NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/


SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
Countdown
Updated: 30 minutes ago
We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived as people in fear.

And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before—and we have been here before led here—by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been only human.

We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”

We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”

And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “unlawful enemy combatant” for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them—as always—wrong.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

Nation is going into the crapper but the American Joe hasn't been imprisoned yet so no one will care. Of course when it does happen it will be too late...

Nation is going into the crapper but the American Joe hasn't been imprisoned yet so no one will care. Of course when it does happen it will be too late...

Unfortunately, yes. We apparently don't give a crap about what happens until it all starts caving in on us and we suddenly wonder where the hell it all came from.

:eek:

And there will be those who welcome this madness....

Unfortunately, yes. We apparently don't give a crap about what happens until it all starts caving in on us and we suddenly wonder where the hell it all came from.

I think all the people supporting the crap going on now while deriding the terrorist-sympathising-commie-liberals will continnue to supprt just about anything until the government takes their guns away. But by then it will be too late.

More like 1968-1974 all over again, nuthin' more.

I think all the people supporting the crap going on now while deriding the terrorist-sympathising-commie-liberals will continnue to supprt just about anything until the government takes their guns away. But by then it will be too late.

They won't stop at just their guns, they can take -them- away, sweep them off to wherever they want, treat them however they want, incriminate them however they want, talk shit about them however they want, and guess what? It's all legal now. Thanks, republican congressmen, and by proxy, their republican constituents. You really helped out America this time.

That's why I suggest you all join me in vacating this sinking ship before it hits the bottom of the ocean.

where you goin?

Hmmmm. Sounds like an efficent campain strategy. Lock up all the Democrats (that agree Bush is an idiot everyday) so they can't vote! :p

That's why I suggest you all join me in vacating this sinking ship before it hits the bottom of the ocean.

I'd like to. I seriously considered planning a move to Canada in '04, but I dunno. I'm just fucking depressed over this shit. Such a feeling of powerlessness, moreso the fact that there are people that STILL support this fucker, even after all his bullshit.

I'm a sad panda.

That's why I suggest you all join me in vacating this sinking ship before it hits the bottom of the ocean.

Go where? If things keep going this way, America isn't the only place thats gonna be in trouble.

I'd like to. I seriously considered planning a move to Canada in '04, but I dunno. I'm just fucking depressed over this shit. Such a feeling of powerlessness, moreso the fact that there are people that STILL support this fucker, even after all his bullshit.

I'm a sad panda.

yeah yeah canada.

everyone says that and then disapoints me by staying. take alec baldwin with you, he promised to leave years ago

yeah yeah canada.

everyone says that and then disapoints me by staying. take alec baldwin with you, he promised to leave years ago

I'm not sure what the point of that post was. Are you mocking me or telling me to leave or both? Cochise?

That's why I suggest you all join me in vacating this sinking ship before it hits the bottom of the ocean.

Hell NO! This is MY home! They can come take me away, but I'll be dammed if I'm going to walk away! Come get us Gov. Come bust us all! Weaken the nation even more! Then when China turns the Northern Hemisphire into one giant rice patty, don't say I didn't tell you so!!! :upyours:<<<< intended for Gov., not Congo-K

Does this mark of infamy go with these pants?

im just saying if i had a nickel for every time someone threatened to pull up and move to canada, the ikea guy wouldnt have anything on me.

express your dissatisfaction, vote for opposition parties

but "im moving to canada" come on

can you work there? do you have a visa?

do they even want you?

Hell NO! This is MY home! They can come take me away, but I'll be dammed if I'm going to walk away! Come get us Gov. Come bust us all! Weaken the nation even more! Then when China turns the Northern Hemisphire into one giant rice patty, don't say I didn't tell you so!!! :upyours:

While I generally agree with your overall purpose of the post, you -do- sound kind of crazy, and because we're on The Same Side (tm), it makes me look crazy as well. Please do refrain from sounding so crazy in the future. =)

im just saying if i had a nickel for every time someone threatened to pull up and move to canada, the ikea guy wouldnt have anything on me.

express your dissatisfaction, vote for opposition parties

but "im moving to canada" come on

can you work there? do you have a visa?

do they even want you?

I could work there. I could get a visa. They'd want me.

I do express my dissatisfaction, but it doesn't seem to affect anything. Hence, powerlessness. No matter how hard we try, the democrats have been shut out for the past six years.

Tell me, honestly, do you think Kerry would've signed a fucked up bill like this? I highly doubt it. Disagree with his stance on gay marriage and Iraq all you like, but I don't feel he would've become like this.

While I generally agree with your overall purpose of the post, you -do- sound kind of crazy, and because we're on The Same Side (tm), it makes me look crazy as well. Please do refrain from sounding so crazy in the future. =)

My point is: Don't read into this too much, what they can do and what they will do are 2 completly different things.

I'll remind everyone that while, things like this have happened before, the internet, CNN, cellphones and the like were not available.

im just saying if i had a nickel for every time someone threatened to pull up and move to canada, the ikea guy wouldnt have anything on me.

express your dissatisfaction, vote for opposition parties

but "im moving to canada" come on

can you work there? do you have a visa?

do they even want you?
Most of your post makes sense, I bolded the part that I'm skeptical about. Voting in the US is a lottery these days....

My point is: Don't read into this too much, what they can do and what they will do are 2 completly different things.

I'll remind everyone that while, things like this have happened before, the internet, CNN, cellphones and the like were not available.

Doesn't seem to keep them from doing the exact same thing to people of other nationalities. What's to keep them from doing it to someone like you? Take away your internet connection, your television, your cellphone, and your freedom, lock you away in GitMo with no explanation as to why - they're allowed to do this now, and you're just fine with that? Our government has given the go-ahead for something that should never have happened in America.

It's your kind of sense of apathy towards what can happen that lets them take baby steps towards such things with impunity.

I'd like to. I seriously considered planning a move to Canada in '04, but I dunno. I'm just fucking depressed over this shit. Such a feeling of powerlessness, moreso the fact that there are people that STILL support this fucker, even after all his bullshit.

I'm a sad panda.

me2 man, I feel for you that live in that place.

Olberman is an hysterical idiot who's intoxicated by the sound of his own pontificating. Not to mention pissed off that nobody's watching him.

i wanted a reason to vote for kerry trust me

kerrys problem was that he had no answers.

just like going to canada isnt an answer.

basically i understand its an expression of frustration, but i prefer my frustration to be more constructive

Olberman is an hysterical idiot who's intoxicated by the sound of his own pontificating. Not to mention pissed off that nobody's watching him.

Way to ignore the article completely and troll at the same time.

My... He's eloquent :)

Scary, but eloquent.

Olberman is an hysterical idiot who's intoxicated by the sound of his own pontificating. Not to mention pissed off that nobody's watching him.

Is that why his ratings are spiking since he started his special commentary? Is that why more than a few of those broadcasts have been topping O'Liely as well? Can I have some of whatever it is that you're on?

i wanted a reason to vote for kerry trust me

kerrys problem was that he had no answers.

just like going to canada isnt an answer.

basically i understand its an expression of frustration, but i prefer my frustration to be more constructive

Reason to vote for Kerry? He's not Bush. Honestly. That's the main reason. He's nothing like Bush and is a huge step up from what we have now. Though preferably I'd like for Dean to not have had to drop out - so he got excited about something and people made fun of him for it, we missed out on someone who was better than Kerry.

Y'know who else was better than Kerry? Edwards. Simply to get him in the VP spot, I would've voted for Kerry.

Question of the day: has Americans become disenfranchised?

Olberman is an hysterical idiot who's intoxicated by the sound of his own pontificating. Not to mention pissed off that nobody's watching him.

some days its so hard to be sorta conservative

Doesn't seem to keep them from doing the exact same thing to people of other nationalities. What's to keep them from doing it to someone like you? Take away your internet connection, your television, your cellphone, and your freedom, lock you away in GitMo with no explanation as to why - they're allowed to do this now, and you're just fine with that? Our government has given the go-ahead for something that should never have happened in America.

It's your kind of sense of apathy towards what can happen that lets them take baby steps towards such things with impunity.


But are they also going to take away my family's internet and cellphone? And my co-workers? And my neighbors? And all the people they know?

I mean if you threaten to harm an elected official, that's one thing, If people disagree with their methods and start getting busted for it, half the country would be banging on Bush's front door the next day.

