Democrats & Liberals Archives

Another Win for the Terrorists Thanks to Bush & Republicans

Yesterday was a dark day in American history as the Republican Congress and President Bush launched their biggest attack on the U.S. Constitution to date. The saddest part is that hardly nobody noticed (or didn’t care).

It makes me sick to think of all the brave soilders who gave their lives to protect those freedoms that Bush and the Republicans seem so happy to hand over to the terrorists.

The President has willfully broken his oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States. If a President can be impeached for lying under oath about his sex life, then certainly a President should be impeached for breaking his oath of office.

The biggest danger to American principles is not an external threat, it is internal as Americans once again are asleep at the wheel. Hopefully we will wake up before it is too late.

Posted by JayJay Snow at October 18, 2006 1:51 PM
Comments
Comment #188797

JayJay,

The Bill of Rights was never meant to be a suicide pact.

And when a terrorist is coerced into providing information that saves one of your friends or family … you will let me know how despotic you are over the “crumbling US Constitution”, won’t you?

… . and weren’t you liberals complaining just 2 years ago that Bush was doing nothing to fight terrorism, it was all just about Iraq. Over the course over the last 2 years we find out we’re interrogating, we’re listening to their sick plans on their phones, we’re monitoring their money … and that is too much for you!

Standard liberals when it comes to protection of the country: Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

Finally, your fake concern for US Soldiers is comical. Perhaps you should tell MoveOn that hampering recuriting efforts doesn’t exactly help those brave soldiers.

Thanks for your time.

Posted by: NobleNation at October 18, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #188799

Not just an attack on the Constitution, an attack on Magna Carta as well:


No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

Posted by: Steve K at October 18, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #188798

JayJay-

Agreed. This is deeply troubling precedent. We’ll have to see how much restraint is shown in using these new tools, but knowing Bush’s reputation thusfar, I am deeply worried. I really do not believe that our best interests as a nation are being considered. Congress should be ashamed. 535 monkeys could have better and more effective legislation on our behalf than these airheads did. Even if it was pure jibrish.

Circumventing the constitution should be reserved for times of actual need. We’ve already seen plenty of “enemy combatants” released because there was no evidence to hold them. Our politicians don’t know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni muslum (see NY Times), cannot secure the borders in any meaningful way, can’t recruit people who speak the language, and are constantly engaged in petty partisan warfare. All these problems and yet they can still justify suspending the constitution? This does NOT guarantee a tougher war on terror…good intelligence will do that…it only guarantees that the high percentage of people wrongly captured will suffer even more hardship in trying to get their cases heard by impartial people.

A sad day indeed. So how was dancing with the stars?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #188804

So, all of you upset over Bush’s signing ceremony, one question. Are you dues paying members of the ACLU? If not, WHY NOT?

They are the one organization both willing and capable of taking this administration once again, to the Supreme Court of the land to seek a return to our Constitutional Rights and Constraints. But, they can only afford to take Bush back to the Supreme Court with your membership dues. They have rent to pay and food to buy too while they seek to defend our Constitution from these AUTHORITARIANS in our Congress and White House.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #188809

This is really scary (from the link):

“(the law) allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court,…And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.”
Why is anyone still on the side of this administration?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 18, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #188812

To paraphrase somethng that needs to be repeated on a daily basis by all Americans:

“Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”


Yes, I’m willing accept the consequences for not torturing terrorists if it preserves our freedoms.

And by the way, we are NOT engaged in a war on terrorism. The Bush administration has not done ONE thing towards eliminating terror in the world. Not one thing.

Posted by: Don at October 18, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #188815

David, you’re absolutely right and I have no idea why I haven’t officially joined the ACLU before now. I just signed up.

Unfortunately, by joining the ACLU I’m probably now labeled as an enemy combatant, so by this time tomorrow I’ll be relaxing at gitmo

Posted by: Grant at October 18, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #188820

It makes me sick to think of all the brave soilders who gave their lives to protect those freedoms that Bush and the Republicans seem so happy to hand over to the terrorists.

An odd statement considering how many in the military support the law. It was written to protect them, after all.

an attack on Magna Carta as well

Wow, I didn’t realize that we fall under the Magna Carta…


I suppose if this law took away my freedoms, or the freedoms of American citizens I would join you in not supporting it. But right now, there doesn’t seem to be much point.
I’m too busy complaining about laws that actually do infringe on my freedoms. And that takes in most of the laws on the books…

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 18, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #188823

Our intel on the bad guys is no good and the left will do everything in its power to make sure it stays that way. If we ever do capture Osama it would not surprise me a bit if the ACLU offered to defend him and if possible would get him off on a technicality.

Posted by: Carnak at October 18, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #188824

I suppose if this law took away my freedoms, or the freedoms of American citizens I would join you in not supporting it.

The way this law is written, by the time it takes away your freedom it’s already too late to not support it.

I think the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller says it best:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

No, I’m not trying to portray the Republicans as Nazi’s, but I think the core message here is relevant and valid.

Posted by: Grant at October 18, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #188825

Reading these comments, I don’t believe that anybody here has actually read this act, else there wouldn’t be so many grossly innacurate statments made about it. Try getting your news somewhere besides the rants of Keith Olbermann.

Steve K, by the interpretation of the Magna Carta you’re using, not even a murderer or rapist could ever be put in prison. But even the quote you use expressly says that people are subject to the law of the land. Hence, this law.

Also, the US Consitution does not forbid the passage of laws by our duly elected representatives or law enforcement by our civilian-controlled military or police. That is what has happened here.

What “torture” is has to be defined, and this act has done so while outlawing torture. You have to remember that the people we’re dealing with consider “torture” such things as being questioned by a woman, and are going to allege other kinds of torture through their attorneys routinely as is explicity advised in the Al Qaida manual.

And yes, they do have lawyers. And no, this doesn’t effect American citizens at all.

Also, if there is a problem with the Military Commissions Act, it can still be challenged and reversed or weakened by the Supreme Court.

