NationStates Jolt Archive

No matter who he or she is, no matter the party, no matter what freedoms you think you have, because if this current bill concerning torture passes, you too could be considered an enemy combatant, tossed in jail, tortured, and never be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514_pf.html)
Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as "unlawful enemy combatants," the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

The government has maintained since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that, based on its reading of the laws of war, anyone it labels an unlawful enemy combatant can be held indefinitely at military or CIA prisons. But Congress has not yet expressed its view on who is an unlawful combatant, and the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the matter.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The new provision, which would cover captives held by the CIA, is more expansive than the one incorporated by the Defense Department on Sept. 5 in new rules that govern the treatment of detainees in military custody. The military's definition of unlawful combatants covers only "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who "supported hostilities" -- rather than those who "engage in acts" against the United States -- the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

Martin noted that "the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen" and "held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties." She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

Nothing in the proposed legislation -- which mostly concerns the creation of new military panels, known as "commissions," to try terrorism suspects -- directly addresses such CIA apprehensions and "renditions."

But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding, an assistant general counsel at the CIA from 1989 to 1995.

Traditionally, courts have found it reasonable for parties to armed conflicts to seize or try people they encounter on a battlefield, to keep them from returning to the hostilities, added Spaulding, who was also a general counsel for the House and Senate intelligence committees. "The Supreme Court could potentially look at this and say Congress has now defined how anyone anywhere in the world" is subject to detention and military trial, even when far from an active combat zone, she said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."

Spokesmen for John W. Warner (R-Va.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) -- the senators leading negotiations with the Bush administration -- did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the new language, but others on Capitol Hill said the three had accepted it.

Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here."

He was joined by the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said that under the provision, legal U.S. immigrants could be held "until proven innocent, not until proven guilty."

Bruce Fein, a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, testified against the provision at a Senate hearing. Kenneth W. Starr, a solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, said in a letter to Specter that he concerned the legislation "may go too far in limiting habeas corpus relief."
So here's how it could work. Say you're a political dissident--doesn't matter which party you belong to now or who's in the White House, because I'm talking about the possibilities of this legislation, so allow your imagination to run free. Picture your worst nightmare in the White House--if you're a fundamentalist Christian, imagine a god-hating atheist is president and he's trying to enforce the separation of church and state to the point where he wants to outlaw your church; whatever.

Under this legislation, the President, without having to run the decision past anyone else, could declare you an enemy combatant, have you locked up, remove your habeas corpus rights so you can't challenge the detention, and never have you brought to trial. All by calling you an enemy combatant. That's what could happen under this legislation.

Some of you will no doubt say I'm being paranoid, that my hatred of the Bush administration has me jumping at shadows, that this legislation would never be used this way against a US citizen. You're entitled to your opinion. You'd also be wrong.

If history teaches us anything, it's that legislation that can be used for a purpose almost certainly will be used for that purpose, eventually, and make no mistake about it--this legislation could potentially be used as a tool for crushing political dissent.

Now is the time to begin planning an invasion of the USA to restore democracy. Just in case.
*hopes Bush doesn't lurk on NSG*

Now is the time to begin planning an invasion of the USA to restore democracy. Just in case.
*hopes Bush doesn't lurk on NSG*

Whatever you do, don't make the same mistake Cheney did and think you'll be greeted as liberators. ;)

Whatever you do, don't make the same mistake Cheney did and think you'll be greeted as liberators. ;)

Actually I expect the American militias to be rather upset that they didn't get to free the country themselves. Upset to the point of shooting at the invasion force too.

Actually I expect the American militias to be rather upset that they didn't get to free the country themselves. Upset to the point of shooting at the invasion force too.

No no, the "militias," aka people who like guns but arn't actually organized or trained together, are the ones in support of stuff like this.

Mmm.... Benedict Arnold masks, my man, Benedict Arnold masks.

No no, the "militias," aka people who like guns but arn't actually organized or trained together, are the ones in support of stuff like this.

Yeah? Oh well, at least the search for WMDs won't take long.

No matter who he or she is, no matter the party, no matter what freedoms you think you have, because if this current bill concerning torture passes, you too could be considered an enemy combatant, tossed in jail, tortured, and never be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514_pf.html)

Hm. Going by the definition, anyone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is a candidate for the Guantanamo treatment. One would hope that the Geneva definitions would still apply to soldiers in war, so that this definition applies only to those that fall outside of the Convention. So, our treatment of suspected terrorists would match what we've been doing to them now, including the controversial seizure and detainment without trial and indefinite holding.

Basically, the Senate and President are working out a way to code the current treatment of detainees into lawful practice. Yeah, I don't like it, either.

Sounds like you might be paranoid Nazz, nearly as paranoid as those nutty folk who once apon a time thought peoples' rights needed protecting from their own government. That lot were real paranoid-delusionists, they even went so far as to have such rights as they thought ought to be protected, enshrined in some fan-dangled constitution thingie...

Rights are unnecessary because everyone knows that no one ever abuses power. It's not like anyone would ever act in an untoward manner for personal gain, so what the heck is the point of all these fancy-pancy 'rights' everyone harps about.

The fact is being in a position of power over others is an odious position that no person would ever abuse in order to maintain said power. It's not like the kind of people who run for political leadership are the ambitious type anyhow.

Now if you dont mind I have to get back to training my pet unicorn to fetch the morning paper.

Well, so much for *the land of the free* :(

How did anyone come to the conclusion that this was a good idea based on US law ? :rolleyes:

Hm. Going by the definition, anyone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is a candidate for the Guantanamo treatment. One would hope that the Geneva definitions would still apply to soldiers in war, so that this definition applies only to those that fall outside of the Convention. So, our treatment of suspected terrorists would match what we've been doing to them now, including the controversial seizure and detainment without trial and indefinite holding.

Basically, the Senate and President are working out a way to code the current treatment of detainees into lawful practice. Yeah, I don't like it, either.

The biggest danger is that this works in concert with the stripping of habeas protections in another part of the bill. In short, it means that anyone could be declared an enemy combatant and the government wouldn't have to prove you are unless, get this, they bring you to trial. But they don't have to bring you to trial if they don't want to under this law, and until they do, you can't challenge your status before a judge, because the judges have been restricted from hearing your case until you've been tried and convicted.

They've written Catch-22 into the law code.

Y'know... I could swear someone has pulled this sort of thing before.

Stahli? Stanton? Stratford? No, I've got it: Stalin!

That's right, ladies and gents, our fine President Mr. Bush can send you off to his camps at the twitch of a finger too!

Well, I for one have absolutely no sympathy for any terrorists or the people who supports terrorism.

Do you think that the terrorists take care of the people they kidnap before they behead them?

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?

Also, do you really believe that our government is going to pick up an average Joe and jail him indefinately over someone who has relations with terrorism? Give me a break. I do think on an occasion a mishap can and will occur, however, It is due to the fact we are humans not Gods.

Oh and as for the 100% atheist God hating person...I really don't think we need to worry about him/she getting into the White House. I say that for many of reasons. :D

Well, I for one have absolutely no sympathy for any terrorists or the people who supports terrorism.

Do you think that the terrorists take care of the people they kidnap before they behead them?

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?

Also, do you really believe that our government is going to pick up an average Joe and jail him indefinately over someone who has relations with terrorism? Give me a break. I do think on an occasion a mishap can and will occur, however, It is due to the fact we are humans not Gods.
The fact that we make mistakes is why there are protections like habeas corpus built into our laws. That's precisely why removing them is dangerous.

But here's the more important reason you ought to be worried. Let's say your President has a beef with you over some political stand you hold, completely unrelated to terrorism. He/She could still claim you're an enemy combatant, have you arrested and held indefinitely, never bring you to trial, and you'd be able to do fuck-all about it because you can't challenge your status until you're convicted.

You'll never be convicted because there's never a trial, so you can never prove you're innocent of whatever charges he made. Worried yet? If you aren't, you should be.

*sniffs* What's that I smell? *sniffs* The fires of revolution?

Fuck. I hate revolution. Reformation is so much better. Meh well. *Picks up AK-47* TO ARMS MY BROTHERS!

Well, I for one have absolutely no sympathy for any terrorists or the people who supports terrorism.

Do you think that the terrorists take care of the people they kidnap before they behead them?

Do you want American soldiers at risk for this sort of treatment too? Because that's what you are opening them up to by doing this.

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?

Because we know that the terrorists are evil and have to be stopped. The US on the other hand, is supposed to be better than them, not just as bad.

Also, do you really believe that our government is going to pick up an average Joe and jail him indefinately over someone who has relations with terrorism? Give me a break. I do think on an occasion a mishap can and will occur, however, It is due to the fact we are humans not Gods.

I don't trust the gov't with power unconstrained by checks and balances. I don't know if this President would take part in that (he might, but I'm not sure), but I don't trust every President not to (and we've seen how stupid we get when we are terrified). Why should we have mishaps at all? If we give people a trial based on real evidence, it shouldn't be an issue.

If we don't have evidence enough to comit, why are we bringing these people in at all?

Well, I for one have absolutely no sympathy for any terrorists or the people who supports terrorism.

Do you think that the terrorists take care of the people they kidnap before they behead them?

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?

Also, do you really believe that our government is going to pick up an average Joe and jail him indefinately over someone who has relations with terrorism? Give me a break. I do think on an occasion a mishap can and will occur, however, It is due to the fact we are humans not Gods.

Ofcourse ! Your government would never arrest someone who wasnt a terrorist would they ?

Oh wait...they've already released a german guy with nothing more then an *oops, sowwy, won't do it nowmo..*

Ofcourse ! Your government would never arrest someone who wasnt a terrorist would they ?

Oh wait...they've already released a german guy with nothing more then an *oops, sowwy, won't do it nowmo..*

And don't forget the Canadian Maher Arar, who was renditioned to Syria for a little rough treatment.

It's not like there isn't precedent for using legislation for other than the intended purposes, after all. The PATRIOT Act has been used against organized crime far more often than it's been used to "fight terrorism," for example.

I think the best lessons are from history. And those lessons teach us that the government will _always_ take power from the governed during times of crisis. Only rarely, maybe never, will the government give the power back.

It doesn't matter much which issue of the day is the current focus, we need to resist the efforts of the government to usurp even more power. Safety, security, normalcy don't mean anything unless they are accompanied by liberty. The government is already too powerful. It doesn't need the ability to suspend habeas corpus. Not for citizens, that's for sure. I'm still on the fence over non-citizens, though.

I think the best lessons are from history. And those lessons teach us that the government will _always_ take power from the governed during times of crisis. Only rarely, maybe never, will the government give the power back.

It doesn't matter much which issue of the day is the current focus, we need to resist the efforts of the government to usurp even more power. Safety, security, normalcy don't mean anything unless they are accompanied by liberty. The government is already too powerful. It doesn't need the ability to suspend habeas corpus. Not for citizens, that's for sure. I'm still on the fence over non-citizens, though.
The main reason I see to support habeas for non-citizens is to be able to protect our citizens overseas. If we respect habeas for non-citizens, our government is in a much better position to demand that other countries do the same if one of us were to be snatched up elsewhere.