But we shall see. Will Michael Moore and Bill Maur get busted? If they do,THEN we will have something to worry about. ;)

im not bush is no reason to vote for someone.

voting like that is reckless and irresponsible.

But are they also going to take away my family's internet and cellphone? And my co-workers? And my neighbors? And all the people they know?

I mean if you threaten to harm an elected official, that's one thing, If people disagree with their methods and start getting busted for it, half the country would be banging on Bush's front door the next day.

But we shall see. Will Michael Moore and Bill Maur get busted? If they do,THEN we will have something to worry about. ;)

They don't have to. They take you away, and people can yell all they want about it, but they can't do shit because it's legal now. Get it? It's legal to kidnap you and give no explanation as to why.

im not bush is no reason to vote for someone.

voting like that is reckless and irresponsible.

Considering I think it was pretty reckless and irresponsible to keep Bush -IN- office, voting on someone who was already elected to be a senator to replace him doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

given that a retarded monkey could have beaten bush had he actually had a platform, kerry's silence is mighty suspicious.

just what sort of aggregious act was he planning that he couldnt even open his mouth to give us a glimmer of what he thought?

given that a retarded monkey could have beaten bush had he actually had a platform, kerry's silence is mighty suspicious.

just what sort of aggregious act was he planning that he couldnt even open his mouth to give us a glimmer of what he thought?

You must've been listening to different speeches than I was - he gave outright answers to all questions. He wanted a timetable to schedule everything up to when we leave Iraq - sooner better than later.

It just seems like he never gave an answer because of all the negative campaigning by the Bush administration and its supporters, focusing on calling him names and mocking him at every turn.

what stands out for me about what kerry actually said terrified me.


ten seconds after lambasting bush for going it alone in iraq, he said hed go it alone in korea, and tell china to stuff it.

wasnt bush spin, i saw it live.

other than that i got alot of "bush has messed up" campaign ads from kerry, that didnt actually offer any alternative

You must've been listening to different speeches than I was - he gave outright answers to all questions. He wanted a timetable to schedule everything up to when we leave Iraq - sooner better than later.

It just seems like he never gave an answer because of all the negative campaigning by the Bush administration and its supporters, focusing on calling him names and mocking him at every turn.


Right. He gave lots of answers. Some of them contradictory to what he told other audiences, some of them written by office workers that turned out to be false.

Right. He gave lots of answers. Some of them contradictory to what he told other audiences, some of them written by office workers that turned out to be false.

*shrugs* That's beauracracy for you. On both sides. Keeping in mind, the campaigning is all bullshit, regardless of what party you are - whatever promises you make, they'll most likely be broken or outright reversed - my point is, Kerry and Edwards were better people than Bush and Cheney. Bush's administration is unsafe and even hostile towards logic and law; I don't see how Kerry could've fucked up even anywhere NEAR as badly as Bush has. No way in hell.

better people?

and on what basis was this judgement made?

*shrugs* That's beauracracy for you. On both sides. Keeping in mind, the campaigning is all bullshit, regardless of what party you are - whatever promises you make, they'll most likely be broken or outright reversed - my point is, Kerry and Edwards were better people than Bush and Cheney. Bush's administration is unsafe and even hostile towards logic and law; I don't see how Kerry could've fucked up even anywhere NEAR as badly as Bush has. No way in hell.
democracy,.

They don't have to. They take you away, and people can yell all they want about it, but they can't do shit because it's legal now. Get it? It's legal to kidnap you and give no explanation as to why.

I thought is was funny (from page 3 or your OP link) where the author asks:
Did it ever dawn on Bush that the same thing could happen to him in January of 2009? :D

Reason to vote for Kerry? He's not Bush. Honestly. That's the main reason. He's nothing like Bush and is a huge step up from what we have now. Though preferably I'd like for Dean to not have had to drop out - so he got excited about something and people made fun of him for it, we missed out on someone who was better than Kerry.

Y'know who else was better than Kerry? Edwards. Simply to get him in the VP spot, I would've voted for Kerry.
I'm not convinced Dean would have done any better at all. No one minded Kerry so far as I could tell, until it was apparent he was going through instead of Dean. I well recall at that point people who were deriding Dean a week earlier as an absolute nutter, prattling about how they had to vote for Bush because they had no one better to vote for, suddenly exclaiming what a pity Dean hadnt run instead of Kerry because Dean was a man they could have considered for, but alas they were stuck voting Bush back in because of Kerry....:confused:

Kerry wasnt really that bad of a candidate. In any sane world he could have been (an incrediably bad candidate) and still beat out the Bush hands-down.... You dont vote someone like Bush back in because there is no one better, you vote him out and hope the next 'Joe' through the door takes a hint and at least reins in their more destructive flights of dellusional grandeur. Or at least you do if you care more for your country than partisan cheerleading.

Maybe I'm being naive but I don't see the Cheney/Bush Administration suddenly hauling people off to secret prisons by the busload. That would be a bit much even for them. (Years ago I read a novel about Richard Nixon doing just that, pulling off a coup and arresting all his political enemies; the hero of the story was Nixon's Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, and the ending was not particulary happy.) It's just the idea that the country that trumpets itself as being the leader of the Free World, at the forefront of the March of Democracy, Enemy of Tyranny, etc., has just legislated the mechanism by which someone could become a dictator in the style of all those we claim to oppose. The President of the United States now has powers that Saddam Hussein had, that Kim Il Jong does have. Ah, my country! How longuntil Election Day?

*shrugs* That's beauracracy for you. On both sides. Keeping in mind, the campaigning is all bullshit, regardless of what party you are - whatever promises you make, they'll most likely be broken or outright reversed - my point is, Kerry and Edwards were better people than Bush and Cheney. Bush's administration is unsafe and even hostile towards logic and law; I don't see how Kerry could've fucked up even anywhere NEAR as badly as Bush has. No way in hell.

I can see where he could have fucked up just as badly or even worse.

better people?

and on what basis was this judgement made?

On every decision the administration has ever made? They're horrible politicians, and horrible people.

Have you seen the Edwards/Cheney debate? He wiped the floor with that bald jackass. Gave me hope that something better was just around the corner.

vote someone in and HOPE they are better?


do you drive with your eyes closed and hope you dont hit anything?

Im a libertarian not a republican. If i voted party line i wouldnt have been trying to choose between either of those worthless sods.

the plain fact of the matter is that anyone with a secret agenda is worse than someone with an agenda thats openly nuts.

better the devil you know.

On every decision the administration has ever made? They're horrible politicians, and horrible people.

Have you seen the Edwards/Cheney debate? He wiped the floor with that bald jackass. Gave me hope that something better was just around the corner.

Now it's just getting silly. This is a perfect example of BDS.

Maybe I'm being naive but I don't see the Cheney/Bush Administration suddenly hauling people off to secret prisons by the busload. That would be a bit much even for them. (Years ago I read a novel about Richard Nixon doing just that, pulling off a coup and arresting all his political enemies; the hero of the story was Nixon's Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, and the ending was not particulary happy.) It's just the idea that the country that trumpets itself as being the leader of the Free World, at the forefront of the March of Democracy, Enemy of Tyranny, etc., has just legislated the mechanism by which someone could become a dictator in the style of all those we claim to oppose. The President of the United States now has powers that Saddam Hussein had, that Kim Il Jong does have. Ah, my country! How longuntil Election Day?

Exactly. Regardless of whether or not it actually happens, the fact that he would sign a bill that allows it to happen shows what sort of person he is, and to be honest I wouldn't put it completely behind him. By the busload? You mean, busses carrying dissidents/Japs/writers off to be held without notice? Yeah, that'll never happen.

Now it's just getting silly. This is a perfect example of BDS.

BDS? Dunno what that is.

And no, it's not silly. Show me where the administration has succeeded in anything they've set out to do.

Exactly. Regardless of whether or not it actually happens, the fact that he would sign a bill that allows it to happen shows what sort of person he is, and to be honest I wouldn't put it completely behind him. By the busload? You mean, busses carrying dissidents/Japs/writers off to be held without notice? Yeah, that'll never happen.

And it happened under a Democrat president. :)

vote someone in and HOPE they are better?


do you drive with your eyes closed and hope you dont hit anything?

Im a libertarian not a republican. If i voted party line i wouldnt have been trying to choose between either of those worthless sods.

the plain fact of the matter is that anyone with a secret agenda is worse than someone with an agenda thats openly nuts.

better the devil you know.

No, the devil we know will fuck us over. The devil we don't know MIGHT NOT fuck us over. I'd take the chance rather than the certainty.