Far from being a violation of the Consitution, this process is the Constitution in action.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 18, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #188826

fact - 12 Democratic Senators and 32 Democratic Representitives voted FOR this act. A total of 65 Senators and 250 Representitives voted FOR this act. Do you think that they don’t represent the public? A percentage of the population agrees with you and a large percentage of the poplulation disagrees with you, as reflected by the margins of the votes. Some abstained or just weren’t there to vote. Does that mean they don’t care? Or that they might feel one way, but know that the voters feel differently? Were their decisions not to vote a political move or just a question of not being there? What do find so repugnant about questioning, detaining, or spying on people who are believed to be a threat to you? Please, just once, would one of you give ONE NAME of any American that has been a target of this type of dastardly process? Please? This country has been known to make mistakes, but don’t you think that a lot of thought, study, effort and sincerity has gone into trying to save your life? To protect your children from terrorists? Do you really want them running amuck? Free to do whatever, whenever? Not me. I know that I have nothing to hide. I’m not calling anybody in a terrorist state, I’m not contributing to questionable charities, I’m not constantly grumbling and whining about the government. How about you?

Posted by: Ilsa at October 18, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #188827

Grant, spare us the Pastor Martin Niemöller quote. Or better yet, direct it to the Europeans, who really do sit around and do nothing about the outrages to human rights around the world and who shrink in fear from the Islamicists in their midst who do things like murder film-makers and attack synonogues. Currently we see artwork, films, and lectures be effectively censored in Europe because they are too afraid to “speak out”—that is, unless it’s against the US. Some risk that is.

In any case, Pastor Niemöller never said, “First they came for the suicide bombers and beheaders, but I was not a suicide bomber or beheader so I remained silent.”

In fact, this Act shows the very kind of bravery and willingness to confront evil that Pastor Niemöller is talking about.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 18, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #188828

Grant,

The way this law is written, by the time it takes away your freedom it’s already too late to not support it.

I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The government will never come after you and me… We pay the bills. They can’t tax me or fine me for speeding if I’m in Gitmo, can they? Stop being paranoid.
Better yet, stop trying to disguise partisan politics as paranoia.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 18, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #188830

Ilsa-

Only 28% of Americans believe congress is adaquately representing them right now. That doesn’t bode well for your theory that the house and senate votes were a representation of the will of the people.

Pilsner-

I just read it. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109WvENoM::

The best parts:

First read Sec. 948r where it gives wide latitude for military judges to decide if coerced evidence can be admitted.

Then notice Sec. 949a where it says:

(2) In establishing procedures and rules of evidence for military commission proceedings, the Secretary of Defense may prescribe the following provisions:

`(A) Evidence shall be admissible if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person.

`(B) Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization.

`(C) A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.

`(D) Evidence shall be admitted as authentic so long as—

`(i) the military judge of the military commission determines that there is sufficient basis to find that the evidence is what it is claimed to be; and

`(ii) the military judge instructs the members that they may consider any issue as to authentication or identification of evidence in determining the weight, if any, to be given to the evidence.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission if the proponent of the evidence makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet the evidence, the intention of the proponent to offer the evidence, and the particulars of the evidence (including information on the general circumstances under which the evidence was obtained). The disclosure of evidence under the preceding sentence is subject to the requirements and limitations applicable to the disclosure of classified information in section 949j(c) of this title.

Finally, read the part about the national security privilage in Sec. 949d(f). You don’t even get to see the evidence being used against you.

This stuff is scary and unprecedented. Military prosecutors are going to rack up convictions with no way to hold them accountable other than on a discretionary basis. See Sec. 950g where it repeatedly says the courts “may” decide matters of law.

I’d hate to be be an alien enemy combatant. Thats for sure. But wasn’t there already a process for this that wasn’t even used? This one is a sham…anyone who does read it can tell. Especially foreign nations who are looking to interpret some things as well.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #188832

“Wow, I didn’t realize that we fall under the Magna Carta…

Sad, so very sad. The Magna Carta is what all of our constitutional law is based upon. Without the M.C. there would be no Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or Constitution. The basic right to a jury trial goes back to the M.C. (1215) for those of you keeping score at home). It came about when the citizens of England got tired of King John trampling all over their freedom. Sound familiar?

From Wikipedia:

Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.

The influence of Magna Carta outside England can be seen in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed just about every common law state has been influenced by Magna Carta, making it one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy.


Posted by: etdefender at October 18, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #188833

“The Bill of Rights was never meant to be a suicide pact.”

NobleNation,

what an odd comment to make. I won’t even try to rationalize it or debate it because it is just too darned odd.

I am more astounded every day at the way our nation has been torn apart by this administration. Where does all the hatred come from? Has the vitriol from the WH become so powerful that some of you have lost your ability to either empathize or remember how viciously our forefathers fought to have the freedom to even develop a “Bill of Rights”.

Do you even realize that GW, TJ, BF, AH, and all the other originators of the Bill and Constitution and every other Declaration of our freedom, rights, and standard operating procedures, would be labeled Terrorists by Bush & Co, those like you and other Bush-infatuated non-thinkers.

Has the Bush brainwashing campaign become so successful that 33% of Americans would give away their civil rights wrapped into a beautiful package with a big bow? Why are you so quick to say, “Mr. Bush, you have my permission to take total control of my life and the life of my extended family”? What will you do, God forbid, should one of your close relatives (son, spouse, daughter, grandchild) be accused of being an enemy of the state? Don’t bother to rush to the phone and call the lawyer; don’t call your senator or congressman; don’t be surprized if your bank account is frozen because you might be a collaborator; don’t be surprized if you can’t find where he/she is being detained; don’t be surprized if he/she comes home (God willing) with some suspicious scars and mending bones, not to mention a rabid fear of water and air conditioning.

I can almost understand the apathy pervading our country because of the fact that (put so well by Colin Powell in describing his disputes with Rumsfeld); Trying to reason with the man wears one down so badly that you finally have to give up in self defense.