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?City on a hill.

Do you not think that the terrorists are already doing worse things not only to the troops but to the precious journalists?

Are you saying that the USA is just as evil as the terrorists?

Do you not realize that in ours and practically every legal system that exists that the innocent are not getting convicted and locked up for crimes they do not commit even with the evidence pointing to them? There are a lot of innocent people being sent to jail after going to trial. So because of that, should we just abolish and abandon our legal system all together? Why not?

The main reason I see to support habeas for non-citizens is to be able to protect our citizens overseas. If we respect habeas for non-citizens, our government is in a much better position to demand that other countries do the same if one of us were to be snatched up elsewhere.
For an ordinary crime, that's fine. For a foreign fellow that's stopped just short of bombing a mall, movie theater, whatever -- it's a little more vague. Let's say an American went to ??? to fight the government. He's certainly not a common criminal. My opinion, for now anyway, is that once you -- not a citizen -- decide to attack an established government, you've forfeited any rights that they might protect.

Meh, freedom is way over-rated. All you paranoid people worrying about your rights remind me of those crazy fools that started all this trouble by writing and enacting the Constitution of the US. They are all dead now (and their constitution has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel), so you can see where this crazy talk about rights and liberty and due process lead to.

I dont know why you cannot simply trust whoever is in power. It's not like anyone bad ever ends up in power ever.

Just keep your head down and do as you are told, if you dont like it, well that's why God invented gulags.

You HAVE to arrange a coup. You HAVE to.

And for all those ignorant people who think it's O.K. to torture certain people, it appears that the Bill would allow U.S. Citizens to be tortured under the bill - a US Citizen could be grabbed off the street, shoved in a military detention centre, and be unable to do anything about his/her treatement (this could be your Mother) until they have been tried AND CONVICTED and have appealed the conviction, something that appears virtually impossible as the US Government have shown they do not want any trials or fair treatment for those they regard as "hostile" towards the United States.

Looks like the biggest threat isn't islam. It's America.

Do you not think that the terrorists are already doing worse things not only to the troops but to the precious journalists?

Are you saying that the USA is just as evil as the terrorists?

Do you not realize that in ours and practically every legal system that exists that the innocent are not getting convicted and locked up for crimes they do not commit even with the evidence pointing to them? There are a lot of innocent people being sent to jail after going to trial. So because of that, should we just abolish and abandon our legal system all together? Why not?

Theres always the chance of faults being made during any trial.

The difference is that with this law there isnt going to be a trial if(when) the government doenst want to have one.

If you dont understand how horendously bad precedent this sets, i sincerely hope you never ever get called for jury duty.

And Nazz as for the Canadian you mentioned, did not the Canadian Police hand him over to the USA stating he had terrorist connections?

Thats what the USA gets for listening to the Canadians for the first place.

It's high time the Canadians start to accept accountabilities for their own actions instead of pawning everything onto the USA and blaming the USA for everything. If my memory serves me correctly, the Canadian intellegence along with several of others told the USA, and this is including our own intelligence, that Iraq had WMD's. So, now the world has walked away giving the blame to the USA as lieing to the world, even though the Russian, Israel, UK, Canada, and a few other intelligence all came to the same conclusion. Remember, USA is the only one that lied to the world about the Iraq WMD...go figure.

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?

Because you're on crack and that doesn't really happen.

Because you're on crack and that doesn't really happen.

I think that is uncalled for but if it makes you feel better then keep throwing around the false accusations.

It's high time the Canadians start to accept accountabilities for their own actions instead of pawning everything onto the USA and blaming the USA for everything. If my memory serves me correctly, the Canadian intellegence along with several of others told the USA, and this is including our own intelligence, that Iraq had WMD's. So, now the world has walked away giving the blame to the USA as lieing to the world, even though the Russian, Israel, UK, Canada, and a few other intelligence all came to the same conclusion. Remember, USA is the only one that lied to the world about the Iraq WMD...go figure.Hm. How many of the other intelligence agencies' governments sent someone to show pretty computer graphics to claim that Iraq had WMDs in the SC? How many didn't want to wait for Hans Blix and his inspectors to confirm or dispute the hypothesis that Iraq had WMDs. Sure the Bush administration wasn't alone in its coalition of the willing, but it was the leader. For someone that was bitching about not accepting accountabilities for their own actions, you open your mouth pretty wide.

Hm. Going by the definition, anyone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is a candidate for the Guantanamo treatment. One would hope that the Geneva definitions would still apply to soldiers in war, so that this definition applies only to those that fall outside of the Convention. So, our treatment of suspected terrorists would match what we've been doing to them now, including the controversial seizure and detainment without trial and indefinite holding.

Basically, the Senate and President are working out a way to code the current treatment of detainees into lawful practice. Yeah, I don't like it, either.

Problem is, it is still an attempt to strip the courts of their traditional authority in making the determination of who actually has "engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

It's like passing a law that says child molesters can be castrated without trial. "Do you think a child molester would give you a trial?" Well, what happens when we've got those 1980's style molester witchunts where any kid who wants to can cry molester, and now they don't even have to give you a show trial.

Hm. How many of the other intelligence agencies' governments sent someone to show pretty computer graphics to claim that Iraq had WMDs in the SC? How many didn't want to wait for Hans Blix and his inspectors to confirm or dispute the hypothesis that Iraq had WMDs. Sure the Bush administration wasn't alone in its coalition of the willing, but it was the leader. For someone that was bitching about not accepting accountabilities for their own actions, you open your mouth pretty wide.

Don't you know that when a conservative says "accountability" they mean putting their own debts on other people's accounts.

That's why the Republicans keep blaming democrats for everything despite the fact that they haven't had any power in 12 years.

Well, I for one have absolutely no sympathy for any terrorists or the people who supports terrorism.

Do you think that the terrorists take care of the people they kidnap before they behead them?

How come the world condemns the USA more than the terrorists on the treatment of the captured?

Also, do you really believe that our government is going to pick up an average Joe and jail him indefinately over someone who has relations with terrorism? Give me a break. I do think on an occasion a mishap can and will occur, however, It is due to the fact we are humans not Gods.

Yeah but rather then putting those local suspected supporters through the checked and balanced justice system they are trying to circumnavigate it

The system is set up to try and reduce the “occasional mishap”

What is wrong with the legal system for citizens?

And Nazz as for the Canadian you mentioned, did not the Canadian Police hand him over to the USA stating he had terrorist connections?

Thats what the USA gets for listening to the Canadians for the first place.

It's high time the Canadians start to accept accountabilities for their own actions instead of pawning everything onto the USA and blaming the USA for everything. If my memory serves me correctly, the Canadian intellegence along with several of others told the USA, and this is including our own intelligence, that Iraq had WMD's. So, now the world has walked away giving the blame to the USA as lieing to the world, even though the Russian, Israel, UK, Canada, and a few other intelligence all came to the same conclusion. Remember, USA is the only one that lied to the world about the Iraq WMD...go figure.

Yes, the RCMP were also at fault in the Maher Arar case. Your subsequent rant concerning intelligence with respect to weapons of mass distraction is both baseless and has no place in this thread.

As for the OP, I have to say that I am glad about this. Don't get me wrong. I do not support arbitrary detention of citizens or non-citizens by any government or anyone else. What I am glad about is that the debate is in the public sphere. For too long, the USA has been arbitrarily detaining non-citizens that it has detained abroad or in transit through the United States. Since the USA is a superpower, it has been difficult to render the US accountable for these people.

But now the current US regime has publicly stated that US citizens are overtly at risk too. Hopefully the ensuing debate will force the US government to extend habeas corpus rights to these non-citizens as well. I won't hold my breath.

Democracy means many things to many people, but the common thread in all these definitions is that the government is ultimately accountable to the people. By removing habeas corpus rights from an arbitrarily selected group, the government has rendered itself unaccountable to the people.

No matter who he or she is, no matter the party, no matter what freedoms you think you have, because if this current bill concerning torture passes, you too could be considered an enemy combatant, tossed in jail, tortured, and never be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514_pf.html)
There is one thing you can do about it: Bend over grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.
Cause if this does go through, that's what you'll be doing to your rights.

I'd like to point out that it's not just Bush you should be directing your anger at - it's also the Senate. In fact, you all should be very loudly and very angrily lobbying them asap. Only they've got the power to stop this going through.

So here's how it could work. Say you're a political dissident--doesn't matter which party you belong to now or who's in the White House, because I'm talking about the possibilities of this legislation, so allow your imagination to run free. Picture your worst nightmare in the White House--if you're a fundamentalist Christian, imagine a god-hating atheist is president and he's trying to enforce the separation of church and state to the point where he wants to outlaw your church; whatever.

Wait. What? Trying to enforce seperation of church and state by making a law concerning expression of religion? Er?


Under this legislation, the President, without having to run the decision past anyone else, could declare you an enemy combatant, have you locked up, remove your habeas corpus rights so you can't challenge the detention, and never have you brought to trial. All by calling you an enemy combatant. That's what could happen under this legislation.

Some of you will no doubt say I'm being paranoid, that my hatred of the Bush administration has me jumping at shadows, that this legislation would never be used this way against a US citizen. You're entitled to your opinion. You'd also be wrong.

If history teaches us anything, it's that legislation that can be used for a purpose almost certainly will be used for that purpose, eventually, and make no mistake about it--this legislation could potentially be used as a tool for crushing political dissent.

Did you miss this bit?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."

Wait. What? Trying to enforce seperation of church and state by making a law concerning expression of religion? Er?




Did you miss this bit?

Yeah who is in charge of going over the case to make sure they materially supported terrorism? What sort of protection for innocent people is there built in?

Don't you know that when a conservative says "accountability" they mean putting their own debts on other people's accounts.

That's why the Republicans keep blaming democrats for everything despite the fact that they haven't had any power in 12 years.

hmmm......12 yrs? GWB has been in power for 12 yrs. That's news to me, what year did Clinton leave office? or was Clinton a republican?

Yeah who is in charge of going over the case to make sure they materially supported terrorism? What sort of protection for innocent people is there built in?

I can't answer that without actually reading the bill. Provide me a link to that and I'll do my best to figure it out.

hmmm......12 yrs? GWB has been in power for 12 yrs. That's news to me, what year did Clinton leave office? or was Clinton a republican?
Clinton may as well been in a republican. he was in all but name.
Still, I think New Domici was refering to the fact that GOP has had control of both houses for the last 12 years, which certainly hampered and impeded Clinton's presidency.
Surely you knew that.

For an ordinary crime, that's fine. For a foreign fellow that's stopped just short of bombing a mall, movie theater, whatever -- it's a little more vague. Let's say an American went to ??? to fight the government. He's certainly not a common criminal. My opinion, for now anyway, is that once you -- not a citizen -- decide to attack an established government, you've forfeited any rights that they might protect.

Here's the problem--if this legislation passes, the only proof there will be that a person, US citizen or not, was an enemy combatant would be because the President says so, and frankly, that's not enough for my taste, no matter who's in charge. I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of power. And if a US citizen was imprisoned in another country accused of fomenting rebellion, and when we asked for proof, they said "our President says so," we'd be outraged, and rightly so--unless this legislation passes, because then we'd have no moral ground to be pissed.

