its how it was intended to be. Its still a restriction though either way.

@se7en

@Pat

Its still a restriction.

@se7en

@Pat @se7en Limiting the states AND the federal gov't, which like i said is in a lot of the Constitution. The limitation on the federal govt to not be able to suspend habeus corpus is a restriction on the federal govt as well as the states.

@Pat

Sorry Article I, Section 10

@se7en

@Pat

It is not restricted to a single article. I can think of examples across several articles, in fact there are examples all over the constitition.

Article IV aside another is Article 10, which restricts the ability of the federal government to suspend habius corpus. In fact there is probably an example of a limitation of the governments rights in every, or at least most, articles, at least in some form.

@se7en

@Pat

While that does get the general gist of it I want to point out, the constitution, even without considering the amendments including the bill of rights, lists both the powers of the central government as well as things it can not do in quite a few places. The idea that it exclusdes limitations in its power (and that is solely done int he bill of rights) isnt correct.

But that is a minor enough detail.

@se7en

@se7en

Sadly the constitution says very little on the topic. It doesnt even provide provisions for bodily autonomy in any sense, which is why abortion can be legal or illegal and neither is a constitional violation, it just isnt an area the constititon addresses very well except in vagaries.

@Pat

@Pat in early 1900s in Massachusetts people who refused too take the small pox vaccine could be fined. This was fought and went all the way up to the supreme court which rules the fine was legal and constitutional.

While I strongly disagree with this ruling, and while the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion implies this should be illegal. Sadly nothing explicit is stated and the supreme court has clearly ruled that such mandates are, sadly, legal.

I'd imagine thats far more draconian than vaccine passports, which also absolutely should be illegal, though I wouldnt argue it on explicit constitutional terms.