No matter what the issue, anyone taking exception to a Bush policy or action immediately sees the entire cadre of Bush bullies come out swinging, and vehemently denying that they are even remotely wrong or own the possibility that they may be mistaken. Then on the tail of one crisis comes yet another crisis. When a full-blown public outcry arises over one issue, another issue, usually worse, comes out. I, for one, find myself totally worn out at times by the constant barrage of crisis this administration self-inflicts and hoists on the American public.

Bush decries entire countries as being part of an Axis of Evil in cahoots with Satan himself. Yet when Chavez, whom I am in no way defending because he is not a good man, causes a loud, long outburst of protest when virtually paraphrasing Bush at the UN when he dared label Bush as the Devil leaving behind an odor of sulphur.

Venezuela offered “free” heating oil to Alaskan Natives, most of whom are too poor to afford the cost. The tribal leaders took it upon themselves to decline the offer. Bush & Co. ought to be ashamed that they are even witness to an offer like this from a foreign country. But, NO, you blindfolded folks who continue to support Bush & Co. hardly spoke above a whisper at the outrageous expense of the “Bridge to Nowhere” which Sen. Stevens so gallantly shoved through legislature. That porky pig project would have probably paid the heating cost of every poor native this year and beyond.

Condi Rice shook her head in wonder on a Sunday morning news show re their nuclear testing, that the leader of N. Korea sat down to a feast of exotic foods daily, had full access to all the expensive pleasures of life, while his nation of poverty often went without food. Yet, we are not allowed to note that Condi was found shoe shopping in New York as New Orleans poor suffered thru days of no food or potable water. Heckuva Job Brownie was worried about his dinner reservations for that evening when he arrived in Baton Rouge. Laura Bush held her ostentatious annual Valentine’s Day Ball while our troops fought in a trumped-up political war in Iraq. Heaven forbid anyone mention it to their faces, however. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO, American paupers, so saeth King George.

Many people shake their head in wonder at the possibility that one person can lead myriad people into a cult, and so control their brainpower, that they would willingly travel to a remote island and “drink the kool-aid” while singing the praises of their murderer.

Doesn’t surprize me at all. But I for one refuse to drink the Bush kool-aid. I know what it’s laced with.

Posted by: Scott at October 18, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #188836

There we have it — one more reason for the “bad guys” to hate Americans. Dubya couldn’t have done a better job of giving them good reason to hate us and an effective tool for recruiting more people to their cause if he’d set out to do just that.

We’re supposed to be the “good guys.” We’re supposed to be fighting against the “bad guys,” not turning into them.

Posted by: anomalous4 at October 18, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #188838

thetraveler:

“Stop being paranoid. Better yet, stop trying to disguise partisan politics as paranoia.”

As the Republicans and the Bush administration have made paranoia a political cottage industry perhaps this statement needs to be directed at them, not to a victim of their paranoia.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 18, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #188839

Ilsa asked: “fact - 12 Democratic Senators and 32 Democratic Representitives voted FOR this act. A total of 65 Senators and 250 Representitives voted FOR this act. Do you think that they don’t represent the public?”

Duh, let’s see Ilsa, does a 9 trillion dollar national debt represent the public will? With more than 60% of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq not point to how this government is NOT representing the public? How about wide open borders 5 years after 9/11? Does that lack of action by our government represent the people.

Just because politicians do it, does not, in any way, mean they are representing the will of the public. Let’s clear that up right here!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #188841

Trust me Jay Jay you’ll see how much we Dems noticed and how much we care in November.

Posted by: Pat at October 18, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #188842

Grant, thank you for your service to our Constitution. I have been a card carrying member of the ACLU for many years now, and no, I don’t agree with every position they have taken. But, I do believe in their mission and purpose to protect and defend the Constitution, something far too many politicians have resigned themselves from.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #188844

The Traveller, your comments sound like those of one who very much needs to believe in the authority which leads them. Hence, it is not surprising your comments support this authoritarian regime in America.

Cattle and sheep are easily led to slaughter. The German people were easily led to support the most heinous regime in modern history believing in their patriotism and leaders. The Japanese embarked on a path of imperialism that led them to cannibalism and playing catch with Chinese babies using bayonettes on their rifles.

It is incredible what blind faith in leadership is capable of by those who are compelled to be led by the turn of a phrase or emotional passion which dims the wit and blinds the skeptical eye.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #188849

Mr. Godwin-sorry, I mean David,

I have my problems with President Bush, as you should know by now, but I fail to see how this administration is any more “authoritarian” than any other.
If it is, it certainly hasn’t affected you or me or anyone else I’ve ever heard of.
This particular law doesn’t give more authority over us in any way.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 18, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #188854

The Traveler, Authoritarian means authoring the rules and laws in accordance with the wishes and needs of those in power. Note the word AUTHOR in Authoritarian. That is as opposed to Constitutional government wherein the the laws and rules are derived from the Constitution under a respect and observance of the rule of law.

The Bush administration is making up laws as it goes along using signing statements and a one party rubber stamp Congress to pass law in direct contradiction and opposition to our Constitution.

When leaders abuse any in a society, they abuse all in that society. For if the abuse of one person is not stopped, the abuse will grow like a cancer to include ever greater numbers, and if not you as a victim, your children, or theirs. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #188857

You know, if this Administration was up-front, honest, and had a track-record that was above reproach, it might be OK.

But it isn’t.

This administration is one of the worst ever.

This administration is pathetic.

Eminent domain abuses are on the rise (about 6 cases per day).

… more …

BTW, the recent record stock market volatility may be a warning sign. Especially if you look at the big picture. I don’t believe the pundits saying the economy is “sweet”, “good”, or “very good”. This illusion of a “good” economy is being financed with massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #188861

David,

When leaders abuse any in a society, they abuse all in that society. For if the abuse of one person is not stopped, the abuse will grow like a cancer to include ever greater numbers, and if not you as a victim, your children, or theirs.

Fortunately, this “abuse” of which you speak isn’t actually real. Who in our society is being abused (other then the laws that have always been around)? Bush is a weak president who has made a lot of mistakes, but that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that he is the AUTHOR of some sort of “abuse.” I haven’t been abused (any more than by any other president, at least), and neither have you.