Did you miss this bit?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."



That soothes my worried nerves. Of course, the number and who is determined to be a terrorist is up to ... The Government. That's right, the same people that can hold you without habeas corpus are the same people that decide to whom they can apply the law. Doesn't that scare you? It should.

Write your Senators today to stop this nonsense.

Yeah? Oh well, at least the search for WMDs won't take long.

Hehehe... I actually know a few folks who've real knowledge and are sufficiently pissed at this point fo that to be a truism...

Wait. What? Trying to enforce seperation of church and state by making a law concerning expression of religion? Er?

Did you miss this bit?
My point is that the President could lock you up bring no charges based on nothing but his determination that you're a supporter of terrorism--if you're a god-hating atheist who wants to destroy religion, you could very well determine that religions are terrorist organizations and lock people up for it. Yes, it's an extreme example, but frankly, this administration has taught me that nothing is out of the realm of the imagination.

And I didn't miss that bit--it means nothing as long as the law says that the President makes the determination and the courts can't interfere until after a trial, and that people can be held indefinitely without trial.

That soothes my worried nerves. Of course, the number and who is determined to be a terrorist is up to ... The Government. That's right, the same people that can hold you without habeas corpus are the same people that decide to whom they can apply the law. Doesn't that scare you? It should.

Write your Senators today to stop this nonsense.

But the government is the same people charged with stopping them from doing it anyways if the bill doesn't get passed.

But the government is the same people charged with stopping them from doing it anyways if the bill doesn't get passed.

There is a big difference in doing things the right way and doing things the expedient way. The Supreme Court has ruled that suspected terrorists have the right to habeas corpus. If you don't know what that means look it up. It's important. In fact, it's one of the principles that this country was founded upon.

Now, the administration, supported by Congress, is trying to subvert the decision by passing a constitutionally questionable law. Should we sit quietly and allow the law to pass, only to see the USSC uphold it? I don't think that's a wise choice for free men to make. We should stop the government from seizing our rights when we know it's wrong -- not wait until we need to rely on a court to hand them back.

There is a big difference in doing things the right way and doing things the expedient way. The Supreme Court has ruled that suspected terrorists have the right to habeas corpus. If you don't know what that means look it up. It's important. In fact, it's one of the principles that this country was founded upon.

Now, the administration, supported by Congress, is trying to subvert the decision by passing a constitutionally questionable law. Should we sit quietly and allow the law to pass, only to see the USSC uphold it? I don't think that's a wise choice for free men to make. We should stop the government from seizing our rights when we know it's wrong -- not wait until we need to rely on a court to hand them back.

You and me often disagree on many topics but on this I am in complete agreement

You and me often disagree on many topics but on this I am in complete agreement

As we say in the South, even a blind pig can find a turnip once in a while. Hope you don't mind being called a pig. :)

So here's how it could work. Say you're a political dissident--doesn't matter which party you belong to now or who's in the White House, because I'm talking about the possibilities of this legislation, so allow your imagination to run free. Picture your worst nightmare in the White House--if you're a fundamentalist Christian, imagine a god-hating atheist is president and he's trying to enforce the separation of church and state to the point where he wants to outlaw your church; whatever.


You put that in there for me, didn't ya? :p


Anyways, I saw this one comming like four years ago. I think I made a story about it, based off of a dream I had. If i can find it, i'll post it.

You and me often disagree on many topics but on this I am in complete agreement

I think all US citizens across the spectrum of political beliefs should oppose this. And rest assured that many people from around the world will oppose this as well.

As we say in the South, even a blind pig can find a turnip once in a while. Hope you don't mind being called a pig. :)

Don’t mind at all *oinks*

I think all US citizens across the spectrum of political beliefs should oppose this. And rest assured that many people from around the world will oppose this as well.

Too bad world opposition so often drives these idiots to hold this sort of bad legislation even more dear … idiots

Too bad world opposition so often drives these idiots to hold this sort of bad legislation even more dear … idiots


We'll do it really quietly, then. Like this.

You put that in there for me, didn't ya? :p


Anyways, I saw this one comming like four years ago. I think I made a story about it, based off of a dream I had. If i can find it, i'll post it.

Nah, although I can see why you thought that. :D

I phrased it that way because I wanted an effective example from a political viewpoint opposite my own. I think the fact that Myrmidonisia and I agree so closely on this subject ought to show that it's not only people like me who worry about this issue. It's not a partisan issue--it's an American one, or ought not be, anyway.

Nah, although I can see why you thought that. :D

I phrased it that way because I wanted an effective example from a political viewpoint opposite my own. I think the fact that Myrmidonisia and I agree so closely on this subject ought to show that it's not only people like me who worry about this issue. It's not a partisan issue--it's an American one, or ought not be, anyway.

Now you're starting to sound like a politician ;)

Now you're starting to sound like a politician ;)

I've got the words, I guess, but lack the money or the clean background. Like I said in another thread--every politician has skeletons in their closets. I have a cemetary in mine.

I've got the words, I guess, but lack the money or the clean background. Like I said in another thread--every politician has skeletons in their closets. I have a cemetary in mine.

I, on the other hand am squeaky clean. Not even a parking ticket on my record. But yeah, no money to run does have a suckage effect.

Are you saying that the USA is just as evil as the terrorists?

If the american government condones torture and detention without trial...yes, that is what I am saying.

Do you not realize that in ours and practically every legal system that exists that the innocent are not getting convicted and locked up for crimes they do not commit even with the evidence pointing to them? There are a lot of innocent people being sent to jail after going to trial. So because of that, should we just abolish and abandon our legal system all together? Why not?

Try to keep up, detention without trial or the necessity of evidence is exactly what this would allow for.

For once, I agree with you, Nazz. It's not a question of whether we trust George Bush to unilaterally decide who is a terrorist. We're also potentially entrusting those powers to Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, the next Richard Nixon, or whoever gets into the White House in the future.

For once, I agree with you, Nazz. It's not a question of whether we trust George Bush to unilaterally decide who is a terrorist. We're also potentially entrusting those powers to Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, the next Richard Nixon, or whoever gets into the White House in the future.

Any time an issue like this comes up--and they seem to happen regularly with the current administration--I ask the other side to imagine the politician they dislike most in power and ask if they'd trust them with that power. It's been nicknamed the Hillary test by the left, because she seems to be such a right-win boogeywoman.

Mmm.... Benedict Arnold masks, my man, Benedict Arnold masks.

Nonono! Movie and music star masks. Everybody will be too busy asking for autographs rather then fighting.

hmmm......12 yrs? GWB has been in power for 12 yrs. That's news to me, what year did Clinton leave office? or was Clinton a republican?

Well, most liberals call Clinton "the best Republican president we ever had."

However I was refering to the Gingrich Revolution in '94 when conservatives ran the government and refused to let Clinton persue counterterrorist operations so that they could then blame him now for "not doing anything to prevent terrorism."

Clinton was a democrat. Democrats have been out of power since 94.

Well, this is it people. I've been saying and saying it and planning for it for 3 years and now its finnally happening. American Police State is now here. The only Bush needs to do now is secure his power and im sure this new law will make it extremely easy. All He has to do now is say he's permanently in power and cancel all elections. If anyone speaks out against him, or any of his policies from here on in, bam, there done. SS like nazi raid on you. You no longer need evidence, or anything. All you need to be is somewhat supicious. You spoke out against The Adminstration? well boy, you are abviously conributing to its weakness by doing that. If your not supporting us 110% then you are supporting Terroism. You are a traitor. Report to the large man with the StermGawere outside of the Chemical shed.

Now, after he/they get rid of all political opponets the real slaughter begins. First by race. Then by religion. It will begin with the Profiling all Arabs to the extreme until they are on trains and are berid of society for good.

You know I used to scoff at those who called Bush the reincarnation of Hitler...until I took a look around me to see what was happenening. This has been in process for quite some time now, and I believe America has finally entered the stage of Downfall as land of the free. In time Any American not dead or in an Instituion will be saying, "Freedom is slavery, War is peace, Ignorance is Strength- and Strength through unity, unity through faith- faith in the party, faith in the leader, faith in his all power."

Americans, it will so be time to fight back. A second American Revolution must occur to avoid this fate.

No matter who he or she is, no matter the party, no matter what freedoms you think you have, because if this current bill concerning torture passes, you too could be considered an enemy combatant, tossed in jail, tortured, and never be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514_pf.html)

So here's how it could work. Say you're a political dissident--doesn't matter which party you belong to now or who's in the White House, because I'm talking about the possibilities of this legislation, so allow your imagination to run free. Picture your worst nightmare in the White House--if you're a fundamentalist Christian, imagine a god-hating atheist is president and he's trying to enforce the separation of church and state to the point where he wants to outlaw your church; whatever.

Under this legislation, the President, without having to run the decision past anyone else, could declare you an enemy combatant, have you locked up, remove your habeas corpus rights so you can't challenge the detention, and never have you brought to trial. All by calling you an enemy combatant. That's what could happen under this legislation.

Some of you will no doubt say I'm being paranoid, that my hatred of the Bush administration has me jumping at shadows, that this legislation would never be used this way against a US citizen. You're entitled to your opinion. You'd also be wrong.

If history teaches us anything, it's that legislation that can be used for a purpose almost certainly will be used for that purpose, eventually, and make no mistake about it--this legislation could potentially be used as a tool for crushing political dissent.

...

I'm going to start collecting guns and other various equipment now. Might as well prepare for the eventual setting up of a rebel base here in Colorado. [/sarcasm]

No, seriously, I wouldn't be too against doing something like that if this legislation passes. I'd have two choices: move out of the country and let the poor saps still living in it worry about it, or stay and fight the eventual good fight that would occur. I'd choose option two automatically. Fact is, despite all its faults, I love America, and will NOT see it corrupted to its core.

...

But, somehow, I doubt this'll pass so all that was more of a fantasy talk than anything else. I'm hardly going to worry unless this passes, and I don't think it will.

Well, this is it people. I've been saying and saying it and planning for it for 3 years and now its finnally happening. American Police State is now here. The only Bush needs to do now is secure his power and im sure this new law will make it extremely easy. All He has to do now is say he's permanently in power and cancel all elections. If anyone speaks out against him, or any of his policies from here on in, bam, there done. SS like nazi raid on you. You no longer need evidence, or anything. All you need to be is somewhat supicious. You spoke out against The Adminstration? well boy, you are abviously conributing to its weakness by doing that. If your not supporting us 110% then you are supporting Terroism. You are a traitor. Report to the large man with the StermGawere outside of the Chemical shed.

Now, after he/they get rid of all political opponets the real slaughter begins. First by race. Then by religion. It will begin with the Profiling all Arabs to the extreme until they are on trains and are berid of society for good.

You know I used to scoff at those who called Bush the reincarnation of Hitler...until I took a look around me to see what was happenening. This has been in process for quite some time now, and I believe America has finally entered the stage of Downfall as land of the free. In time Any American not dead or in an Instituion will be saying, "Freedom is slavery, War is peace, Ignorance is Strength- and Strength through unity, unity through faith- faith in the party, faith in the leader, faith in his all power."