On every decision the administration has ever made? They're horrible politicians, and horrible people.

.

i didnt ask what made bush and cheney bad. i asked what basis you had for saying silent kerry was better.

unless you summer with the guy you dont know squat about him. your vitriol and lack of supporting evidence are exactly why kerry lost. its such a turnoff

And it happened under a Democrat president. :)

Not saying it didn't. Where did I say that?

BDS? Dunno what that is.

And no, it's not silly. Show me where the administration has succeeded in anything they've set out to do.

Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.

i didnt ask what made bush and cheney bad. i asked what basis you had for saying silent kerry was better.

unless you summer with the guy you dont know squat about him. your vitriol and lack of supporting evidence are exactly why kerry lost. its such a turnoff

"I'm turned off by the fact that I have the chance to kick out someone I know is an asshole." Apathy.

Fuck, I don't even care anymore - even a third party candidate! ANYONE but Bush or Bush-like candidates would get my vote at this point! This is what it's come to in America, that's how bad it is!

"I'm turned off by the fact that I have the chance to kick out someone I know is an asshole." Apathy.

Fuck, I don't even care anymore - even a third party candidate! ANYONE but Bush or Bush-like candidates would get my vote at this point! This is what it's come to in America, that's how bad it is!

In your opinion. Not everyone is wearing the same tin hat as you.

its not apathy, apathy would mean i didnt care

i, unlike you, care enough to actually want to know something about my leadership.

buying into "im not bush" doesnt make you passionate it makes you easily led. if you cant be bothered to press your potential leader for answers YOU are the apathist. why not vote by throwning darts?

Exactly. Regardless of whether or not it actually happens, the fact that he would sign a bill that allows it to happen shows what sort of person he is, and to be honest I wouldn't put it completely behind him. By the busload? You mean, busses carrying dissidents/Japs/writers off to be held without notice? Yeah, that'll never happen.

And it happened under a Democrat president. :)

Yeah, I know it already happened. Actually, the real first time was in the Adams Administration, when it was illegal to criticize the President. The Alien and Sedition Acts were ... well, not repealed but allowed to lapse. We can always repeal this mess.

I don't see busloads, but I could see a future President deciding his chief opponent needs to disappear. I hope I don't see it, but it is now actually legal to do that. "Badges? We don' need to show you no steenkin' badges!"

Nation is going into the crapper but the American Joe hasn't been imprisoned yet so no one will care. Of course when it does happen it will be too late...

"And they came for the terrorists, but I was not a terrorist, so I said nothing....."

Yes, I switched Jew with terrorist, but nonetheless, it is still appropriate given the situation.

I've still seen no argument as to why Bush should still be in office today. I hope to god after democrats take majority they mold him after a lame duck (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15310701/).

More like 1968-1974 all over again, nuthin' more.
I was actually surprised he didn't mention COINTELPRO in that commentary--it would have had a lot of resonance for my parents' generation, though perhaps not for much of anyone else. But the ones he hit were powerful all the same, and very accurate.

The biggest difference is that Nixon didn't have a rubber-stamp Congress like Bush currently does. Hopefully that'll change in 3 weeks or so.

I've still seen no argument as to why Bush should still be in office today. I hope to god after democrats take majority they mold him after a lame duck (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15310701/).

because he hasnt been impeached.

BDS? Dunno what that is.

And no, it's not silly. Show me where the administration has succeeded in anything they've set out to do.

It stands for "Bush Derangement Syndrome," a slam right-wingers like to put on anyone who dares to question Dear Leader.

im no bushie

but in alot of cases that bds is remarkably apt.

because he hasnt been impeached.

Just because you've been "elected" (I use that term loosely for this 'president') doesn't make you fit to be in said office, much like just because you have sperm doesn't make you fit to be a father.

and yet, that sperm makes you a father, and your being unfit doesnt change the fact you are one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
*mourns

and yet, that sperm makes you a father, and your being unfit doesnt change the fact you are one.

Oh he is one, yes, but we can agree on him being unfit to be one. Now, that being said, why not impeach him if he's unfit?

see now you are finally getting somewhere.

marshall some real arguments, bring charges and prove malfeasance. then he wont be president any more and no one has to move to canada.

truth be told id support removing him from office.

FDR and Woodrow Wilson are highly esteemed as great presidents.

see now you are finally getting somewhere.

marshall some real arguments, bring charges and prove malfeasance. then he wont be president any more and no one has to move to canada.

truth be told id support removing him from office.

Good to know we at least support the same thing.

And I've already marshalled enough arguments. Charges? High treason. Would lying to Congress and country while taking your initiation oath be purgery(sp)? Many counts of murder. Many counts of obstruction of justice.

His entire administration would be considered accomplices during and after the fact and would be tried accordingly.

How's those for charges? I'm sure I could do more, including theft (of election, of freedom, of security) but I think just high treason is enough for the death penalty.

murder?

come on now. if you count deaths in an illegal military action as murder you better string up ole william jefferson clinton for the same thing.

FDR and Woodrow Wilson are highly esteemed as great presidents.

And they fucked up, as well. So?

murder?

come on now. if you count deaths in an illegal military action as murder you better string up ole william jefferson clinton for the same thing.

Have at him, then, as well. I don't know enough about his situation to gauge whether or not it's the same situation (though I highly doubt it), but if someone else knows more about it then let us know and we can decide to charge Bill as well.

The american attacks on serbian Yugoslavia didnt even have the tenous backing of an ancient UN resolution. As a matter of fact the UN expressly forbid military action to which clinton said "too bad, NATO said it was ok" and proceeded to bomb the hell out of the place.

better the devil you know.
Better someone you know is a devil that someone who only might be? Better to drive straight forward over a 50 foot cliff you know is there than to try reversing. Better to choose a definate loss than a chance at winning...

Better someone who might not be a devil than someone you know is.

I can't believe anyone is uneducated or stupid enough to believe this crap. Oh wait, that's right, Bush attacked the Twin Towers in his bid to place the world under absolute miltary rule! It makes perfect sense!

The american attacks on serbian Yugoslavia didnt even have the tenous backing of an ancient UN resolution. As a matter of fact the UN expressly forbid military action to which clinton said "too bad, NATO said it was ok" and proceeded to bomb the hell out of the place.

Okay, he's legally in the wrong. What about ethically? Logically? Did he at least complete his goal with what he did?

By a longshot, I'm not defending him - I just want the whole story before I make a decision.

I can't believe anyone is uneducated or stupid enough to believe this crap. Oh wait, that's right, Bush attacked the Twin Towers in his bid to place the world under absolute miltary rule! It makes perfect sense!

You're an idiot. We never said such things. You probably didn't even read the article, and for that, shame on you.

zagat if kerry wasnt the devil all he had to do was open his mouth.

he didnt because he knew hed either have to lie, and get slammed for it later, or hed tell the truth and even less people would vote for him.

what possible motivation could a GENUINELY superior candidate have for shrouding his agenda in secrecy?

Okay, he's legally in the wrong. What about ethically? Logically? Did he at least complete his goal with what he did?

By a longshot, I'm not defending him - I just want the whole story before I make a decision.

yes. people stopped talking about the lawsuit agaisnt him. and if you are going to open that can of worms, then Bush can get out of the iraq debacle simply by claiming regime change was a moral end.

The problem with bringing acts of impeachment against him is that, as far as I know, he has not actually broken any laws. He instead gets a law passed making what he is about to do legal and then goes and does it. If anyone can think a law (US law, not some international law, because I'm pretty sure that do not count for impeachment) that he has actually broken, please let us know. Then tell your representative in the House so that he can start the impeachment process.

yes. people stopped talking about the lawsuit agaisnt him. and if you are going to open that can of worms, then Bush can get out of the iraq debacle simply by claiming regime change was a moral end.

But we know that story. He is morally, logically, ethically, and legally wrong in Iraq. He's failed in every way possible.

What did Clinton do in terms of Bosnia?

The problem with bringing acts of impeachment against him is that, as far as I know, he has not actually broken any laws. He instead gets a law passed making what he is about to do legal and then goes and does it. If anyone can think a law (US law, not some international law, because I'm pretty sure that do not count for impeachment) that he has actually broken, please let us know. Then tell your representative in the House so that he can start the impeachment process.

He's fucked the constitution in the ass with many of the bills he's signed and the liberties he's given himself. Pretty sure that's treason.