Note the word AUTHOR in Authoritarian. That is as opposed to Constitutional government wherein the the laws and rules are derived from the Constitution under a respect and observance of the rule of law.

But just the opposite has happened here hasn’t it? A law was passed by Congress. The President used to have complete control over the situation and now he’s bound by the rule of law.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 18, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #188864

Scott

“Condi Rice shook her head in wonder on a Sunday morning news show re their nuclear testing, that the leader of N. Korea sat down to a feast of exotic foods daily, had full access to all the expensive pleasures of life, while his nation of poverty often went without food. Yet, we are not allowed to note that Condi was found shoe shopping in New York as New Orleans poor suffered thru days of no food or potable water. Heckuva Job Brownie was worried about his dinner reservations for that evening when he arrived in Baton Rouge. Laura Bush held her ostentatious annual Valentine’s Day Ball while our troops fought in a trumped-up political war in Iraq. Heaven forbid anyone mention it to their faces, however. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO, American paupers, so saeth King George.”

Are you sh——ng me. Maybe she went out to dinner during the earthquake in Hawaii.

Comparing the Secretary of State going shoe shopping to the Kim Jung “very” ll is about as sick as a human being can get. How many people in New Orleans are 3 inches shorter because their dictator starves them. How many eat bark for breakfast (if they can find some). Talk about no sense of perspective. UNBELIEVABLE

Posted by: Keith at October 18, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #188867

I’m sick to death of those justifying abusing the Constitution by saying it’s not a suicide pact, as if the fear-mongering of the past few years had any validity. No country or organization on the planet can undermine our rights, except our own government. But perhaps we don’t deserve the rights we claim to cherish; so many in this country are willing to toss aside anything when someone says, “Boo!”

Posted by: Trent at October 18, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #188868

“but I fail to see how this administration is any more “authoritarian” than any other.”

Was there some kind of accident, or is your blindness congenital?

“If it is, it certainly hasn’t affected you or me or anyone else I’ve ever heard of.”

Not a suprising comment. So, since your sure your unlikely to be swept up, you could care less? I guess that could apply to hunger, genocide, etc. I don’t personally know anyone starving to death, so I guess those commericials on late night TV with those kids covered in flies must just be made up, right?

Posted by: Observer at October 18, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #188870

Traveler,

There have been laws such as these passed before, and they have been used to incarcerate inocent citizens of this country.

FDR, had the Japanese.
John Adams jailed American newspapermen.
Woodrow Wilson jailed pacifists during WW1.

It has happened before, who’s to say it can’t happen again.

Oh, and BTW, we vote in a new President in two years.

How will he/she use this law?

Posted by: Rocky at October 18, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #188875

I have wondered how a Hitler or Mussolini could be elected and put into power and end up doing the things they did, well I wonder no more. This is how fascism happens 1 step at a time.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 18, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #188877

FDR, had the Japanese.
John Adams jailed American newspapermen.
Woodrow Wilson jailed pacifists during WW1. It has happened before, who’s to say it can’t happen again.

That is one the most asinine statements I’ve read so far. Aren’t we supposed to learn from our past mistakes.

So if North Korean uses nukes on another country its ok because the US used them before?

Posted by: AL at October 18, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #188878

Was there some kind of accident, or is your blindness congenital?

No blindness, you’re just not giving me anything to see. Like these “abuses of society” David spoke of.

There have been laws such as these passed before, and they have been used to incarcerate inocent citizens of this country.
FDR, had the Japanese.
John Adams jailed American newspapermen.
Woodrow Wilson jailed pacifists during WW1.

Laws such laws as this? Oh, you mean laws with vague similarities to this one, which were actually written to oppress Aerican citizens.

Oh, and BTW, we vote in a new President in two years.
How will he/she use this law?

Same way Bush will, I guess. Unless it’s changed. It won’t affect us, whoever is President.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 18, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #188879

etdefender,

Thanks for putting Magna Carta in perspective. These conservatives only believe in precedent when it suits them. But then, I guess rule of law had to start somewhere, so they’ll just start calling habeas corpus revolutionary so they can shoot it down.

Posted by: Steve K at October 18, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #188880

j2t2,

To quote someone from 50+/- years ago (can’t remember who):

When fascism shows up in America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross
Hmmmm, reminds me of the Bush+FREC cabal.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 18, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #188882

“No blindness, you’re just not giving me anything to see. Like these “abuses of society””

The true scope of the wiretapping program is still “classified”, ie: bush refuses to reveal the truth. We DO know it’s not like it’s been portrayed in several republican political ads featuring turban wearing men calling “sleepercells” in the US.
As for abuses to prisoners, those are documented, and probably the tip of the iceberg. THe provision for retroactive forgiveness for acts of torture alread committed makes that clear.
But hey, if you COMPLETELY TRUST THE US GOVERNMENT WITH UTTER POWER, UNCHECKED, WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, I guess your what they call a “new conservative”.

“It won’t affect us, whoever is President.”

Hmmmm, I’m trying to decide which word suits this comment better. Naive? Simplisitic? or Sucker?

Posted by: Observer at October 18, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #188883

Al,

“That is one the most asinine statements I’ve read so far.”

Wow, those are strong words, bubba.

“Aren’t we supposed to learn from our past mistakes.”

Yes, and yet somehow Bush got elected twice.


Traveler,

“It won’t affect us, whoever is President.”

How do know that for sure?
Do you have some inside information you’re not sharing?

If (and admittedly it is only an if), you ever got picked up on any charge (and this can now happen to anyone), you can now be held indefinitely, without knowing what the evidence is against you.
How are you going to defend yourself if you don’t have access to the evidence against you?

That doesn’t bother you at all?

Posted by: Rocky at October 18, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #188888

The true scope of the wiretapping program is still “classified”, ie: bush refuses to reveal the truth.

So you know enough about it to know you don’t know enough about it? Really, you don’t know anything, which is odd, since a lot of information on it has been released.