Americans, it will so be time to fight back. A second American Revolution must occur to avoid this fate.

Bush won't sieze power. I'm 92.3469% certain.

Besides, you can't have a preemptive revolution. That's just silly.

And 1984 was totalitarian Stalinists, not Nazis...

Bush won't sieze power. I'm 92.3469% certain.

Besides, you can't have a preemptive revolution. That's just silly.

And 1984 was totalitarian Stalinists, not Nazis...

Semantics? get over them. The fact is the threat is clear and here. Can you not see this dark could forming or are you blind!?!?!?!? And who says you can't have a preemptive revolution?

...

I'm going to start collecting guns and other various equipment now. Might as well prepare for the eventual setting up of a rebel base here in Colorado. [/sarcasm]

No, seriously, I wouldn't be too against doing something like that if this legislation passes. I'd have two choices: move out of the country and let the poor saps still living in it worry about it, or stay and fight the eventual good fight that would occur. I'd choose option two automatically. Fact is, despite all its faults, I love America, and will NOT see it corrupted to its core.

...

But, somehow, I doubt this'll pass so all that was more of a fantasy talk than anything else. I'm hardly going to worry unless this passes, and I don't think it will.

With you all the way.

You know, the worst part about all this is that if the law does pass and an American Police State DOES arise, my dad is going to have this ridiculously huge "I told you so" grin on his face.

Semantics? get over them. The fact is the threat is clear and here. Can you not see this dark could forming or are you blind!?!?!?!? And who says you can't have a preemptive revolution?

Tell you what, if Bush doesn't sieze power by 2009, you admit I was right. If he does, I admit you were right. Deal?

As for the preemptive revolution, if a revolution, for our purposes, is justified as overthrowing a government because it is corrupt, evil, whatever, a preemptive revolution would be overthrowing a government because it may become corrupt, evil, whatever. By extension, it isn't currently corrupt, evil, whatever. As a result, you are overthrowing a valid government.

And that's terrible.

Yay! Now I can type up my current event for next week early! Thanks!

Well, this is it people. I've been saying and saying it and planning for it for 3 years and now its finnally happening. American Police State is now here. The only Bush needs to do now is secure his power and im sure this new law will make it extremely easy. All He has to do now is say he's permanently in power and cancel all elections. If anyone speaks out against him, or any of his policies from here on in, bam, there done. SS like nazi raid on you. You no longer need evidence, or anything. All you need to be is somewhat supicious. You spoke out against The Adminstration? well boy, you are abviously conributing to its weakness by doing that. If your not supporting us 110% then you are supporting Terroism. You are a traitor. Report to the large man with the StermGawere outside of the Chemical shed.

Now, after he/they get rid of all political opponets the real slaughter begins. First by race. Then by religion. It will begin with the Profiling all Arabs to the extreme until they are on trains and are berid of society for good.

You know I used to scoff at those who called Bush the reincarnation of Hitler...until I took a look around me to see what was happenening. This has been in process for quite some time now, and I believe America has finally entered the stage of Downfall as land of the free. In time Any American not dead or in an Instituion will be saying, "Freedom is slavery, War is peace, Ignorance is Strength- and Strength through unity, unity through faith- faith in the party, faith in the leader, faith in his all power."

Americans, it will so be time to fight back. A second American Revolution must occur to avoid this fate.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about Bush trying to cancel elections. However, this IS a step towards a Police State, and if it continues, the next President will take us a little farther, and the next still farther, and eventually we really WILL be in a Police State.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about Bush trying to cancel elections. However, this IS a step towards a Police State, and if it continues, the next President will take us a little farther, and the next still farther, and eventually we really WILL be in a Police State.

That's the problem with this kind of power--unleash it, and no future President, no matter the party, will want to give it up. And it's not like we can count on the courts to overturn it either--assuming they'd have the jurisdiction to do so in the first place.

That's the problem with this kind of power--unleash it, and no future President, no matter the party, will want to give it up. And it's not like we can count on the courts to overturn it either--assuming they'd have the jurisdiction to do so in the first place.


Thats why when i run in....umm..20 yrs or so...you vote for me..Because then, you know whatcha got..ME!


Seriously though...I see America in a dark place....comming real soon :(

Tell you what, if Bush doesn't sieze power by 2009, you admit I was right. If he does, I admit you were right. Deal?

As for the preemptive revolution, if a revolution, for our purposes, is justified as overthrowing a government because it is corrupt, evil, whatever, a preemptive revolution would be overthrowing a government because it may become corrupt, evil, whatever. By extension, it isn't currently corrupt, evil, whatever. As a result, you are overthrowing a valid government.

And that's terrible.

Ok, I'll make a deal about *Bush, by 2009, like you said. However this may lead the door open for future presidents to do such things. But I dont believe we'll have time for that anyways becuase King George will be on the throne. We'll argue about the ethics and the logistics of a preemtive revolution another time.

This only serves to reinforce my desire to relocate to another country ASAP.

Ok, I'll make a deal about *Bush, by 2009, like you said. However this may lead the door open for future presidents to do such things. But I dont believe we'll have time for that anyways becuase King George will be on the throne. We'll argue about the ethics and the logistics of a preemtive revolution another time.

Don't worry about it. For him to take over, he basically has to declare the Constitution Null and void. Problem is Civil War. Even our most gungho military types would say "WTF? This isn't right at all"

It makes for good conspiracy stuff but it's not plausible.

Madison, Jefferson (a few others) were smart men. The Constitution makes things hard to do for a reason. Primarily it takes care of ideas on a whim.

Now what you should be concerned about is the Clown Jeb running. There are a great many retards that would vote for him. Sadly I have relatives that say he is the greatest thing ever! *sighs*

http://www.voxfux.com/images/bush_fascism.jpg

Don't worry about it. For him to take over, he basically has to declare the Constitution Null and void. Problem is Civil War. Even our most gungho military types would say "WTF? This isn't right at all"

It makes for good conspiracy stuff but it's not plausible.

Madison, Jefferson (a few others) were smart men. The Constitution makes things hard to do for a reason. Primarily it takes care of ideas on a whim.

Now what you should be concerned about is the Clown Jeb running. There are a great many retards that would vote for him. Sadly I have relatives that say he is the greatest thing ever! *sighs*

I would hope that your right, and generally I agree with you but it just seems these days the populace is just so submissive and easilty pushed over, Like everyone seems to concerned with their personall live to take a stand, until well it is in your personal life, I hope I am wrong.

If anyone is seriously opposed to this legislation, now is the time to act. Congress is more interested in campaigning than in governing.

Four Democrats and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania are being given opportunities to offer amendments in the Senate, but all were expected to fall with lawmakers eager to adjourn this weekend to devote the next five weeks to campaigning for re-election.

Specter's amendment would strike a provision in the bill that denies terrorism suspects the right to appeal their detention in court.


article (http://news.yaoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_17)

Write to your Senators (http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)and oppose this bill

I usually don't make correlations from real life into the movie world...but please bear with me...

Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy

Episode 1: The then-Senator Palpatine, a relative unknown within the Republic, uses a crisis, the Naboo Invasion, to rise to power, which he holds for his term...but then, whoops!

Episode II: There's another crisis, The Clone War, which allows him to legislate himself into office far longer than the set terms allow. As the war progresses he uses further subtle legislation to eventually land him almost 100% supreme executive power, and then it all comes into focus.

Episode III: Using a lie that a new enemy, the Jedi, have staged a coup, and to aid in the creation of a "safe and secure society" in the post Clone War galaxy, he in essence uses his supreme power to reorganize the Republic into a Galactic Empire, with him as it's Emperor. From there he keeps the senate intact to keep up the illusion of liberty and democracy, while at the same time staging secret wars against non-humans...until the time comes when he sees fit to disolve the senate completely, wiping away every last trace of the Republic.

...Any questions?

I know, I'm a shmuck.

The Levin Amendment to the bill failed 43-54--I'm guessing that went pretty much along party lines. If you live in the US and you care about something so dangerous that people as ideologically opposed as Myrmidonisia and myself are in full agreement, please call your Senator and ask him or her to vote no, and to consider a filibuster or consider supporting one should another Senator decide to mount one.

You can apparently watch the debate on C-SPAN 2 here (http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2).

No matter who he or she is, no matter the party, no matter what freedoms you think you have, because if this current bill concerning torture passes, you too could be considered an enemy combatant, tossed in jail, tortured, and never be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514_pf.html)

So here's how it could work. Say you're a political dissident--doesn't matter which party you belong to now or who's in the White House, because I'm talking about the possibilities of this legislation, so allow your imagination to run free. Picture your worst nightmare in the White House--if you're a fundamentalist Christian, imagine a god-hating atheist is president and he's trying to enforce the separation of church and state to the point where he wants to outlaw your church; whatever.

Under this legislation, the President, without having to run the decision past anyone else, could declare you an enemy combatant, have you locked up, remove your habeas corpus rights so you can't challenge the detention, and never have you brought to trial. All by calling you an enemy combatant. That's what could happen under this legislation.

Some of you will no doubt say I'm being paranoid, that my hatred of the Bush administration has me jumping at shadows, that this legislation would never be used this way against a US citizen. You're entitled to your opinion. You'd also be wrong.

If history teaches us anything, it's that legislation that can be used for a purpose almost certainly will be used for that purpose, eventually, and make no mistake about it--this legislation could potentially be used as a tool for crushing political dissent.

*Throws The Nazz in chains for his unpatriotic questioning of Bush's rightness*

This only serves to reinforce my desire to relocate to another country ASAP.

Well, what are you waiting for........Good Bye and have a nice trip. :D

*Throws The Nazz in chains for his unpatriotic questioning of Bush's rightness*

Let's just say there's a reason I live close to a national border. ;)

This is serious stuff. Regardless of your support or lack of it, I hope you agree that the right to appear in court, before a judge is an important building block of this Republic. The very least that this bill requires is an amendment to preserve our right to habeas corpus. Call your Senator tonight and insist that he/she vote for the Specter amendment to SB 3930. Especially call these Senators, if they represent you. Their votes agains SB 3930 or their votes for the Specter amendment could be pivotal.

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - (202) 224-2921
Fax: (202) 228-2853
Chief of Staff: David Griswold
Legislative Director: Deb Brayton
Military Legislative Assistant: William Ralph

Susan Collins (R-ME) - (202) 224-2523
Phone: (202) 224-2523
Chief of Staff: Steve Abbott
Legis. Dir.: Jane Alonso
Military LA: MacKenzie Eaglen

Mike DeWine (R-OH) - (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Chief of Staff: Laurel Pressler
Legis. Dir.: Paul Palagyi
Military LA: Stacie Oliver

Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - (202) 224-4224
Fax: (202) 224-5213
Chief of Staff: Lou Ann Linehan
Legis. Dir.: Jill Konz
Military LA: Fran DuFrayne

Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) - (202) 224-4041
fax: (202) 224-9750
Chief of Staff: Clarine Nardi Riddle
Legis. Dir.: Joe Goffman
Military LA: Fred Downey

Richard Lugar (R-IN) - (202) 224-4814
Fax: (202) 228-0360
Chief of Staff: Marty Morris
Legis. Dir.: Chris Geeslin
Military LA: Keri Maloney

Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - (202) 224-4744
Fax: (202) 228-2197
Chief of Staff: Ivan Zapien
Legis. Dir.: Chris Schloesser
Military LA: Jessica Lewis

Olympia Snowe (R-ME) - (202) 224-5344
Fax: (202) 224-1946
Chief of Staff: John Richter
Legis. Dir.: Ray Krncevic
Military LA: Sam Horton

John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 228-4131
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Chief of Staff: Paul J. Collins, Jr
Legis. Dir.: Jamie Burnett
Military LA: Dave Cuzzi

bump

The Aeson claimed you cant have a preemptive revolution...