But we know that story. He is morally, logically, ethically, and legally wrong in Iraq. He's failed in every way possible.

What did Clinton do in terms of Bosnia?

morally wrong is in the eye of the beholder and so is logically and ethically wrong. legally wrong is your only fallback, which again leads to clinton suffering the same.

He's fucked the constitution in the ass with many of the bills he's signed and the liberties he's given himself. Pretty sure that's treason.

getting laws passed isnt treason

if a law is unconstitutional it is to be struck down by the courts. thats the seperation of powers doctrine.

getting laws passed isnt treason

if a law is unconstitutional it is to be struck down by the courts. thats the seperation of powers doctrine.

He's bypassed the separation of powers doctrine. What happens when the courts strike down his terror bill? He dodges them and tries again.

morally wrong is in the eye of the beholder and so is logically and ethically wrong. legally wrong is your only fallback, which again leads to clinton suffering the same.

Logic is not in the eye of the beholder. Ethics, maybe, but you've got to have a fucked up eye to believe that Bush has any ethics in terms of Iraq. Morally wrong, yes - you're right, we can't hold him to that, because he has no morals.

you are drifting into your two minutes of hate again.

"no morals"

again, this is why kerry lost. might as well shout "GOLDSTEIN!"

if you really want to win the hearts and minds of the undecided, you have to present unmuddled and non partisan arguments with evidence and a limitation on appeals to pathos

and yes i am immune to my own advice.

On top of passing laws not being treason, Bush personally didn't make and pass laws, his lackeys in Congress did. He just told them to. Since Congress would be at fault there too, I don't think that the Senators find him guilty even if the House did charge him.

and yes i am immune to my own advice.

No you aren't.

zagat if kerry wasnt the devil all he had to do was open his mouth.

Either he did or a guy looking a lot like him snuck into the presidential debates and spoke in his place...

he didnt because he knew hed either have to lie, and get slammed for it later, or hed tell the truth and even less people would vote for him.
I watched him talk, and Bush talk, of the two Kerry answered the questions more directly (ie actually answered the question as opposed to misdirecting). Bush didnt say anything of more substance in the exchange I witnessed, so why should I take your word for it that he said nothing. Bush said nothing but 'let me stay the course' and 'tax cuts', and had his mates hum the theme from flipper. If that's your notion of 'saying something' it differs from mine.

what possible motivation could a GENUINELY superior candidate have for shrouding his agenda in secrecy?
I dont believe that he shrouded his agenda in secrecy. His agenda was to be president, I fail to see how that wasnt clear.

No you aren't.

my point is, im aware i dont always follow it, not that im not bound by it

my point is, im aware i dont always follow it, not that im not bound by it

That's wholly irrelevant. You think you have the right to give out advice, you'd damn well better follow it.

Either he did or a guy looking a lot like him snuck into the presidential debates and spoke in his place...


I watched him talk, and Bush talk, of the two Kerry answered the questions more directly (ie actually answered the question as opposed to misdirecting). Bush didnt say anything of more substance in the exchange I witnessed, so why should I take your word for it that he said nothing. Bush said nothing but 'let me stay the course' and 'tax cuts', and had his mates hum the theme from flipper. If that's your notion of 'saying something' it differs from mine.


I dont believe that he shrouded his agenda in secrecy. His agenda was to be president, I fail to see how that wasnt clear.

so since my sole agenda is to garner power, i should simply be given that power? interesting.

my agenda is to have you mail me 1000 dollars. do so.

you are drifting into your two minutes of hate again.

"no morals"

again, this is why kerry lost. might as well shout "GOLDSTEIN!"

More like six years of hate, to be honest.

I hate Bush and his administration. I'll admit that, very simply. Everything I say is biased against him. Doesn't mean it's without its reasons.

He claims god talks to him, he twists the beliefs of christianity to fit his needs while he feeds on the support of those who are fooled by him.

That's wholly irrelevant. You think you have the right to give out advice, you'd damn well better follow it.

i attempt to actually, i suppose ill stop admitting my humanity from here out and simply present myself as the word of god.

thanks for getting me over that hump.

More like six years of hate, to be honest.

I hate Bush and his administration. I'll admit that, very simply. Everything I say is biased against him. Doesn't mean it's without its reasons.

He claims god talks to him, he twists the beliefs of christianity to fit his needs while he feeds on the support of those who are fooled by him.

i dislike the administration as well and i want change. the plain fact of the matter is that i want change which is demonstrably for the better, and i dont see why i cant be provided with some evidence. I have nothing agaisnt voting democrat, i voted for murtha.

i attempt to actually, i suppose ill stop admitting my humanity from here out and simply present myself as the word of god.

thanks for getting me over that hump.

Or, alternatively, you could just stop with the soundbytes and think through what you say. "Yes, I am immune to my own advice" is the best admission you think your word is a priori better than anyone else's that there could be.

Personally, I don't give a shit, for now at least, about the issues in question. I'm not a citizen, and not well enough informed, to make such decisions. As for why I'm involved here - I read NSG sometimes for the comedy value of what passes for American "political discussion," but hearing something like that was just too offensive.

Or, alternatively, you could just stop with the soundbytes and think through what you say. "Yes, I am immune to my own advice" is the best admission you think your word is a priori better than anyone else's that there could be.

Personally, I don't give a shit, for now at least, about the issues in question. I'm not a citizen, and not well enough informed, to make such decisions. As for why I'm involved here - I read NSG sometimes for the comedy value of what passes for American "political discussion," but hearing something like that was just too offensive.

the comedy value of american political discussion isnt offensive then? lets have some of your enlightened discourse. In fact, pick a topic from your home country, give me the chance to research it and lets have an honest debate on it. Surely so enlightened a soul as yourself will give an ignoble and base American a chance to redeem himself? or at least learn at the altar of your superiority?

so since my sole agenda is to garner power, i should simply be given that power? interesting.

my agenda is to have you mail me 1000 dollars. do so.
You're certainly right about not being bound by your own advice. Constructing strawmen to bash certainly doesnt cut it in terms of presenting "unmuddled and non partisan arguments with evidence and a limitation on appeals to pathos".

You stated that there was a concern about his (Kerry's) agenda being secret, I countered that it wasnt secret, no part of this exchange in any way indicates or implies that because someone's sole agenda is to garner power they should be given it.

I honestly dont see how you could believe I argued such a thing, but why if you actually had anything 'on-point' to argue would you waste your time constructing a strawman to beat up on (and such an obviously desperate one at that)? I tend to think you wouldnt...

mea culpa

it was a cheap shot, to be sure and im not really proud of it.

when i researched the kerry campaign, hoping to find something to hold on to so i could vote for him i read his campaign literature, went to some rallys, listened to local democratic leaders, and genuinely tried to find anything at all i liked about his policy. i found my quest constantly stymied by his own supporters, so perhaps my opinion about his lack of stated agenda comes from my own frustration in wanting to vote for him.

the comedy value of american political discussion isnt offensive then? lets have some of your enlightened discourse. In fact, pick a topic from your home country, give me the chance to research it and lets have an honest debate on it. Surely so enlightened a soul as yourself will give an ignoble and base American a chance to redeem himself? or at least learn at the altar of your superiority?

*grin* This isn't discussion. This is shouting soundbytes and ill-thought-out "principles" at each other until A twists B's words to the point where B has to go to work, or lectures, or classes, and by the time he gets back there's another twenty pages and the discussion is wholly irrelevant to what was there before. Yeah, I'd love to chat to you about something on which we're both well-educated, or give you the chance to bone up on British issues, but right now I have to go to my girlfriend's, and this is not as important, and by the time I have net access again you'll have forgotten all about this.

Oh, and don't forget that this'll look like a coup for you to all watching. That's why this isn't debate. Because you, if you wanted to, could happily accuse me of running away. That's why this can't be debate. Because unless one sdie has overwhelming supremacy, whoever has to leave first loses. (I'm sure you won't accuse me of anything of the kind, though; you're better than that).

given that the same has happened to me on 20 occasions, i couldnt possibly.

have fun with your lady.

nice appeal to my supposedly better nature. i stress supposedly.

America has been falling apart for quite sometime. I'm just sad I have to see it.

I return to my earlier question and ask what Bush has done -right-.

I know so many things that have gone wrong because of him, I'm actually seeking for a time in which something he planned ahead of time actually fit together with what really happened.

nice appeal to my supposedly better nature. i stress supposedly.