As for abuses to prisoners, those are documented, and probably the tip of the iceberg.

A bit off topic, but I agree that prison reform is a major issue. Especially now that we know that military prisioners, such as the ones at Gitmo, are treated better and have more rights than actual citizens in prisons here in the states. Of course, no one wants to talk about prision reform because non-stories like this are more politically expediant.

if you COMPLETELY TRUST THE US GOVERNMENT WITH UTTER POWER, UNCHECKED, WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, I guess your what they call a “new conservative”.

I don’t. And I’m not.

Hmmmm, I’m trying to decide which word suits this comment better. Naive? Simplisitic? or Sucker?

The best discription is “not wearing a foil hat.”

If (and admittedly it is only an if), you ever got picked up on any charge (and this can now happen to anyone), you can now be held indefinitely, without knowing what the evidence is against you.

That’s based on the false premise that the government would want anything to do with me. If they did, I’m sure they would have plenty of evidence.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 18, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #188894

Traveler,

“That’s based on the false premise that the government would want anything to do with me.”

Apparently you’ve never heard of Murphy’s Law.


“If they did, I’m sure they would have plenty of evidence.”

And apparently you don’t wish, or worse yet, don’t care to know what that evidence might be.

Posted by: Rocky at October 18, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #188898

Apparently you’ve never heard of Murphy’s Law.

I have. Fortionately, thats’ also based on a false premise. Everything that can go wrong doesn’t go wrong.

“If they did, I’m sure they would have plenty of evidence.”
pparently you don’t wish, or worse yet, don’t care to know what that evidence might be.

Hmm… In your orogional senario, there was no evidence.
Thing is, the government has no interest in me and they don’t want to. They need votes and tax money (from all of us) more than anything. Imprisoning innocent people for no reason is counterproductive to all the other silly stuff the government is up to.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 19, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #188901

Look, a vigilant defense of our Constitutional rights and freedoms is always important, but you guys are barking up the wrong tree here.

If you want to get alarmed about “slippery slopes” there are MANY, MANY, MANY laws and regulations out there which can be abused to much more sinister ends than this one. Relatively speaking, this one actually has an enormous number of safeguards in place.

Think of the Kelo decision. Your property can be confiscated by the government. For good reason? They’d say so, but perhaps they’d decide to do it because they don’t like your political beliefs. Why not, if you’re truly worried about the potential for abuse?

Think of McCain-Feingold. The government regulates how much political speech you’re allowed if you don’t fall into any protected and exempt category (i.e, the media) which doesn’t have to follow the same rules.

In fact, any district attorney anywhere in the country can make your life a living hell by accusing you of anything on the books, with actual proof or not (see the Duke rape case or the DeLay case in Texas) if they want to persecute you under the law.

This act doesn’t even effect American citizens.

It only effects enemies who are engaged in terrorist activities, so if you’re not a terrorist, relax. If you are, and only if you are, then maybe you have genuine cause for concern.


Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 19, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #188904

It only effects enemies who are engaged in terrorist activities, so if you’re not a terrorist, relax. If you are, and only if you are, then maybe you have genuine cause for concern.

Exactly!

But some people don’t want to talk about oppression that actually affects us, because they either agree with it (emanate domain(both atries, btw)), or it’s simply not politically expedient.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 19, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #188919
It only effects enemies who are engaged in terrorist activities, so if you’re not a terrorist, relax.

No. It only affects those that the President, unilaterally and without oversight, decides to declare might have some connection to being opposed to the United States.

There is nothing in the law that says that the people locked up indefinitely without habeas corpus actually have to have been “engaged in terrorist activities”. With this law on the books, your rights to due process and constitutional guarantees exist solely at the whim of the President.

And you’re ok with that?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 19, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #188926

There is nothing in the law that says that the people locked up indefinitely without habeas corpus actually have to have been “engaged in terrorist activities”. With this law on the books, your rights to due process and constitutional guarantees exist solely at the whim of the President.

Actually, the law says, “alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

In other words, not citizens.
Kindly refrain from telling me this law takes away my rights, or those of any other American citizen, because it doesn’t.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 19, 2006 3:22 AM
Comment #188943

Fine, Traveler, I’ll amend my statement to “With this law on the books, the rights of billions of humans to due process and constitutional guarantees exist solely at the whim of the President.”

Seriously, does that make it ok for you? Is this a standard that you really thing that reasonable, lawful nations should have?

Imagine that you were on vacation in Germany and the British military arrested you and sent you to one of their bases in Cyprus. They claimed that you were a terrorist and never let you see the evidence against you, never let you try to establish your innocence, and denied all your legal rights. All that happened is that Tony Blair declared you an “enemy combatant”, so every right you ever had was gone.

That is perfectly analogous to the situation that we have put some of the Guantanamo prisoners in. I’m sure you wouldn’t think it fair for Tony Blair to lock you indefinitely up based on no evidence in a way that you had no recourse, so why is it acceptable for Bush to do the exact same thing to other people?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 19, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #188947

Traveler,

“Fortionately, thats’ also based on a false premise. Everything that can go wrong doesn’t go wrong.”

Actually, Murphy’s law is “Anything that can go wrong, will”, that is a pretty large distinction.

Shit does sometimes happen.

“Actually, the law says, ‘alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States.’”

So, who makes that distinction? You?
What exactly does an “enemy combatant” look like?
Can we assume from your response that you’re a pasty white guy?

That would make you look like Timothy McVeigh, right?

Posted by: Rocky at October 19, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #188961

“unlawful enemy combatants” includes citizens. Why not? How about that asswipe charged with treason in absentia? We may already have him in custody but the gov’t doesn’t have to tell anyone. In fact how do I know my neighbor isn’t really on a business trip but is instead at gitmo being water boarded because his cousin is from Lebanon?
It is ignorant in it’s most pure form to assume that a gov’t won’t abuse it’s power. Simply ignorant.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 19, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #188980

I am so sick of you right wingers and your BS. I am old enough to have lost family and friends to wars to defend the constitution and our rights. As I have heard and I believe “Just how much King George is doing for our security can this country stand”

Posted by: Upnorth at October 19, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #188981

Lawnboy,

Fine, Traveler, I’ll amend my statement to “With this law on the books, the rights of billions of humans to due process and constitutional guarantees exist solely at the whim of the President.”