One right now would be no less preemptive than the first. Suspending habeas corpus is a bit more corrupt and fascist than raising taxes slightly, albiet without direct representatives from the new world.

The Aeson claimed you cant have a preemptive revolution...

One right now would be no less preemptive than the first. Suspending habeas corpus is a bit more corrupt and fascist than raising taxes slightly, albiet without direct representatives from the new world.

It's really important for people to realize that in getting rid of habeas corpus, we're talking about removing something established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. Almost 800 years of history shat away because some people want to make political hay. Hell, when people criticize Lincoln's position as one of the great US presidents, they point to his temporary--temporary--suspension of habeas corpus, and yet we're letting this pass with barely a blink.

The Aeson claimed you cant have a preemptive revolution...

One right now would be no less preemptive than the first. Suspending habeas corpus is a bit more corrupt and fascist than raising taxes slightly, albiet without direct representatives from the new world.

It's really important for people to realize that in getting rid of habeas corpus, we're talking about removing something established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. Almost 800 years of history shat away because some people want to make political hay. Hell, when people criticize Lincoln's position as one of the great US presidents, they point to his temporary--temporary--suspension of habeas corpus, and yet we're letting this pass with barely a blink.

"It's Okay if You're a Republican" somehow doesn't apply with the Lincoln Double Standard, which is irony at its finest. Then again after the reports that came out which basically confirmed my remarks that the ass backwards handling of "The War on TerrorÖ" turned Iraq into World of Jihadcraft, I'm not really surprised at how low Dear Leader is sinking still.

Just this morning, I was daydreaming over my breakfast coffee about what might happen if this neocon shit train does not get derailed pretty frigging pronto. I wondered, would the whole country just slide into it like Germany did back in the day? Or would the country start to come apart again? You know, region by region, we really could be different countries. Does the west really have all that much in common with the east or the south? Look at the way New England and the southern states are always at each other's throats, as if the Civil War is still an issue.

I wondered, could any of the regions survive as their own nation? It depends on the region, I guess. When Czechoslovakia broke up, everybody thought Slovakia was making a mistake. The Czech half was much richer and better connected to western markets. But the Slovaks wanted their own country and now they have it and they're doing all right, but not as well as Bohemia/Moravia is doing without them. They are struggling to try and catch up.

If the US broke up, I figure New England and the west coast are the places to be. They're the richest areas, the most connected globally, and contain the most lucrative industries. New England is already fully equipped with energy production resources, bio-tech, science and medical industries, a monster tourism industry, and a gaggle of the best universities in the world. Plus, we've got great relations with Canada, and if we include New York and New Jersey, we'll have one of the world's most important ports and the seat of the UN. We've already got several fully equipped military bases, including the nuclear sub yard in Connecticut within our territory.

Compare that to the south.

Yep, it all depends on where you are when the break happens.

On the other hand, I notice that hardcore red-staters every now and then start relocating into blue states, filling up whole neighborhoods and turning suburban cul-de-sacs into rightwing enclaves. Coincidence? Or an attempt to spread their influence evenly across the country to abort any thought of conflict or -- :eek: -- a break-up?

If all or most of the blue states get purpled out, then I would guess we'll go down the same road as Germany.

Ok, to all Americans this shit is really going down, right here, right now. It all comes down to this. If this thing gets defeated and then the NeoCon Rep train of death is somewhat bumbed in this election I think we are good. But for 6 years now there has been no hope to stop it legislativley. So I believe this will pass. What I need to know is what people are going to do once this police state comes into being. And I need to know who if anyone is willing to fight back. And I mean pick up a gun by fighting back becuase protesting will not work. We need to have as many threads about this as we can so everyone can find out whats going on first of all, becuase I haven't seen a fucking thing about it on ANY american news channel OR website. That isnt good to me and it fucking should be becuase this is the biggest thing America is going to have to deal with since the 1st revolution. For gods sake just wrighting this might get me thrown in a gulag in a the future. They litterally are throwing away the constituion people, they are. ITS IN PLAIN BLACK AND WHITE NOW. If this thing passes. Our government is over. And we've entered a new dark age. Nothing is going to stop or even curb this adminstrations lust for power except for an open war if this isnt defeated. Everyone do as much as you can peacfully until this thing gets passed. Once it does, Stop the peaceful part, becuase even peacful resisers will now be seen as traitors. Can you imagen what a protest in Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany would look like? a fuckin blood bath. After this thing gets passed get ready for a war. The second American Revolution (or civil war whatever you prefer) will be on the way faster than you can scream rape. I would at least hope so becuase its then our only option.

Do you not think that the terrorists are already doing worse things not only to the troops but to the precious journalists?

Are you saying that the USA is just as evil as the terrorists?

Do you not realize that in ours and practically every legal system that exists that the innocent are not getting convicted and locked up for crimes they do not commit even with the evidence pointing to them? There are a lot of innocent people being sent to jail after going to trial. So because of that, should we just abolish and abandon our legal system all together? Why not?

Well, the point is, we are supposed to be a free and just nation. However, as time progressive, neither is held true. It's not that the US is evil because we do bad things, it's that it's leaders are bad(not in the evil sense) for trying to stamp out the most basic rights(Which this most assuredly does).

Honestly I expect it is too late. It seems to me the US has been working its way to this point for a long time now (although not necessarily due to intentional forethought).

What I find really dispicable about this situation is the number of people who must be able to see what is happening but having supported Bush, would rather let the US turn into everything they claim they oppose if the alternative is to admit they backed a bad horse.

I note this is not universal. Those right leaning persons who are more interested in the well-being of their nation than in their own ego - you know who you are. Let me say you people along with those 'anti-righters' who are genuine rather than egotistical in their opposition to Bush & Co, you are the true patriots. I wouldnt wish this on the self-centred egotistical fools who'd rather see the US go to a Police-State in a handbag than admit they were wrong about Bush. But it's worse for those who have previously supported (but now dont) the Republican ticket before it become clear that Bush isnt conservative, he's totalitarian.

As I said, we are standing at a crossroads where we must choose between resistance and submission. We can no longer have faith in the system and complacently wait for bad adminstrations to be replaced by better ones. The trend now is not towards conservatism; it is toward fascism. It's that simple.

I think the next two elections -- this year's Congressional election and 2008's presidential one -- will decide the nation's fate. If the neocon rightwing's control of Congress is either broken (unlikely) or at least lessened AND if the next president is an active opponent of neocon policies, then we might have a chance of getting the country back into balance. It will not put an end to rightwing authoritarianism in US society, but it may re-establish the balance between us and them that we had before.

However, if the neocon rightwing stays in power, then in my opinion, it will be time to get out of Dodge. I am very pessimistic about where these authoritarians will take the US. I am certain there will be more wars, not just against Iran, and that the US will start them without provocation. I am certain the earnings gap will worsen at an even more alarming rate. I am certain that the press will be censored -- already, the Pentagon has given a contract to an unnamed private contractor to "monitor" news agencies' coverage of the Iraq war and has put news agencies on notice that they are being watched, though for what purpose has not been said. I am certain that, within ten years, an official state religion will be declared, in direct violation of the Constitution. In fact, I am fairly certain that the entire Bill of Rights will essentially be tossed in the trash. The judicial branch will be subsumed into the executive branch, and judges will become agents of presidential policies. More power will be concentrated in the presidency until the job will become a de facto dictatorship. They will probably even repeal the term limits law, as long as they think a liberal will never become president. I can easily envision loyalty oaths being brought back in order to put the finger on dissidents, and I have no problem seeing America going back to the days when Jews and other non-Christians could not get jobs or join social clubs or buy or rent homes in certain neighborhoods, etc.

My sense of the mood of the electorate is also very pessimistic. I am not confident that the neocons will not win elections and that they will not do so by healthy margins. If my pessimism turns out to be true, then there will be no point to insurrection. We will be too badly outnumbered. We would all end up getting gitmo-ized as "enemy combatants." Some people may choose to go down in noble flames. I prefer to live to fight another day. If the country takes the wrong road, I will emigrate to either Canada or a European country, someplace where I can continue the fight against the government of my own country from a safe distance, where I can take shots at them, but they can't get at me. My role model for this is Marlene Dietrich, who was a huge star in Germany but left when the Nazis took over. The Nazi party tried to lure her back because they wanted her to be a celebrity star of the reich, and she pretty much told them to kiss her ass. Instead, she used her celebrity to very good effect in the allied propaganda war against Germany. She was the most prominent anti-Germany German in the world.

I don't see this necessarily as defeat. The neocon/religious right alliance has proven itself to be incompetent and divorced from reality in all its thinking, just like most extremist movements, and I do not expect that they will be able to run a country any better. I expect that, if they take over fully, the country will collapse within 20 years, if not sooner. The economy will implode very quickly. They may be able to prop the corpse up with wars for a while, but it will not be sustainable. I am fairly certain that, if they continue to launch wars of aggression, other countries will impose economic sanctions and possibly even naval and air blockades of US shipping. They will deepen their dependence on foreign support for oil and money -- all from the same parties they will be threatening and attacking -- until finally, China will call in its loans. And that will be the end of them. They will leave the country in financial ruins, with an unmaintained infrastructure, crippled food production systems, no social services or health care systems, probably with epidemics happening in various regions, and the majority of its population unemployed and poor.

It can't happen fast enough, as far as I'm concerned. If the majority of Americans choose to embrace this crazy rightwing fantasy, then only such a devastating reality check will wake them out of it. When it's all over, then we can come back and take charge, and perhaps, we will do so with a little more scrutiny of our enemies than was applied to the Tories after the first Revolution.

As Abe Lincoln put it: "First we must disenthrall ourselves, and then we may be able to save our country."

On the other hand, if the country breaks apart rather than embracing fascism, then I'll be moving to New York, not Canada.

It's really important for people to realize that in getting rid of habeas corpus, we're talking about removing something established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. Almost 800 years of history shat away because some people want to make political hay. Hell, when people criticize Lincoln's position as one of the great US presidents, they point to his temporary--temporary--suspension of habeas corpus, and yet we're letting this pass with barely a blink.
This whole thing smells way too much like a certain Enabling Act that changed world history to the worse... Hope I'm wrong, but this surely doesn't look good!

So this is the doom of our nation. So how will freedom end, with a Bang or with a Whimper. The country will last only until the Corporations sucessfully loot everything remaining, then they'll flee to China and leave everyone to starve. The doom of the nation... :(


Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy
*SNIP*
...Any questions?