It's always good when discussions can halt for a second and people can respect eachother as people before the slinging begins again.

If you're not using that, there's a thread about Bush doing something horrible again that could muchly do with a pot of tea all round, calm people down and whatnot.

*forms Englishness into tea, which is condensed liquid Englishness, adds milk and ships it over to the other thread*

Thanks muches. =)

mea culpa

it was a cheap shot, to be sure and im not really proud of it.

when i researched the kerry campaign, hoping to find something to hold on to so i could vote for him i read his campaign literature, went to some rallys, listened to local democratic leaders, and genuinely tried to find anything at all i liked about his policy. i found my quest constantly stymied by his own supporters, so perhaps my opinion about his lack of stated agenda comes from my own frustration in wanting to vote for him.

So the problem is that you didn't find anything you liked. The problem, then, is not that Kerry wasn't clear about his agenda--it was that you didn't like that agenda. That's fair enough--you should agree at least a little with the candidates you support. What's bullshit is when you claim, as I believe you did a ways back, that Kerry was unclear about his stances or his agenda.

again this comes down to a fundamental differance in how we see the world. ive never argued bush has done well. i just feel that we as a people deserve a clear bold alternative. "im not bush" is obvious. start telling me something else. "we've lost alot of jobs" also obvious. so whats the answer? and how much of that job loss is due to the disproportionate share of the world economy possessed by the US? how do we fix the fact that my generation is worse off then my parents for the first time in US history?

i want an answer to this, not just a stab in the dark. im glad bush wont be president, im glad cheney has no chance. id love to see one party control congress and the other control the white house, like in the better part of the clinton administration. i just dont want to find out i voted for someone equally as worthless that im stuck with for four years and i fail to see why this isnt a concern of all americans.

So the problem is that you didn't find anything you liked. The problem, then, is not that Kerry wasn't clear about his agenda--it was that you didn't like that agenda. That's fair enough--you should agree at least a little with the candidates you support. What's bullshit is when you claim, as I believe you did a ways back, that Kerry was unclear about his stances or his agenda.

no, its not that i didnt like what i found... its that i didnt find anything. when i went to rallys and read what i could it was all "weve lost jobs"... and? im unemployed i know we lost jobs. "the war in iraq is illegal" ok... whats your exit strategy? this information simply wasnt forthcoming. even a half assed plan would have been enough. i found my interest in specifics was actually insulting to alot of the kerry supporters i questioned. it wasnt about disagreement, i couldnt find out whether i agreed or not in the first place.

i want an answer to this, not just a stab in the dark.

I agree. We want someone with straightforward logical answers that people can live with the effects of. Bush, although he has good initial answers to terrorism, seems to only have answers for terrorism and justifies everything else through that. He didn't tell us that we were going into Iraq to fight terrorists, he said we were going in there to stop a mad-man with WMDs. When he found out that that was not true, he fell back to Saddam having links to terrorism. Between that and his constant denial of any mistakes made by his administration have led to many Americans disliking him.

mea culpa

it was a cheap shot, to be sure and im not really proud of it.

when i researched the kerry campaign, hoping to find something to hold on to so i could vote for him i read his campaign literature, went to some rallys, listened to local democratic leaders, and genuinely tried to find anything at all i liked about his policy. i found my quest constantly stymied by his own supporters, so perhaps my opinion about his lack of stated agenda comes from my own frustration in wanting to vote for him.
Fair enough, although I always find this a weird claim because when people were making it during the campaign I decided to check out this dearth of any policy. I googled up his website, clicked the 'policy' link and there it all was. I dont know why I should be the only person in the world capable of doing this, nor why the web-page would have only been accessable to me. Of course it was for the most part fairly boring (just as most of Bush's or indeed anyone's policy is) unlike the theme from Flipper...

Seriously, policy is mostly boring, people tend to go with sensation. The issue at the time was the war, terrorism and security and so that's what both candidates primarily concentrated on, and the media certainly were not carrying sound bites about anything much else unless it had a huge 'sensation-factor'. The less sexy policy was there, just as Bush of course had more policy than 'stay the course' and 'tax cuts', (whether he knew it or not) it just wasnt what anyone wanted to know or talk about at the time.

The fact is if you are a major party like the Democrats of Republicans, you dont put a presidential candidate up without policy even if you have to write the policy for them. Of course there was policy....

The media was interested only in the war, terrorism, homeland security and things that matched these in terms of sensationalism, as was the public. The whole 'no policy' stuff is rationalisation after the fact - it sounds like a good reason and no one recalls his policy, so that must be it....

I really have trouble accepting that web-page was only visible to me, I also have trouble accepting that I am a lone genius of unparelled intelligence thus explaining why I was able to think of using google and clicking a link, but no one else was. So I conclude, that if people didnt find his policy, it's because mostly they were'nt looking for it.

exactly, even some honesty out of bush at this point would be nice. im willing to assume we'll never get it though.

i didnt look at the website because back in the day we did things like read pamphlets and speak to local party leaders. call me old fashioned.

that being said, i really should have thought to.

exactly, even some honesty out of bush at this point would be nice. im willing to assume we'll never get it though.

Unfortunately, that is probably true. I really think that he could get his polls up a little bit if he would just start admitting his mistakes. Historically the American public has been very forgiving when an elected official admits what they have done wrong.

i didnt look at the website because back in the day we did things like read pamphlets and speak to local party leaders. call me old fashioned.

that being said, i really should have thought to.
In 'the day' of the campaign, supporters of the main parties were busy 'google-bombing' each other, so although your explaination suffices in regards to why you personally didnt look it up on the web it sure doesnt hold as a general explaination.
It's not just you who got caught up in the 'no policy except to say he isnt Bush' mantra, it's suficiently wide-spread to qualify as an urban legend.
It's impossible for me to believe that in between google-bombing no one thought to look on his website and that any one that did swore themselves to secrecy, so even if we can explain why individuals such as yourself didnt find their way to the policy, we cant explain why his policy was as accessable as Bush's, but so many now claim they were unable to find out anything about it.

If things really go downhill, we can all put on John Brown masks and do V for Vendetta 2.

If things really go downhill, we can all put on John Brown masks and do V for Vendetta 2.

LOL! I'm not sure that John Brown would be the right person though, wasn't he an abolitionist? I don't remember any instances of abolitionists going all, "I'm gonna blow up some gov. building!" Still funny though.

If things really go downhill, we can all put on John Brown masks and do V for Vendetta 2.

I guarantee that'll happen to some extent if Bush doesn't leave office in Jan. 2009.

I guarantee that'll happen to some extent if Bush doesn't leave office in Jan. 2009.

I don't think that the Republican leaders would be dumb enough to let him try it. They know it would fail and that there would be little for the party afterwards.

They don't have to. They take you away, and people can yell all they want about it, but they can't do shit because it's legal now. Get it? It's legal to kidnap you and give no explanation as to why.

If our government gets carried away with attacking the American People, You can expect the American People to get pretty pissed off about it. I sure the hell wouldn't want 300 million people pissed off at me and yes our military has about 2 and a half million serving and you can expect most of them if needed would help defend the American People considering, we are their family and friends.

You better believe that if our government gets out of control that the American People will step up to the plate and say enough is enough, "Bring It On!" I'm also willing to bet that most of the military would back up the People vs the Government if that were to happen.

With that said, I'm not convinced that our government is out of control. I'm convinced that they are trying to do what is in the best interests for the American People and America's best interests. We can't have it both ways. People are crying over alleged rights being taken away and then they're crying over security and protections.

To be quite honest, it doesn't really matter what the government does. It's impossible to make everybody happy.

I don't think that the Republican leaders would be dumb enough to let him try it. They know it would fail and that there would be little for the party afterwards.


But those w/ BDS seriously think he'll try and stay. Of course returning the ad hominems by claiming those berating those who don't believe it and claim they're "not questioning Dear Leader" is another symptom.

I guarantee that'll happen to some extent if Bush doesn't leave office in Jan. 2009.

Don't worry, Bush will be leaving as soon as his term is finished. That's one of the most rediculous things I've heard here on NSG. "If Bush doesn't leave office" Give me a Break. I can't believe that some people actually have convinced themselves that President Bush is going to attempt to stay in office after his term ends. Now that's funny.