That makes no sense. If billions of people were attacking the US, we would all be dead by now.

Imagine that you were on vacation in Germany and the British military arrested you and sent you to one of their bases in Cyprus. They claimed that you were a terrorist and never let you see the
evidence against you, never let you try to establish your innocence, and denied all your legal rights. All that happened is that Tony Blair declared you an “enemy combatant”, so every right you ever had was gone.

That’s based on another silly false premise. I’m not going to be engaged in hostilities against those nations in the first place.

Rocky,

So, who makes that distinction? You?

The distinction between what?

What exactly does an “enemy combatant” look like?

The name is pretty self explanitory, isn’t it?

Can we assume from your response that you’re a pasty white guy?

No.
And by the way, skin color does not determine political views.

That would make you look like Timothy McVeigh, right?

Um… No.

Dave1-20-09,

“unlawful enemy combatants” includes citizens. Why not?

Because the law actually says “alien unlawful enemy combatants.”
In terms of federal law, “alien” means someone who is not a citizen.
Now, you can selectivaly drop words to try and twist the argument, or you can put some thought into this and sound like you know what you’re talking about.

In fact how do I know my neighbor isn’t really on a business trip but is instead at gitmo being water boarded because his cousin is from Lebanon?

If he’s not an alien engaged in ulawful combat, I wouldn’t wory about it.

It is ignorant in it’s most pure form to assume that a gov’t won’t abuse it’s power. Simply ignorant.

Very true. But I only wory about abuses the government is capable of. You know, all the laws aimed at citizens.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 19, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #188992
Fine, Traveler, I’ll amend my statement to “With this law on the books, the rights of billions of humans to due process and constitutional guarantees exist solely at the whim of the President.”

That makes no sense. If billions of people were attacking the US, we would all be dead by now.

The logical leap you make isn’t necessary. The President, at his whim, can now deny the rights of anyone he deems to be an “enemy combatant”. It doesn’t mean that person actually has to be an enemy combatant.

The rights on non-Americans across the globe exist only as far as the U.S. President wishes them to exist.

Your assumption that this applies only to people that have attacked or opposed America is not valid, as there are many cases of people that we have locked away without having any proof that they attacked us.

That’s based on another silly false premise. I’m not going to be engaged in hostilities against those nations in the first place.

That’s beside the point. You don’t need to be engaged in hostilities. The only requirement is that Blair declare that you were - a much lower standard with no oversight.

What exactly does an “enemy combatant” look like?

The name is pretty self explanitory, isn’t it?

No, not really. Since there is no oversight for who gets the label, the label means whatever the President wants it to mean.

If he’s not an alien engaged in ulawful combat, I wouldn’t wory about it.

Why on earth do you make such assumptions?

Abu Bakkar Qassim was in Guantanamo, and he writes that “(l)ike hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake.”

I’m sure you’ll just say that he’s a lying terrorist, so of course he’d say that. But that would mean that you’re assuming his guilt to prove his guilt. I’m not willing to rely on such circular reasoning.

In another case not about Guantanamo but still on the subject, a Canadian returning from vacation in Tunisia with his family was arrested at JFK, sent to Syria, and tortured there. The Canadian government conducted a thorough investigation, and they found that Arar’s story was credible, and that there was no evidence of a link to terrorism at all.

You’re showing a lot of faith that this law will be used only against those it “should” be used against, but there is already ample evidence that this administration is casting nets too far.

Innocent people very likely could be held in perpetuity with no legal recourse. Do you want that done in your name? Can you say it’s not happening with any level of confidence based on the evidence?

I asked you to imagine the UK using a law like this to imprison you. What if, instead, Venezuela or Iran or North Korea used a law like this to imprison you and never let you see the evidence against you? In such a case, the US government would have no legal or moral authority to try to free you because our enemies would just be following our example. Perhaps you trust the US not to misuse this law, but would you trust those foreign governments not to misuse this law? If not, doesn’t that indicate that it’s probably a bad law?

Very true. But I only wory about abuses the government is capable of. You know, all the laws aimed at citizens.

This law is aimed at non-citizens, but it doesn’t mean that the government isn’t capable of abusing the law. What an absurd non-sequitur.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 19, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #188994

Traveler,

“The name is pretty self explanitory, isn’t it?”

“No.
And by the way, skin color does not determine political views.”

So you believe that only those of Middle Eastern heritage will be the “beneficiary” of this law?
Alien means everybody.

White folks?
There are Muslims that are Caucasian.

Or are we only talking about “swarthy” aliens?
Southern Italians maybe, or Greek, Slavic, or even Latinos?

Do we include Indonesians, how about Filipinos, or folks from India?
There are huge Muslim populations all over Asia.

Do we include Blacks? There are possible “enemy combatants” from Africa.

Does someone have to be committing a crime to be picked up, or merely suspected?
Is dissent enough to be a suspect?

You don’t seem to get it.
Anyone, of any race, is now suspect, and under this law, the government now doesn’t have to disclose what the evidence is to take you off the streets, at their whim.

Please save the “if you’re not doing anything wrong” speech. People get picked up and arrested wrongly every day.

Posted by: Rocky at October 19, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #188997

Pilsner-

“It only effects enemies who are engaged in terrorist activities, so if you’re not a terrorist, relax.”

Try reading it again, and this time think about the arguments that can, and therefore, will be made by prosecutors. Notice that evidence can unilaterally be declared priviledged and thus not even disclosed to defendants. Then notice that almost any kind of coerced or hearsay evidence can be used by the government that would never be allowed in a normal proceeding because of its highly questionable nature. Then notice that there is no non-discretionary appeals process.