Interesting how Palpatine looked like Cheney.

I keep telling myself that this law will not find its way through the courts (after all, they were set up to keep this very kind of shit from happening), and I keep telling myself that things were just as bad, if not worse during the Red Scare when thousands were left jobless due to the witchhunts...we survived that...But things do not look good.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." — H. L. Mencken

I keep telling myself that this law will not find its way through the courts (after all, they were set up to keep this very kind of shit from happening), and I keep telling myself that things were just as bad, if not worse during the Red Scare when thousands were left jobless due to the witchhunts...we survived that...But things do not look good.

I kept consoling myself with the same thoughts when the USSC heard the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act arguments. I was rewarded with a decision that makes me doubt that there are any real Constitutionalists on the Court.

By the way, the Specter amendment was defeated. I figure that the whole thing will pass, be upheld in appeal, and eventually be misused, but not grossly. Isn't that the way it goes?

In all likelihood things will not be as bad as we may think.

Nevertheless I will pray for the future...

In all likelihood things will not be as bad as we may think.

Nevertheless I will pray for the future...

It never is right away. This is just one more little power grab by the government in an endless series. Eventually, we'll find that they have all the power and we can't figure out how it happened.

By the way, the Specter amendment was defeated. I figure that the whole thing will pass, be upheld in appeal, and eventually be misused, but not grossly. Isn't that the way it goes?

Unfortunately so. Here's a link to the AP story and a few quotes from the article: Senate Heads Toward Terror Trial Vote (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060928/D8KE1P4O0.html)

The vote paved the way for final passage of Bush's plan to establish "military commissions" to prosecute terrorism suspects in legislation that also spells out violations of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

Republicans say the bill is necessary to ensure that terrorists can be brought to justice and that CIA personnel will not be charged with war crimes when interrogating these suspects.

Why we couldn't avoid this past part by simply prohibiting conduct that will be seen as war crimes, I don't know.

The Senate voted 48-51 against an amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter that would have allowed terror suspects to file "habeas corpus" petitions in court. Specter contends the ability to such pleas is considered a fundamental legal right and is necessary to uncover abuse.

Three Republicans voted with Specter but others in the GOP caucus contended that providing terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals weighs down the federal court system.

"It impedes the war effort, and it is irresponsible," said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Doesn't out government realize that it's actions like these that BREED terrorism, not eliminate it? Don't they realize that they're playing RIGHT INTO their hands?

Doesn't out government realize that it's actions like these that BREED terrorism, not eliminate it? Don't they realize that they're playing RIGHT INTO their hands?

I wonder if they realize how much money all these wars, prisons, interrogations, domestic spying programs, etc. are going to generate for military and security contractors like Halliburton and Raytheon. Anybody think anybody in the administration realizes that?

I kept consoling myself with the same thoughts when the USSC heard the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act arguments. I was rewarded with a decision that makes me doubt that there are any real Constitutionalists on the Court.
I know the feeling--you can't count on that kind of crap.

There's one guy who seems to think that if it passes as is, that'll get it overturned, because it completely gets rid of habeas, but if they amend it, it might be harder to pass.

I guess it passed hasn't it. I guess our constitution is dead now.:upyours: Bush. :upyours: Congress :upyours: US gov't

I wonder if they realize how much money all these wars, prisons, interrogations, domestic spying programs, etc. are going to generate for military and security contractors like Halliburton and Raytheon. Anybody think anybody in the administration realizes that?

It's no coincidence. Even if Bush isn't fully "on the ball", at least one of the higher-ups is: Cheney. And guess what? He's Halliburton.

It's hard to believe the US could be defeated in less than 2 presidential terms. It's simply gobsmacking that with all of history to learn from, so many citizens and voters still failed to realise that the danger from within was greater than anything posed by a rag-tag bag of rat-bag terrorists.:(

Here's the letter I just fired off to my Democratic Senator--I'm not bothering with the Republican one, because he's BFF with Jeb and Dubya and I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart were on fire.

Senator Nelson,
I can't begin to tell you how upset I am at your vote to allow torture and suspend habeas corpus rights for detainees and anyone this or a future President might consider an enemy combatant. This is an outrage to me, because you have no excuse for voting this way.

Make no mistake about it--this bill goes against one of the foundations of a justice system that predates the United States, the right to require a government to explain why you are being held--and if history has proven anything, it has proven that power that can be abused, will be abused, even if the abuser has th ebest of intentions.

And we have seen over the last six years that this President most certainly does not have the best of intentions.

There are those of your fellow Democratic Senators who are locked in difficult re-election races who might have tried to reason that a vote against this bill or a filibuster of it would damage their re-election chances, and that they can do more good by remaining in the Senate. That's a poor excuse, but at least it's an arguable one.

You have no such excuse. The only question in this race is whether you will defeat Catherine Harris by ten points or twenty. You could have stood up for the American system of justice, and you didn't, and I am ashamed.

I'll still put my mark next to your name on November 7. It's my birthday, and I wouldn't deny myself the chance to vote against Catherine Harris, who foisted this useless President upon us nearly six years ago. But it won't be a vote for you, not anymore.

And in six years, should you decide to run again, I'll be out there busting my ass to find someone to beat you in a primary. Of course, that's assuming I haven't been declared an enemy combatant for speaking out against the standing government.

This is not naivete or cynicism on my part, but I would like to know now, who among you now think the United States is near imminent collapse, civil war or complete political shift?

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, as the war has not yet passed through the courts, but with all of our joking, NS General is actually quite well informed. So when I see some of our more experienced members seeing doom on the horrizon, I naturally get worried.

This is not naivete or cynicism on my part, but I would like to know now, who among you now think the United States is near imminent collapse, civil war or complete political shift?

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, as the war has not yet passed through the courts, but with all of our joking, NS General is actually quite well informed. So when I see some of our more experienced members seeing doom on the horrizon, I naturally get worried.


I am worried too. We all should be. When I think about this, I think about Chile, Argentina, USSR, etc.. Where many people where just taken up because they were either dissenting against those in power. I used to be proud to be an American, but I am ashamed. Oh wait, I better be proud or risk facing a gulag.

This is not naivete or cynicism on my part, but I would like to know now, who among you now think the United States is near imminent collapse, civil war or complete political shift?

nah, we just made the dictatorship official

(Off topic: damn Jolt and its slowness!)

While I appreciate the idea of fighting against a police state America from the outside, the fact is, you need partisans on the inside to keep the government as off-balance as possible. It helps by quite a bit, I believe.

But then, I doubt I have the courage to be a partisan. I'll probably just get thrown into a camp and shot at some point.

(Off topic: damn Jolt and its slowness!)

While I appreciate the idea of fighting against a police state America from the outside, the fact is, you need partisans on the inside to keep the government as off-balance as possible. It helps by quite a bit, I believe.

But then, I doubt I have the courage to be a partisan. I'll probably just get thrown into a camp and shot at some point.

(off topic -growls at jolt-)

I think I'd die to protect the Consitution from these facists.

This is not naivete or cynicism on my part, but I would like to know now, who among you now think the United States is near imminent collapse, civil war or complete political shift?

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, as the war has not yet passed through the courts, but with all of our joking, NS General is actually quite well informed. So when I see some of our more experienced members seeing doom on the horrizon, I naturally get worried.

I think that America won't be sliding into collapse or civil war, but a political shift, definitely. National security has been a trump for the government in past cases involving civil rights, but this latest move will likely bring court decisions that start to limit that argument.

This whole issue is symptomatic of Bush's executive policy, a trend towards very broad interpretation of executive war power in pursuit of a pseudo-conflict against terrorism and an ideology. Only the Supreme Court has acted as a check on the claimed power so far, but hopefully the new Senators will form a more substantial opposition in Congress so that the legislative branch can remove its mouth from the President's backside.

I think that America won't be sliding into collapse or civil war, but a political shift, definitely. National security has been a trump for the government in past cases involving civil rights, but this latest move will likely bring court decisions that start to limit that argument.

This whole issue is symptomatic of Bush's executive policy, a trend towards very broad interpretation of executive war power in pursuit of a pseudo-conflict against terrorism and an ideology. Only the Supreme Court has acted as a check on the claimed power so far, but hopefully the new Senators will form a more substantial opposition in Congress so that the legislative branch can remove its mouth from the President's backside.

You've got a lot of faith in the judiciary--unjustified faith in my opinion, but I'll happily be proven wrong in this.

Fight or flight.

Those who cannot engage in the former should pursue the latter.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

You've got a lot of faith in the judiciary--unjustified faith in my opinion, but I'll happily be proven wrong in this.

Remember, this piece of legislation came up because the Supreme Court asserted Congress' power to create rules for tribunals and rejected the President's authority to do so. The actual rules in use weren't addressed, and I think it may have been purposefully left out by the justices to avoid butting heads with the President. Now that the question of authority to create tribunals is settled, new cases will be brought questioning the legality of the rules and prisoner treatment. The Supreme Court start on its new docket on the first Monday of Oct., so we'll see if it'll take the issue up or not.

(Off topic: damn Jolt and its slowness!)

While I appreciate the idea of fighting against a police state America from the outside, the fact is, you need partisans on the inside to keep the government as off-balance as possible. It helps by quite a bit, I believe.

But then, I doubt I have the courage to be a partisan. I'll probably just get thrown into a camp and shot at some point.

A year ago now I built a small Partisan Militant force out of several people I know in fear of this. Im gonna come out and say it right now we are training and prepareing to wage war against the Facist Police State America is turning into. we've simply named ourselves "The Partisans" and as rag tag and piss poor compared to the powerful US military we might be, we're gonna give them one hell of a fight. If some poor workers wearing rice patty hats wealding AK's could bloudgen the all powerful US in Nam, then we can do it too. If a few crazed RPG wealding muslims can do it in Iraq perhaps we can too. If a few forgotten Riflemen lead by heroic gentlemen could defeat the most powerful might brought by the British Empire, then just maybe, we, and others like us, and the people of the US can rise up and liberate themselves.

Also, do you really believe that our government is going to pick up an average Joe and jail him indefinately over someone who has relations with terrorism?
All signs point to "probably."

A year ago now I built a small Partisan Militant force out of several people I know in fear of this. Im gonna come out and say it right now we are training and prepareing to wage war against the Facist Police State America is turning into. we've simply named ourselves "The Partisans" and as rag tag and piss poor compared to the powerful US military we might be, we're gonna give them one hell of a fight. If some poor workers wearing rice patty hats wealding AK's could bloudgen the all powerful US in Nam, then we can do it too. If a few crazed RPG wealding muslims can do it in Iraq perhaps we can too. If a few forgotten Riflemen lead by heroic gentlemen could defeat the most powerful might brought by the British Empire, then just maybe, we, and others like us, and the people of the US can rise up and liberate themselves.

I'm afraid that in each and every situation, the partisans only had the upper hand due to the fact that moving the sheer bulk of the army to the locale was rather difficult at best. Britain lay across the ocean, and in the 1700's it took months just to cross the Atlantic. Vietnam was all jungle territory. I think Eut can attest to how difficult that was to fight in. Iraq...well, I don't need to go into that.