In 'the day' of the campaign, supporters of the main party were busy 'google-bombing' each other, so although your explaination suffices in regards to why you personally didnt look it up on the web it sure doesnt hold as a general explaination.
It's not just you who got caught up in the 'no policy except to say he isnt Bush' mantra, it's suficiently wide-spread to qualify as an urban legend.
It's impossible for me to believe that in between google-bombing no one thought to look on his website and that any one that did swore themselves to secrecy, so even if we can explain why individuals such as yourself didnt find their way to the policy, we cant explain why his policy was as accessable as Bush's, but so many now claim they were unable to find out anything about it.

at the same time though, why didnt anyone who had looked at the site step up? why didnt cnn with its pro kerry slant just report it as news?

Ill admit to my own failings, but it wouldnt have been that hard to actively press the information. to be honest i wish they had. things might be far better now.

People are crying over alleged rights being taken away and then they're crying over security and protections.



It's always good the hear the Constitution referred to as "alleged rights".

yeah that statement is fairly indefensable. They ARE our rights, they ARE being eroded.

would those same rights be "alleged" if they guaranteed your guns or your right to worship?

If our government gets carried away with attacking the American People, You can expect the American People to get pretty pissed off about it. I sure the hell wouldn't want 300 million people pissed off at me and yes our military has about 2 and a half million serving and you can expect most of them if needed would help defend the American People considering, we are their family and friends.

You better believe that if our government gets out of control that the American People will step up to the plate and say enough is enough, "Bring It On!" I'm also willing to bet that most of the military would back up the People vs the Government if that were to happen.

With that said, I'm not convinced that our government is out of control. I'm convinced that they are trying to do what is in the best interests for the American People and America's best interests. We can't have it both ways. People are crying over alleged rights being taken away and then they're crying over security and protections.

To be quite honest, it doesn't really matter what the government does. It's impossible to make everybody happy.



These indisputable rights shall not be infringed. The people have the right of Revolution, and it is NOT treason to talk of revolution in America. Even violent ones. Though you are right, in the event of the people vs the gov. I'm sure a large chunk of the US military would defect against the Gov.

Well, I personally have not had any of my rights violated or taken away as some claim is happening to everybody. In fact, I am still doing the things I was doing before 9/11.

For some people, it seems that they have a problem with respecting authority figures including law enforcement officers.

Freedom of Speech----I still say what I want when I want.
the Right to Bear Arms------Freedom of Religion-----I'm still worshipping who I want and that would be God----I do confess though that I don't attend a church. But that also is my right to choose how to worship God.

I'm also a US citizen who has never been held in prison without being denied my right of counsel, the due process has always been given to me.

I also do not understand why the terrorist sympathizers think that terrorists should be held under our constitution which clearly states and I quote,

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now, I ask, where do you see where foreigners including terrorists should have the same rights as us, the American People?

Well, I personally have not had any of my rights violated or taken away as some claim is happening to everybody. In fact, I am still doing the things I was doing before 9/11.

For some people, it seems that they have a problem with respecting authority figures including law enforcement officers.

Freedom of Speech----I still say what I want when I want.
the Right to Bear Arms------Freedom of Religion-----I'm still worshipping who I want and that would be God----I do confess though that I don't attend a church. But that also is my right to choose how to worship God.

I'm also a US citizen who has never been held in prison without being denied my right of counsel, the due process has always been given to me.

I also do not understand why the terrorist sympathizers think that terrorists should be held under our constitution which clearly states and I quote,

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now, I ask, where do you see where foreigners including terrorists should have the same rights as us, the American People?


First of all, you who have read little of the constitution, Any foreinger, on US soil is granted the same rights as everyone. Legal, or not.

Second of all, The pure fact that the president now has this unprecedented amount of power for little reason, so violates our rights. Even if he is completley benevolent with this power, the fact that he has so much now is what you might call "un-american" This country was not founded to have a single powerful entity control so much power in the government. Don't you think that the president can order searches of anyones house anytime with out any justification wrong? don't you think that he can have any american citizen, arrested with out due process AND tourterd wrong? you have a very sick vision of the land of the free.

Third, These rights are "inalienable" for a reason, If you cannot understand that reason then return to highschool.

Foruth. Calling US citizens terroists or terroist sympathizers simply for fearing, or fighting for thier rights, makes you the "un-american" one. America is based off of freedom and equality. Not domination.

Fith. Your personal rights and those that you know have not been affected yet. Ok, but take this quote for example.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me."

Well, I personally have not had any of my rights violated or taken away as some claim is happening to everybody. In fact, I am still doing the things I was doing before 9/11.

For some people, it seems that they have a problem with respecting authority figures including law enforcement officers.

Freedom of Speech----I still say what I want when I want.
the Right to Bear Arms------Freedom of Religion-----I'm still worshipping who I want and that would be God----I do confess though that I don't attend a church. But that also is my right to choose how to worship God.

I'm also a US citizen who has never been held in prison without being denied my right of counsel, the due process has always been given to me.

I also do not understand why the terrorist sympathizers think that terrorists should be held under our constitution which clearly states and I quote,

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now, I ask, where do you see where foreigners including terrorists should have the same rights as us, the American People?

You haven't had your rights taken away. Yet. But you turn a blind eye to when it may be happening so that you can do nothing about it when it does.

Oh, and we should treat them equally because of the -reason- we put it in our constitution, because we believe -EVERYONE- should be afforded these rights. Why are they called rights? Because it's WRONG for people to be treated that way, regardless of where you come from.

First of all, you who have read little of the constitution, Any foreinger, on US soil is granted the same rights as everyone. Legal, or not.

Second of all, The pure fact that the president now has this unprecedented amount of power for little reason, so violates our rights. Even if he is completley benevolent with this power, the fact that he has so much now is what you might call "un-american" This country was not founded to have a single powerful entity control so much power in the government. Don't you think that the president can order searches of anyones house anytime with out any justification wrong? don't you think that he can have any american citizen, arrested with out due process AND tourterd wrong? you have a very sick vision of the land of the free.

Third, These rights are "inalienable" for a reason, If you cannot understand that reason then return to highschool.
Foruth. Calling US citizens terroists or terroist sympathizers simply for fearing, or fighting for thier rights, makes you the "un-american" one. America is based off of freedom and equality. Not domination.

Fith. Your personal rights and those that you know have not been affected yet. Ok, but take this quote for example.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me."

First of all, is it necessary to mention the terrorists and others who rose their weapons at US troops were from Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two countries are not "US soil" then we brought them to Gitmo for detention. Must I also remind you that the people who were released and returned to their countries once again picked up arms against our US Troops.

Second of all, you do NOT know me nor do you know what I think by just a few paragraphs on a forum online. My vision of America is a very prosperous one, One in which holds close to the Creator and not one that rejects the Almighty, one that continues to care about their neighbors and not rob or murder them. And so on.

Third, you shouldn't be so quick to pass judgement among others of differing views. I am still an American. I think you are the one who needs to return to highschool.

Fourth, not "Foruth, I did NOT accuse any American of being "un-American" that was your words directed towards the President and also myself.

Fifth, not "Fith, you are correct, partially, No I have not felt the effect of my rights infringed upon. I have faith in my Government. Like I said in an earlier post, if our government ever gets to out of control, they can expect to have a majority of the 300 million people pretty pissed off which would include a lot of our military. So where I have limited faith in my government. I have full Faith in the American People as a whole. This is why I am not living in Fear of our government for as powerful as our government is, the American People are wholeheartedly, a hell of a lot more powerful.

You haven't had your rights taken away. Yet. But you turn a blind eye to when it may be happening so that you can do nothing about it when it does.

Oh, and we should treat them equally because of the -reason- we put it in our constitution, because we believe -EVERYONE- should be afforded these rights. Why are they called rights? Because it's WRONG for people to be treated that way, regardless of where you come from.

I have said it once already but I'll word it a bit different. Do you think our Government is crazy enough to piss off the mass majority of 300 million people which will include a very large part of our military?

As for "the beginning of the end to America" I say, "Yeah, right."

Obviously the words Constitution, Habeas Corpus and the Military Commissions Act mean nothing to someone. The fact that the Military Commissions Act eliminates Habeas Corpus (which is only referred to in the Constitution once - "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it"), not just for foreigners and terrorists, has probably passed you by. The fact that without Habeas Corpus the Bill of Rights should actually be called The Bill of Right, since all but the 3rd amendment are meaningless without it is just semantics to you.

What is America exactly without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I have said it once already but I'll word it a bit different. Do you think our Government is crazy enough to piss off the mass majority of 300 million people which will include a very large part of our military?