Sounds to me like it would be extremely easy to pick someone at random in Iraq, put them indefinately in a detention center, prosecute them with bogus charges, use highly questionable corerced and hearsay evidence, convict and sentence them to death, and have courts refuse to hear an appeal of the decision.

You don’t find that a troubling precedent? Take off the partisan sunglasses and read this thing.

Did I not wirite a post clearly outlining some of the vague and scary language used in the act?…and I cited the subsections, and provided a link. Yet I’m still hearing Pilsner and others spout off about how there are all these built in protections? Where? All I see is vague, easily manipulated language and any procedural accountability is strictly on a discretionary basis.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #188999

Lawnboy and Rocky,

First of all, what happens to foreigners under this law is a subject for debate, but that’s not what this article, or your other posts, were about.
You guys were trying to spread the lie, for political purposes, that this particular law affects American citizens. It doesn’t.

The President, at his whim, can now deny the rights of anyone he deems to be an “enemy combatant”. It doesn’t mean that person actually has to be an enemy combatant.

No, he can’t. The President did have this power and the law took it away from him.

Rocky, I realy don’t see what “race” or skin color has to do with any of this. You brought it up.

Please save the “if you’re not doing anything wrong” speech. People get picked up and arrested wrongly every day.

Yes, but not for being alien enemy combatants.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 19, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #189002
Lawnboy and Rocky,

First of all, what happens to foreigners under this law is a subject for debate, but that’s not what this article, or your other posts, were about.
You guys were trying to spread the lie, for political purposes, that this particular law affects American citizens. It doesn’t.

I retracted my earlier overstatement and am now talking about the negative effects this law has on non-citizens, and the precedents that sets.

I’m not lying here, so I would like an apology.

Then again, I would also like you to acknowledge that you have no grounds for your faith in the administration not to misuse this law, so I’ll have to wait a while, I suppose.

No, he can’t. The President did have this power and the law took it away from him.

No, the law confirms the power. It just codified it and added a layer of bureaucracy to confirm that the prisoners have no rights.

Did you miss the part about the President suspending rights of habeas corpus?

Yes, but not for being alien enemy combatants.

BS. I gave links to two counter-examples to your claim. Mistakes happen. Hiding your head in the sand doesn’t make them disappear.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 19, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #189014

“Please save the “if you’re not doing anything wrong” speech. People get picked up and arrested wrongly every day.

Yes, but not for being alien enemy combatants.”

Well lets just add another one to the pile then, shall we? Seems to be a popular montra these days: Something isn’t working? Add to it.

And never mind the horrible language that I keep pointing to in the law itself that neither traveler nor Pilsner will touch that makes being accused under this law MUCH MUCH scarier with no accountability. This is ok with you? Remember that other nations are looking at this very carefully, and our citizens do travel.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #189016
Because the law actually says “alien unlawful enemy combatants.” —traveller
Citation please. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 19, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #189023

Dave-

Just read the link I provided. Everyone should. It is the full text of the Act itself. The words you are looking for is in the very beginning.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109WvENoM::

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #189024

Kevin23,

That link doesn’t work. That’s a temporary link, and the website makes it expire.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 19, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #189030

I retracted my earlier overstatement and am now talking about the negative effects this law has on non-citizens, and the precedents that sets.
I’m not lying here, so I would like an apology.

I misunderstood you and I’m sorry.

Citation please.

Certainly:
Military Commissions Act of 2006
It’s amazing what you can learn by reading…

Check out the law’s definitions os the terms “ulnlawful enemy combatant,” “lawfull enemy combatant” and “alien.” You will see that, in reality, the law applies to very few people, none of them American citizens.
Also, the law requires the SECDEF to report to Congress about all comissions. You know, the congress that’s about to become Democratic. I wouldn’t say there’s “no accountability.”

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 19, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #189038

The courts have always the responsibility and authority to oversee legal proceedings. Replacing the power of the independent judiciary with an annual report of unspecified vagueness means that all effective oversight has been eliminated.

That’s no accountability.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 19, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #189040

“Think of McCain-Feingold. The government regulates how much political speech you’re allowed “

Only if you define “political speech” as cash money.

Posted by: Observer at October 19, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #189045

Try this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #189048

Traveler-

Keep reading. What exactly are they required to report, and how are they reviewed? Those are the important parts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #189051

Also, what remedies are available to congress should they protest? There is no mandatory review mechanism. Impeachment? Pretty big political step to take for one case against a terrorist isn’t it? I guarantee the drafters of this bill asked these questions, and drafted the language accordingly. Even a first year law student would do that.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #189060

trav,

That’s not a citation, that’s a link.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 19, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #189069

Dave1-

See Sec. 948a(1) and (3) for the definitions

and then Sec. 948b(a) and Sec. 948c for their use

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #189094

Reading this blog for the first time today reinforces my opinion that conservative and liberals alike don’t listen to one another. their appears to be much vitriol and hatred coming from both sides of the debate. Both sides believe firmly that they are correct and the other side must be stupid. Each side has their talking points and won’t leave them. There is no listening going on here. Just endless talking. I feel like the debate is almost useless, because neither side is willing to budge an inch. Not just on this subject, but almost any subject that might come up in politics.
Off topic a little, but I need to say that both liberals and conservatives in Washington are guilty as they point their finger at the other regarding this matter, or sex scandals, corporate greed,
Calling the administration pathetic, or the President weak, or saying that liberals are impotent, etc… doesn’t help either, it just fuels the fire.
Frankly I am disappointed with most of the politicians from both sides of the aisle. Should it be the party and the administration that we vote for, or should it be for the individual? No wonder there is such poor voter turnout here in USA, people believe that regardless of who they vote in, they will get the same bought and paid for politicians.
I get so frustrated when I listen to all the blaming and watch all of the pointing of fingers. Remember when you are pointing your finger at someone, their are probably three pointing back at you.
Ok… I will step off my soap boxn now, and allow you guys to rip me apart now, just as you do to eachother.

Posted by: Ken at October 19, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #189105

Ken-

First off, disecting a new law passed by congress and debating its implications is probably one of the most constructive things we could be doing. Nowhere near “stupid” as you say. Don’t be so condescending if you wish your point to be taken seriously.