But you're talking about America itself. Home territory. Hell, the Jefferson County Sherrif's Department was able to get a tank just for the recent tragedy at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado. Of course you have the benifit of knowing the terrain, but so do your enemies. Really, I don't see you managing anywhere near as well as you might think.

That said, with careful planning and appropriate locations--anywhere high up the mountains like in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, or Washington would probably be optimal--you could pull it off. But I wouldn't give yourselves false hope.

I'm afraid that in each and every situation, the partisans only had the upper hand due to the fact that moving the sheer bulk of the army to the locale was rather difficult at best. Britain lay across the ocean, and in the 1700's it took months just to cross the Atlantic. Vietnam was all jungle territory. I think Eut can attest to how difficult that was to fight in. Iraq...well, I don't need to go into that.

But you're talking about America itself. Home territory. Hell, the Jefferson County Sherrif's Department was able to get a tank just for the recent tragedy at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado. Of course you have the benifit of knowing the terrain, but so do your enemies. Really, I don't see you managing anywhere near as well as you might think.

That said, with careful planning and appropriate locations--anywhere high up the mountains like in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, or Washington would probably be optimal--you could pull it off. But I wouldn't give yourselves false hope.
What about So Cal suburbs? It's not like they could carpet-bomb Glendale...

What about So Cal suburbs? It's not like they could carpet-bomb Glendale...

I wouldn't put it past an authortarian government eager to fully wipe out any rebellion. They've already shown they do not understand in any way whatsoever how to perform actions that prevent the formation of rebellion, so I would expect a lot of people to be up in arms.

I still feel, however, that mountain territory would be the best locale. Prevents use of most military vehicles, equipment for armies is difficult to move through, and though planes can fly by, it's difficult for them to land in many places, and even more difficult for helicoptors, depending on location.

I'm afraid that in each and every situation, the partisans only had the upper hand due to the fact that moving the sheer bulk of the army to the locale was rather difficult at best. Britain lay across the ocean, and in the 1700's it took months just to cross the Atlantic. Vietnam was all jungle territory. I think Eut can attest to how difficult that was to fight in. Iraq...well, I don't need to go into that.

But you're talking about America itself. Home territory. Hell, the Jefferson County Sherrif's Department was able to get a tank just for the recent tragedy at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado. Of course you have the benifit of knowing the terrain, but so do your enemies. Really, I don't see you managing anywhere near as well as you might think.

That said, with careful planning and appropriate locations--anywhere high up the mountains like in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, or Washington would probably be optimal--you could pull it off. But I wouldn't give yourselves false hope.



Oh I very well know what kind of dangerous game this is. The #1 thing that we need is support of the population. If the mass population supports the guerrilla resistance than even if we die it will not be stamped out. Perhaps we could even get foriegn support but again I won't get my hopes up. It may also be possible to get support from some US military however, we do have a couple people in the Military with us, and say they may be able to convey some sort of defection- ie, the US military oath swears you first and foremost do defend the constitution. Hopefully that will encourage support. Our goal bassically is to secure as much people and arms as we can first of all. We'll only be doing supply raids and such. If we can get enough support and enough equipment we'll be able to grow large. And then we can let loose a proper guerrila campaign. And with that we may be able to liberate areas of land for short periods to train for more conventional combat. It will take long, and be very bloody and we wil most likley fail. But it is our duty to defend our freedom. btw, I am also a member of the US armed forces.

I wouldn't put it past an authortarian government eager to fully wipe out any rebellion. They've already shown they do not understand in any way whatsoever how to perform actions that prevent the formation of rebellion, so I would expect a lot of people to be up in arms.

I still feel, however, that mountain territory would be the best locale. Prevents use of most military vehicles, equipment for armies is difficult to move through, and though planes can fly by, it's difficult for them to land in many places, and even more difficult for helicoptors, depending on location.

Another great idea we can borow from the Cong is tunnels. They will be a necisity and the US still hasnt figured out a way to counter it effectivley. And they're all awesome air power wont work on them.

Fight or flight.

Those who cannot engage in the former should pursue the latter.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

Dobbs, just put it in your sig, it'll be easier.:p

Another great idea we can borow from the Cong is tunnels. They will be a necisity and the US still hasnt figured out a way to counter it effectivley. And they're all awesome air power wont work on them.

Remember though, you can't just go building random tunnels everywhere. This isn't the jungle. It's much easier to carpet bomb areas. I'd say reinforcing would be an absolute necessity for any tunnel.

I'd love to be able to be part of a guerilla movement should it become necessary. However, I'd be most suited to tactics, directing, and leading, rather than actual fighting. I'm not exactly in great shape physically, and even in the best shape of my life I was never much of a physical fighter. Tactics have always been my strong point.

I wouldn't put it past an authortarian government eager to fully wipe out any rebellion. They've already shown they do not understand in any way whatsoever how to perform actions that prevent the formation of rebellion, so I would expect a lot of people to be up in arms.

I still feel, however, that mountain territory would be the best locale. Prevents use of most military vehicles, equipment for armies is difficult to move through, and though planes can fly by, it's difficult for them to land in many places, and even more difficult for helicoptors, depending on location.
Well, good thing I live near mountains.

Well, good thing I live near mountains.

The Rockies in Colorado and the Cascades in Washington would be the two absolute best bets, methink. High-up in them, it's ridiculously remote almost, with plenty of open space. I'd say a good portion of optimum rebel base territory currently resides in national parks, even, so I wouldn't worry about local residents.

Of course, this is just for headquarters and the like. Obviously we couldn't fight a guerilla war across the entire country from bases in the Rockies and the Cascades. We'd have to have urban bases, safe houses, and all that junk.

I'd suggest trying to set up such a network in advance, but that would be futile at best, as currently no communication we've got is reasonably secure. (Speaking of communications, I would think our best bet on that nature would be to tap into phone lines and connect to the internet via various proxies for anonymity. Or perhaps bounce signals off of dozens of satallites, presuming that's something one can actually do in reality.)

absolutely disgusting

absolutely disgusting
What is?

I can't believe it has come to this.

I think that America won't be sliding into collapse or civil war, but a political shift, definitely. National security has been a trump for the government in past cases involving civil rights, but this latest move will likely bring court decisions that start to limit that argument.

This whole issue is symptomatic of Bush's executive policy, a trend towards very broad interpretation of executive war power in pursuit of a pseudo-conflict against terrorism and an ideology. Only the Supreme Court has acted as a check on the claimed power so far, but hopefully the new Senators will form a more substantial opposition in Congress so that the legislative branch can remove its mouth from the President's backside.
When has this Court ever voted to limit government? Not in Kelo, not in the restraining order thing a few months back. No, the folks in D.C. like being there, they like the special treatment they get and they want to stay there. None of them are going to do anything to make the government smaller. That's up to us. We vote for the bums, we need to vote for better bums.

For an ordinary crime, that's fine. For a foreign fellow that's stopped just short of bombing a mall, movie theater, whatever -- it's a little more vague. Let's say an American went to ??? to fight the government. He's certainly not a common criminal. My opinion, for now anyway, is that once you -- not a citizen -- decide to attack an established government, you've forfeited any rights that they might protect.

The thing is - YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING OR EVEN HAVE THOUGHT OF DOING ANYTHING AND YOU CAN STILL BE LOCKED UP FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WITH NO POSSIBILITY FOR APPEAL.

Under this law a government can take you from the street and lock you away. Your crime - NOTHING. You have never planned a crime and have never sought to commit an act against the government and still they can take you away for the rest of your life and there is nothing you can ever do about it.

Identity theft anyone?

Lock up political dissadents?

Lock up political opponents?

The thing is - YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING OR EVEN HAVE THOUGHT OF DOING ANYTHING AND YOU CAN STILL BE LOCKED UP FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WITH NO POSSIBILITY FOR APPEAL.

Under this law a government can take you from the street and lock you away. Your crime - NOTHING. You have never planned a crime and have never sought to commit an act against the government and still they can take you away for the rest of your life and there is nothing you can ever do about it.

Identity theft anyone?

Lock up political dissadents?

Lock up political opponents?
You got me out of context, idiot. Read around that post.

You got me out of context, idiot. Read around that post.

But who decides if someone is really trying to commit a terrorist act or is just a political activist?

The problem is that if you pass a law that allows you to lock up terrorists without trial (or any proof at all for that matter) then the same law can be used to lock up anyone - guilty or not.

All signs point to "probably."

Hell, they're keeping a professor out of the country because he gave a small donation to a group a year before they were put on a watch list as being suspected of having terrorist ties. It would be a flimsy enough excuse if he'd given the money after the group made the list, as it's a legal charitable organization in France to this day, but to keep him out because he gave the money before they were on the list (ans he hasn't given any since) is ludicrous. He was invited to be a professor at Notre Dame for goodness sake.

But who decides if someone is really trying to commit a terrorist act or is just a political activist?

The problem is that if you pass a law that allows you to lock up terrorists without trial (or any proof at all for that matter) then the same law can be used to lock up anyone - guilty or not.

Pay attention, I know it's hard to keep up. My gripe is only that habeas corpus is being suspened for citizens. And legal residents, too, I suppose. If a non-citizen attacks a sovereign nation, then he is forfeiting any rights that the nation may protect. It has nothing to do with terrorists or activism or anything like that. It's civil rights for citizens. That's it.

Hell, they're keeping a professor out of the country because he gave a small donation to a group a year before they were put on a watch list as being suspected of having terrorist ties. It would be a flimsy enough excuse if he'd given the money after the group made the list, as it's a legal charitable organization in France to this day, but to keep him out because he gave the money before they were on the list (ans he hasn't given any since) is ludicrous. He was invited to be a professor at Notre Dame for goodness sake.

What was done in an earlier time is certainly important. Look at the flak George Allen is getting about comments he made in the '70s. Gosh it's nice to be on different sides again.

What was done in an earlier time is certainly important. Look at the flak George Allen is getting about comments he made in the '70s. Gosh it's nice to be on different sides again.

My point is that it's hardly fair to refuse a professor entry for giving money to a charity when that charity was okay to give money to at the time. It's similar in nature to a bill of attainder, which isn't allowed under the constitution.

As for Allen, he just handled the situation stupidly. You don't lie about something like whether or not you said the "n-word" at some point in your life. Personally, I have no doubt he knew exactly what he was saying when he called that kid "macaca," but his excuse would have held if he hadn't stupidly claimed he'd never used ethnic slurs.

He could easily have used the whole "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible" excuse and while people might have grumbled, the story would have gone away. But he's allowed this to become a huge story now, and it might cost him his Senate seat. It's almost certainly cost him a shot at the White House in 2008.

My point is that it's hardly fair to refuse a professor entry for giving money to a charity when that charity was okay to give money to at the time. It's similar in nature to a bill of attainder, which isn't allowed under the constitution.

As for Allen, he just handled the situation stupidly. You don't lie about something like whether or not you said the "n-word" at some point in your life. Personally, I have no doubt he knew exactly what he was saying when he called that kid "macaca," but his excuse would have held if he hadn't stupidly claimed he'd never used ethnic slurs.