Of course not. They're not crazy, as strange as that may seem. No, if it comes, and I sincerely hope it won't, it'll come gradually, over time. We already have a Department of Homeland Security. How uncomfortable that word "Homeland" makes me, with its echo of "Fatherland" and "Motherland." We've had FISA courts for years, though most folks didn't know it, secret courts presided over by secret judges that issue secret warrants (and you can apply for those after the fact). We have a President who thinks the FISA process is too slow and thinks it's okay to ignore it in the name of 9/11 and going after people he doesn't like. All that and more, we already have, but now the President - not just Bush, but any who follow him - actually have the means to subvert the Constitution of the United States legally. I find that appalling. Our govenrment says that the terrorists hate our freedom, and while our government says that, it slowly takes away that very freedom.

I just turned 55, so I'll probably not be around for the last act of this (or I won't care if I am), but I feel sorry for you young conservatives who support this execrable act, because it's your country that runs the risk of becoming what we say we're fighting against. I do hope you notice before it's too late, before you wake up at age 55 and realize the elections were postponed five years ago and the alert level has been red for longer and it doesn't do to travel overseas any longer because even the allies we had when you were young aren't exactly happy with us now.

Olbehrman is a demagogue.

A skilled, well-spoken demagogue, and a demagogue who is, ultimately, correct, but he should not be seen as anything other than a demagogue.

That said, he's right. Taking away Habbeas Corpus is evil, tyrannical, and against the values this nation was founded upon.

George and Co. have adopted the winningest strategy in history: "If you can't beat them, become them."

The Revolution, the Civil War, The Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War/Nuclear crisis...

America has already soldiered through tougher times.

Olbermann is such a fool. sure there are things to be concerned about, but he must think Lincoln and FDR are the worst Presidents next to Bush in order to be consistant

no, its not that i didnt like what i found... its that i didnt find anything. when i went to rallys and read what i could it was all "weve lost jobs"... and? im unemployed i know we lost jobs. "the war in iraq is illegal" ok... whats your exit strategy? this information simply wasnt forthcoming. even a half assed plan would have been enough. i found my interest in specifics was actually insulting to alot of the kerry supporters i questioned. it wasnt about disagreement, i couldnt find out whether i agreed or not in the first place.Then you're either the most inept researcher on earth, or you're a liar. You pick.

at the same time though, why didnt anyone who had looked at the site step up? why didnt cnn with its pro kerry slant just report it as news?
Because no one wanted to know....I thought I had made that clear in my earlier posts. Kerry and the news agencies concentrated on the only things people were interested in. The information was there for anyone who actually wanted to know it. The fact that no one seems to have bothered to go and look indicates the level of priority they really attached to it at the time, the moaning and whinging about it not existing not-withstanding.

The whole "didnt have any policy" crap is exactly that, crap. The information was there, no one who really wanted it couldnt have found it, including the old-fashioned folk who make their way to this internet forum....:rolleyes: Again I point that I dont accept I was the only one in the whole wide world smart enough to simply google Kerry's campaign page and click a link. If either no one did this, or those that did ended up not widely discussing what they discovered there, it can only be due to a lack of interest because as a matter of simple empircal fact the information was most certainly there and easily accessable to those who were interested enough to make the huge effort of googling a page and clicking a link...

Ill admit to my own failings, but it wouldnt have been that hard to actively press the information.
It would have been hard to force people to take notice of it given they were clearly not interested. I'm not sure what part of 'campaigns concentrate on what the people show themselves to be interested in and not what they dont show themselves to be interested in' is incomprehensible. Frankly it seems very obvious and straight forward to me.

So Kerry did have policy, and he did make it publically accessable. How is it his fault that the news media were not interested in the policy detail, that the voting public were not interested in the policy detail and so the detail was no more widely dessminated than Bush's?

to be honest i wish they had. things might be far better now.
To be honest I think you are deceiving yourself.

The 'has no policy' farce is a farce, a rationalisation after the fact in my opinion.

People decided not to vote for Kerry, then looked for the reason or an excuse why, and due to their own (and everyone else's) lack of interest in Kerry's policy, the 'I didnt know his policy therefore he didnt have any' excuse seems plausable to them. So that's what they go with. I know it's not a true fact that the policy wasnt either there or easily accessable to anyone who was even slightly motivated to find it, so what other conclusion can I reach other than they didnt make any real effort to find it because they didnt care and so clearly it cant explain why they chose to not vote for Kerry - if they cared enough for it to effect their voting choice, they'd care enough to do a google and click a link....wouldnt you think?

Well, I personally have not had any of my rights violated or taken away as some claim is happening to everybody. In fact, I am still doing the things I was doing before 9/11.
You started loosing your rights before 9/11 and even (although this may be tough for the intracably partisan to understand) before Bush. Bush is an aggravating symptom, he's not the originatory cause of the illness.

For some people, it seems that they have a problem with respecting authority figures including law enforcement officers.
For some people it seems they have a problem understanding the harsh reality that is the world. They seem to think that it is unthinkable that people would in authority would abuse that authority for their own gain....talk about naive aye?

Freedom of Speech----I still say what I want when I want.
the Right to Bear Arms------Freedom of Religion-----I'm still worshipping who I want and that would be God----I do confess though that I don't attend a church. But that also is my right to choose how to worship God.
Yeah, let's just overlook the right to participate in free and fair elections...

I'm also a US citizen who has never been held in prison without being denied my right of counsel, the due process has always been given to me.
Aha, habeous corpus is good like that, unfortunately habeous corpus just got gutted. Maybe you'll be lucky, after all the KGB clearly didnt take all the citizens of the USSR away, in fact the very large majority were never taken away in the middle of the night without right to appeal or due process...does that mean that everyone had rights comparable to those we expect in the US as per the birth rights gifted to US citizens by the nation's forefathers and enshrined in the constitution?

I also do not understand why the terrorist sympathizers think that terrorists should be held under our constitution which clearly states and I quote,
Perhaps the fact that they are terrorist sympathisers suffices. But who really cares about such people, they are no doubt few and far between. What I care about are the citizens who wish to protect their own freedoms and even those who caring not for their own freedom know that they have no right to abdicate the responsibility of guarding the freedoms they hold in trust for furture generations. A mark of infamy will forever be on the generation that refuses this responsibility, just as Jefferson suggested.

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitutional document you refer to clearly states a lot more than is in the preamble, you know like the actual articles....just a minor point.

Now, I ask, where do you see where foreigners including terrorists should have the same rights as us, the American People?
Actually the US constitution establishes rights in two ways, it directly preserves rights for the people and further it establishes rights by placing restrictions on the government. The restriction against the government denying any right to any person, including liberty and life, without due process is a restriction on the government. Rights stem from this but since the rights are arrived at by the device of limiting the government, it doesnt matter 'who' the rights are applied to, they are applicable because it was intended that the government never have the power to do otherwise.

So it is erroneous and simplistic to interpret the issue as simply involving the rights of 'foreigners and terrorists' because this ignores that the government is breaching the right of the people to limit it's authority and power, a legitimate right that is the entire point of the constition and indeed of the USA itself.

As for your notion that the apathetic, asleep at the wheel populice will suddenly rise in revolt....I wouldnt bet my freedom on it. After all they dont seem to have done much to re-establish their right to participate in free and fair elections, if they dont care to act on that one, then I'm guessing by the time they wake up and realise that just like a house fire or a burglery it can indeed happen to them, it'll be past too late.

Current times : http://www.archive.org/details/TheEyeoftheStorm

Shape of things to come ? Watch all of it and draw your own conclusions :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8272096722231303649&q=FEMA+camp

More like 1968-1974 all over again, nuthin' more.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Correct. In the earlier period there was no petrodollar. The US$ and hence the economy is supported entirely by the petrodollars system and the fiat money produced as a result. Part of the background to the Iraq War was that Saddam had already switched to selling in Euros which cost the USA a huge bundle. If Iran were now to do the same the US$ could spiral down at an alarming rate of knots.

It's also worth remembering that , in effect ,America is currently owned by China and Co.

It's also worth remembering that , in effect ,America is currently owned by China and Co.
It is?:confused:

Wouldnt we first have to know it to remember it? I've not remember it, but I have not forgotten it either...

It is?:confused:

Wouldnt we first have to know it to remember it? I've not remember it, but I have not forgotten it either...