Second, your whole post looks very familiar. Was it also in another thread?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #189176

I think there are serious problems on both sides of the issues (maybe all sides), but this really disturbs me.

What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court does not uphold it’s duties as protector of the constitution and 3rd member of the checks and balances system?

I have been told that the founding fathers indicated the people could and should rise up against the government if the government revokes the rights of the American people (such as habeas corpus, or does this only apply to non-americans in this bill?) Is this true or is someone lying to me?

I cannot imagine having to rise up against our own government, against the America we have known and loved, to be branded as a terrorist yourself for fighting to protect the rights we take for granted.

Undoubtedly there will be some who want to tar and feather me for saying anything close to this, yet I am not advocating this by any means! It is way to early, even if the Supreme Court fails to uphold the constitution, to assume our government will become a monster. Nor is there reason to assume that any such changes would become permanent.

From what I have seen and read over the many years, the government has demonstrated time and again that we cannot simply trust they have taken the necessary steps and come to the right conclusions. There have been many examples throughout American history without having to enter into any debate about Bush’s wiretap program, way too many to go into detail with here.

The whole thing worries me immensely as history has shown the unthinkable can happen!

Posted by: Miles at October 20, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #189200

Thanks kevin,

I had time last night to read the bill more closely. It does seem to apply to “aliens” only. Of course, since “aliens” means 95% of our fellow inhabitants of the earth, I’m not sure where that leaves us. Does it also mean that as citizens we’re even less protected? I.e. that there isn’t even a crap law like this to provide “guidance”?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #189205

What ever happened to the idea that all people are entitled to at least a minimum core set of rights? Habeas Corpus is supposed to be one of the rights entitled to all and recognized as such by the United States regardless of whether other nations acknowledge them.

Or am I all wet about this?

What happened to the Canadian guy is really scary and seems to be well documented. Why is it OK for any non-American to go through this as long as it isn’t an American citizen? No one else is supposed to have these rights?

Maybe this makes me sound like a Bush hater. I don’t hate Bush, I agree with some things and disagree with others (getting to be more and more lately). After all, this law was the work of a large number of politicians on capital hill. But I get really nervous about constitutional issues which have potentially dangerous consequences not only for us as citizens, but also how the world views and interacts with us as a nation.

Posted by: Miles at October 20, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #189215

Did anyone beside me read the entire law? It allows citizens to be arrested the same as aliens if you read the fine print… But no the government would never make “fine print.”

Posted by: Syberseal at October 20, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #189217

Syberseal-

Yes, I read the entire law. Please provide a citation for me to verify this “fine print”.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #189261

Kevin,

I was not trying to be condescending. I was solely trying to voice a frustration! First, I think that debate is good, but only if people come with an open mind, and stop sticking to talking points. Second, I did not call anyone or anything, “stupid”. I used the words, “almost useless”, to describe the debate; meaning pointless, or inability to work together etc…These words came only from the frustration that I get from watching people talk without any listening happening and because of the hate and vitriol being spued by both sides. I am not referring to the people writing on this blog at all. It is only to the politicians in Washington do I speak of. Until the finger pointing and name calling end, no debate will work in Washington.
Finally, Honestly, This is the first blog I have ever written on, anywhere. I have never posted this and it is original, as I typed it, bad as it may be. Anyway, this is way off the point of the discussion so I appologize for even bringing it up. I just wanted to make the statement I wrote earlier clearer.

Posted by: Ken at October 20, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #189273

Ken

You did call something “stupid”:

Ken said: “Both sides believe firmly that they are correct and the other side must be stupid.”

But now that you clarify that you were referencing the debate in Washington and not here, I apologize. AND I agree with you. =)

I was just confused and thought you were belittling the effort that goes into our putting our thoughts down in writing here on this blog. I think you can understand that.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #189564

“I hear theres rumors on the uh, internets…” one of Gee Dubya Bush’s many famous comments has prompted me to jump into this political war of words with the rest of you.
Bill Clinton LIED about getting a blow-job and got impeached. Gee Dubya Bush LIED about Iraq and got 3000+ Americans killed and over 100,000 Iraqi casualties (both numbers are increasing daily).
All for, what was that again ??? (oil, no, we would never allow that)
How many reasons has Gee Dubya Bush come up with to be in Iraq to date? “I hear theres rumors on the uh, internets…” “that Iraq has WMD”, nope, didn’t find any, “that Iraq WANTS US TO FREE THEM”; nope, they hate us even more then ever; “that fighting in Iraq will spread freedom and democracy in the middle east”; nope, just a republican battle cry proved to be another lie. Gee Dubya Bush’s TOP SECRET INTELLIGENCE must be these “rumors on the uh, internets…” Why has he changed his reason for being there from WMD to spreading freedom and democracy? He changed the reason for being there mid-stream, why not change the course of action?

He insisted that we had no time wait and went on against the UN’s advice.

Fast forward, North Korea, a long time sworn enemy to the USA tells the ENTIRE WORLD they are building WMD, Gee Dubya Bush’s response, “I am concerned…” North Korea detonates a WMD and Gee Dubya Bush says “we must let the UN do its job”. Why the sudden change in Gee Dubya Bush’s policy of shoot first, ask questions later??? Oh yes, North Korea has nothing of value for a Texas Oil Baron to plunder for his oil executive friends. After all, he is only president for 8 years; his buddies will watch his interest while he is out playing president.

Lets not make the same MISTAKE twice, GET OFF YOUR ASS and VOTE DEMOCRAT, we can not afford to prolong the Republican Parties disregard for the Constitution and abuse of power. Its time Gee Dubya’s rubber stamp politicians get sent packing. And if whats going on is not enough to piss a Republican off and motivate them to do the right thing, then they are as diluted and self medicated as Condilisa Rice and the entire White House put together.

http://www.goyk.com/flash.asp?path=1041

Posted by: Elephant911 at October 22, 2006 5:32 AM
Post a comment