He could easily have used the whole "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible" excuse and while people might have grumbled, the story would have gone away. But he's allowed this to become a huge story now, and it might cost him his Senate seat. It's almost certainly cost him a shot at the White House in 2008.

I doubt the charitable group was really "okay" when it was not on the watch list. More likely, it just hadn't been addressed at all. I do wish we would worry as much about some other immigration issues as we seem to worry about an errant scholar or two.

And you're right about George. He should have used the Robert Byrd technique to avoid all discussions of any past racial problems.

I doubt the charitable group was really "okay" when it was not on the watch list. More likely, it just hadn't been addressed at all. I do wish we would worry as much about some other immigration issues as we seem to worry about an errant scholar or two.

And you're right about George. He should have used the Robert Byrd technique to avoid all discussions of any past racial problems.

Byrd's done more than use the youthful indiscretions excuse to get beyond his racial past--he's actually taken steps to repudiate that past and make up for what he once stood for. Allen, well, it's hard to get past charges of racism when only a few years ago when he was Governor, he was actively promoting Confederate Soldiers month or something like that but doing nothing even remotely similar for the black community. But hey, a little false equivalence never hurt anybody, right?

It's no coincidence. Even if Bush isn't fully "on the ball", at least one of the higher-ups is: Cheney. And guess what? He's Halliburton.

Back in the day, they called it "profiteering," and back in the day, it was illegal. Those days are over, I guess.

I can't believe it has come to this.

i can. i knew it would years ago, the signs were obvious even then.

Here's the letter I just fired off to my Democratic Senator--I'm not bothering with the Republican one, because he's BFF with Jeb and Dubya and I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart were on fire.

May I adapt that letter to send to my own pols?

No matter who he or she is, no matter the party, no matter what freedoms you think you have, because if this current bill concerning torture passes, you too could be considered an enemy combatant, tossed in jail, tortured, and never be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514_pf.html)

So here's how it could work. Say you're a political dissident--doesn't matter which party you belong to now or who's in the White House, because I'm talking about the possibilities of this legislation, so allow your imagination to run free. Picture your worst nightmare in the White House--if you're a fundamentalist Christian, imagine a god-hating atheist is president and he's trying to enforce the separation of church and state to the point where he wants to outlaw your church; whatever.

Under this legislation, the President, without having to run the decision past anyone else, could declare you an enemy combatant, have you locked up, remove your habeas corpus rights so you can't challenge the detention, and never have you brought to trial. All by calling you an enemy combatant. That's what could happen under this legislation.

Some of you will no doubt say I'm being paranoid, that my hatred of the Bush administration has me jumping at shadows, that this legislation would never be used this way against a US citizen. You're entitled to your opinion. You'd also be wrong.

If history teaches us anything, it's that legislation that can be used for a purpose almost certainly will be used for that purpose, eventually, and make no mistake about it--this legislation could potentially be used as a tool for crushing political dissent.

I feel your pain... but it is almost irrelevent to me.

As a legal 'permanent resident' of the US, and not yet a citizen, I find it hard to sympathise too much with what citizens have allowed to happen... citizens at least get to vote.

On the other hand, I pay taxes, work hard, and am raising a family... and can be picked up at any time with no reason given. My family wouldn't even need to be told where I am. And I have no rights.

I feel now, how those Russian citizens felt, sitting in the dark, waiting for the KGB to come knocking.

Byrd's done more than use the youthful indiscretions excuse to get beyond his racial past--he's actually taken steps to repudiate that past and make up for what he once stood for. Allen, well, it's hard to get past charges of racism when only a few years ago when he was Governor, he was actively promoting Confederate Soldiers month or something like that but doing nothing even remotely similar for the black community. But hey, a little false equivalence never hurt anybody, right?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with commemorating Confederate heritage. Nor with calling the NAACP an extremist group. Mfume has made it so. There is most definitely something wrong with maintaining a membership in the Ku Klux Klan. You're right, there is no equivalence. Byrd is scum.

This is not naivete or cynicism on my part, but I would like to know now, who among you now think the United States is near imminent collapse, civil war or complete political shift?

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, as the war has not yet passed through the courts, but with all of our joking, NS General is actually quite well informed. So when I see some of our more experienced members seeing doom on the horrizon, I naturally get worried.

I definitely think we are teetering on the brink of fascism, and there are experts who agree. I strongly recommend John Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience." His personal slant in the book is obvious, but the data about authoritarianism he cites are objective, enlightening, and alarming.

Right now, the split remains still at nearly 50-50 between those who are embracing a totalitarian, authoritarian outlook and those who reject the same. However, we see all around us strong propaganda efforts to either win support for authoritarian views or else silence and intimidate opposition.

It is my firm opinion that, if the opposition do not take control of the entire federal government in the next two elections, then a fascist-style system will be imposed on the country. If the opposition do not also take back the majority of state governments over the next several years, then the social trend towards fascism will continue to rear its ugly head in national politics again and again. Also, if whole states become safe havens for this new fascism, even if -- especially if -- it is forced out of the national political scene, then I would predict a rise in heavily armed, paramilitary separatist groups, and domestic terrorism.

If a fascist-style system is imposed while the ideological split is at 50-50, there is a very slight chance the country could break up. To me, that would be the most positive outcome possible. My personal pessimism makes me believe the opposition will not come together and will not fight back, and the country will go the way of Germany in the 30s.

Here's the letter I just fired off to my Democratic Senator--I'm not bothering with the Republican one, because he's BFF with Jeb and Dubya and I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart were on fire.

I did you one better. I told Chambliss and Isakson that they have lost my votes forever. I'll let you know what I get back.

My apologies to any and all who are growing tired with my posting of the Canadian gov'mt link - I don't use a sig, so no - it won't be put into one. I posted it on multiple threads in the hopes that for those who may be on NS who don't feel they can stay in the US in order to 'fight' - whatever that fight might entail - for those people who are rightfully scared by this turn of events - to let them know that there are personal alternatives to staying where they are and waiting for the worst to come to pass.

Left and right aside - this is definitely a time to take stock and work out your options. I want to underscore the legitimate channels/process to realizing the 'flight' option for those seriously considering it.

If anything, I saw my posts last night as a service for people in need. Again I apologize. But the way things are going with you guys, non-Americans should not feel, or be made to feel, as though their opinions and words of support or derision have no place being heard - a la Deep Kimchi & friends in the recent past.

I want to re-iterate: Canada is an option - an option that should really be given some due consideration before things get out of hand. And it's looking like they will get out of hand a lot sooner than I'd ever thought. I may have a penchant for slagging idiocy when and where I encounter it - but only a moron would not at least try to help people I've become attached to try to escape the coming storm.

I really do think of you as my friends, and I don't want anything bad to happen - not to any of you. I'll try keeping up on what's going on, and if you can, please keep me posted.

D.

i can. i knew it would years ago, the signs were obvious even then.

Same here. I've been expecting this since the 1980s.

My apologies to any and all who are growing tired with my posting of the Canadian gov'mt link - I don't use a sig, so no - it won't be put into one. I posted it on multiple threads in the hopes that for those who may be on NS who don't feel they can stay in the US in order to 'fight' - whatever that fight might entail - for those people who are rightfully scared by this turn of events - to let them know that there are personal alternatives to staying where they are and waiting for the worst to come to pass.

Left and right aside - this is definitely a time to take stock and work out your options. I want to underscore the legitimate channels/process to realizing the 'flight' option for those seriously considering it.

If anything, I saw my posts last night as a service for people in need. Again I apologize. But the way things are going with you guys, non-Americans should not feel, or be made to feel, as though their opinions and words of support or derision have no place being heard - a la Deep Kimchi & friends in the recent past.

I want to re-iterate: Canada is an option - an option that should really be given some due consideration before things get out of hand. And it's looking like they will get out of hand a lot sooner than I'd ever thought. I may have a penchant for slagging idiocy when and where I encounter it - but only a moron would not at least try to help people I've become attached to try to escape the coming storm.

I really do think of you as my friends, and I don't want anything bad to happen - not to any of you. I'll try keeping up on what's going on, and if you can, please keep me posted.

D.

Hey, I think you are doing a great job, for real. The people you tell how to do that here can go and tell the people they know and love too and so you may be helping way more people than you think. I'll use it too, only if my rebbellion fails.

The Rockies in Colorado and the Cascades in Washington would be the two absolute best bets, methink. High-up in them, it's ridiculously remote almost, with plenty of open space. I'd say a good portion of optimum rebel base territory currently resides in national parks, even, so I wouldn't worry about local residents.

Of course, this is just for headquarters and the like. Obviously we couldn't fight a guerilla war across the entire country from bases in the Rockies and the Cascades. We'd have to have urban bases, safe houses, and all that junk.

I'd suggest trying to set up such a network in advance, but that would be futile at best, as currently no communication we've got is reasonably secure. (Speaking of communications, I would think our best bet on that nature would be to tap into phone lines and connect to the internet via various proxies for anonymity. Or perhaps bounce signals off of dozens of satallites, presuming that's something one can actually do in reality.)


Well hey, ANY AMERICANS. Interested in resistance? Well contact me. I already have a small militia. Its small, but its something. Any americans interested in fighting back and or preparing for the worst should contact me immedatly. Even if we cannot meet in person we can still communicate and try to keep up resistance of all forms around the nation. My email is wooddeep@gmail.com yes the name may sound perverted hehe, but I made that back when things were "sane" you can also just contact me over NS sending a message to my nation.

My apologies to any and all who are growing tired with my posting of the Canadian gov'mt link - I don't use a sig, so no - it won't be put into one. I posted it on multiple threads in the hopes that for those who may be on NS who don't feel they can stay in the US in order to 'fight' - whatever that fight might entail - for those people who are rightfully scared by this turn of events - to let them know that there are personal alternatives to staying where they are and waiting for the worst to come to pass.

Left and right aside - this is definitely a time to take stock and work out your options. <snip>

I appreciate the gesture. In fact, I have already been researching this, and I am currently putting together all the data and setting up my business so as to qualify more easily as a self-employed person involved in cultural activities, which will waive a lot of the standard work requirements and limitations. I had hoped to have at least 4 more years to do this, but things are speeding up down here. However, I may be able to just squeak through the checklist if I get at least tourist-fluent in French, which I hope to accomplish this winter. A bientot, mon ami. Zut! ;)

May I adapt that letter to send to my own pols?By all means.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with commemorating Confederate heritage. Nor with calling the NAACP an extremist group. Mfume has made it so. There is most definitely something wrong with maintaining a membership in the Ku Klux Klan. You're right, there is no equivalence. Byrd is scum.

Commemorating Confederate heritage on its own, perhaps not (although personally I find it beyond distasteful), but when combined with use of ethnic slurs, having a noose in your law office, and of course his close association with the CCC, well, it all adds up to racist. And not one in the past either--a current one.

And Byrd hasn't been in the Klan in decades. The two examples aren't remotely close.

Same here. I've been expecting this since the 1980s.

i can only claim the mid 90s, myself. too busy playing tee-ball in the 80s.

i will say that my expectation of this hasn't lessened my outrage at it, or at how easily it all went down.