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/15/eng20060615_274178.html Chinese reserves

http://www.mof.go.jp/english/e1c006.htm Japanese reserves

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040223/3/ntok.html Indian reserves

Do you want me to keep going ? Have you any concept of the outcome of those nations dumping their US$ reserves ? It would be what's lovingly known as hyper inflation. In it's extreme form that's when you go into a coffee shop being able to afford a cup of coffee but not being able to afford pay by the time you leave due to the reduction in the value of money across an hour.

The USA can only produce fiat money. money not backed by gold whatever as in the old days, because of the petrodollar system. If /when that system collapses it's goodbye US$.

For petrodollar info. see here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

On top of passing laws not being treason, Bush personally didn't make and pass laws, his lackeys in Congress did. He just told them to. Since Congress would be at fault there too, I don't think that the Senators find him guilty even if the House did charge him.

After November 7th. IMHO Bush has not been tried for lying to congress and the world because Democrats do not hold any leadership positions or committee heads. Once they do they can control the agenda and that's a scary thought for Bush. We all know how much they like to "protect" their power. Hell, how many scandals do we have going now? Weldon, Ney, Abramoff, Foley, the Chief Procurement Officer et. al. are not making things look good for the GOP. Wait and see if the Democrats take over at least one house of congress if not two. Once they can bring things to the floor it might be trial time. All these people do is cover for themselves. Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld...Have you seen these people deny saying things they have said on the public record on every fricken turn? They get caught with their proverbial dick in the jar more often than Clinton could ever dream of. Let's wait and see if the congress turns as my prediction holds true. Congress goes blue and the hits will keep on coming. Only this time it will be more important than a BJ.

*Snip*

There's no law against telling a lie to the public in order to further your own political agenda. Clinton got in truble because when he lied, he was under oath. So unless we can get Bush into a trial for some stupid reason like being drunk in public and then get him to purjure (is that spelled right?) himself once there, his lies can do him no harm. Well, his poll numbers are dropping and very few people like him, but other than stuff like that it can't cause him harm. In short, other than keeping him in check from now until he leaves office, I don't see what the Dems can do.

Man, I'm worried shit and inspired to write a black cult novel.

If things do go down the shitter (and I doubt they will), I have my trusty 19th-century 12-gauge shotgun and a box full of ammunition... And I know of many hiding spots in this region.

After November 7th. IMHO Bush has not been tried for lying to congress and the world because Democrats do not hold any leadership positions or committee heads. Once they do they can control the agenda and that's a scary thought for Bush. We all know how much they like to "protect" their power. Hell, how many scandals do we have going now? Weldon, Ney, Abramoff, Foley, the Chief Procurement Officer et. al. are not making things look good for the GOP. Wait and see if the Democrats take over at least one house of congress if not two. Once they can bring things to the floor it might be trial time. All these people do is cover for themselves. Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld...Have you seen these people deny saying things they have said on the public record on every fricken turn? They get caught with their proverbial dick in the jar more often than Clinton could ever dream of. Let's wait and see if the congress turns as my prediction holds true. Congress goes blue and the hits will keep on coming. Only this time it will be more important than a BJ.

I honestly don't see a trial for treason being out of the realm of possibility for G.W. and his cronies.

In fact, they could be tried and condemned like *snap* that, but none of the political figureheads on the other side have the balls to stir the shit and get things rolling.

yeah yeah canada.

everyone says that and then disapoints me by staying. take alec baldwin with you, he promised to leave years ago

I think that was one of his brothers, and he actually did leave.

There's no law against telling a lie to the public in order to further your own political agenda. Clinton got in truble because when he lied, he was under oath. So unless we can get Bush into a trial for some stupid reason like being drunk in public and then get him to purjure (is that spelled right?) himself once there, his lies can do him no harm. Well, his poll numbers are dropping and very few people like him, but other than stuff like that it can't cause him harm. In short, other than keeping him in check from now until he leaves office, I don't see what the Dems can do.

The President is always under oath. His oath of office compels him to faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states. Lying to the courts, the people, or Congress, the people's representatives, on issues of government policy constitutes a violation of that oath.

The President is always under oath. His oath of office compels him to faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states. Lying to the courts, the people, or Congress, the people's representatives, on issues of government policy constitutes a violation of that oath.

Spot on. So, if Republicans could make hay over something as innocuous as a blowjob - why then, of all people, should Bush be seemingly made of teflon?

If it weren't so terribly clichéd, I'd throw in an oversized, bolded & italicized 'WTF?' at the end of this post. I'll leave that sort of thing to Eutrusca instead.

The Revolution, the Civil War, The Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War/Nuclear crisis...

America has already soldiered through tougher times.

Olbermann is such a fool. sure there are things to be concerned about, but he must think Lincoln and FDR are the worst Presidents next to Bush in order to be consistant

as you might expect me to say, Lincoln was an amazingly bad president and a tyrant to boot.

Jailing journalists who dare criticize you is flat out wrong. King Lincoln is what he wanted to be

The President is always under oath. His oath of office compels him to faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states. Lying to the courts, the people, or Congress, the people's representatives, on issues of government policy constitutes a violation of that oath.

I hadn't thought about that. They might be able to bring articles against him, but I doubt he'd get ousted. His defense would involve some "bad intel that he had no inflence upon". It would probably end up being enough to get him off the hook. Then again, if I remember right, he only needs a 2/3 guilty vote in the Senate to cook his arse. So I suppose that it's much more likely than the whole "beyond a resonable doubt" he would have in a normal court.

I applaud this man.

I applaud this man.

Who? Me? Bush? Random guy number 263?

After November 7th. IMHO Bush has not been tried for lying to congress and the world because Democrats do not hold any leadership positions or committee heads. Once they do they can control the agenda and that's a scary thought for Bush. We all know how much they like to "protect" their power. Hell, how many scandals do we have going now? Weldon, Ney, Abramoff, Foley, the Chief Procurement Officer et. al. are not making things look good for the GOP. Wait and see if the Democrats take over at least one house of congress if not two. Once they can bring things to the floor it might be trial time. All these people do is cover for themselves. Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld...Have you seen these people deny saying things they have said on the public record on every fricken turn? They get caught with their proverbial dick in the jar more often than Clinton could ever dream of. Let's wait and see if the congress turns as my prediction holds true. Congress goes blue and the hits will keep on coming. Only this time it will be more important than a BJ.


Impeachment first then off to The Hague for Dimson and his whole Axis of Weasels.

Well, I personally have not had any of my rights violated or taken away as some claim is happening to everybody. In fact, I am still doing the things I was doing before 9/11.

*snip*

I'm also a US citizen who has never been held in prison without being denied my right of counsel, the due process has always been given to me.

*snip*

Now, I ask, where do you see where foreigners including terrorists should have the same rights as us, the American People?

.
What are your thoughts on the Jose Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29)case?

* March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jose Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb."

* May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.

* June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.

* Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.

* Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit suspends its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

* March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.

* June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.

* Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.

* Oct. 25, 2005: Padilla appeals the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration's deadline for filing arguments is Nov. 28.

* Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.

* Dec. 21, 2005: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig chastises the administration for using one set of facts to justify holding Padilla without charges and another set to persuade a grand jury in Florida to indict him. Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts."

* Jan. 4, 2006: Supreme Court agrees to let the military transfer Padilla to Miami to face criminal charges, overruling the 4th Circuit.

* Jan. 12, 2006: Padilla pleads not guilty to charges alleging he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists. The charges could bring a life in prison sentence.

* April 3, 2006: Supreme Court rejects Padilla's appeal, although Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."


Now I am not asking you to judge the merits of the case.
For all I know he may well be guilty of planning to carry out terrorist attacks.
What concerns me is that a US citizen was arrested and then denied counsel for two years!
What happened to his Constitutional rights?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


It sure seems to me that this US citizen was denied his rights!
If it can happen to him it can happen to you or to me or to anyone!

It sure seems to me that this US citizen was denied his rights!
If it can happen to him it can happen to you or to me or to anyone!

See, here's the thing with guys like King Bodacious. He thinks that just because he's a party guy and what he considers to be a "good American," that sort of thing will never happen to him. If he were ever to be unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time, the people who swept him up would immediately recognize their mistake and let him go, because he's a good party man and could never be mistaken for a terrorist. In short, he is a fool.

You can't trust in that sort of thing, just like you can't trust in the courts to overturn what you think is patently unconstitutional legislation--which I have no doubt many who voted for this POS had in mind. Sometimes you have to stand tall and say "no. This is wrong and this is unAmerican and we cannot let it stand," because otherwise you're a useful idiot.