Bush hammers the final nail in freedom's coffin [Archive]

Tall_James

10-17-2006, 08:00 AM

FMJeff wrote: "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."Wonderful. But if the Democrats take the house in November this could never happen so you have nothing to worry about.  They would never be complicit...or would they?

Dougie Brootal

10-17-2006, 08:01 AM

thats it, im outta here!<slams door, boards airplane, moves to france>

This message was edited by douggrasso on 10-17-06 @ 12:01 PM

A.J.

10-17-2006, 08:04 AM

I want Khalid Shaykh Muhammad to have those rights of the American citizens he helped murder.  While we're at it, let's get him signed up for welfare, Medicare and social security too.

Dougie Brootal

10-17-2006, 08:06 AM

Plethora

10-17-2006, 08:09 AM

douggrasso wrote: A.J. wrote: I want Khalid Shaykh Muhammad to have those rights of the American citizens he helped murder. While we're at it, let's get him signed up for welfare, Medicare and social security too.is that Khalid Shaykh Muhammad?!?! i thought it was ron jeremy! Is that Khalid Shaykh Muhammad?!?! I thought it was Time To Make The Donuts guy!

Kevin

10-17-2006, 08:11 AM

A.J. wrote: I want Khalid Shaykh Muhammad to have those rights of the American citizens he helped murder.  While we're at it, let's get him signed up for welfare, Medicare and social security too."The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img height="634" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v34/brianhicks/dollz/fritz_and_marius.jpg" width="550" border="0" /><img height="204" src="http://www.irelandsown.net/bush-nazi.jpg" width="189" border="0" />

This message was edited by Kevin on 10-17-06 @ 12:20 PM

A.J.

10-17-2006, 08:14 AM

I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img height="306" src="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-abraham.jpg" width="230" border="0" />

MrPink

10-17-2006, 08:19 AM

I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img height="634" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v34/brianhicks/dollz/fritz_and_marius.jpg" width="550" border="0" />the gays?

Plethora

10-17-2006, 08:21 AM

FMJeff wrote: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html</a>"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."Wonderful.  That might actually mean something come January.  Actual oversight!  Exciting.

Plethora

10-17-2006, 08:23 AM

MrPink wrote: I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img width="550" height="634" border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v34/brianhicks/dollz/fritz_and_marius.jpg" />  the gays? I'm pretty sure that it's "Das Gays"

blakjeezis

10-17-2006, 08:30 AM

Les boys do cabaret ...

Kevin

10-17-2006, 08:32 AM

I mean sure those fucking dirtbag terrorists should be punished, but AFTER they have had a fair trial. They do not deserve it but that is what our country is supposed to be based on. Where is it going to stop with this bill? What is going to stop this GOV from doing the same thing to people who have views and a way of life that Bush and these whacked out evangelists deem ‘inappropriate” Islam and Christianity, Judaism have the same problem in my view, normal people who follow the faiths, and whacked out fundamentalists. An unfortunately, the fundamentalists are leading every government in the world. Pritty soon your going to have V for Vendetta shit going on.

This message was edited by Kevin on 10-17-06 @ 1:40 PM

A.J.

10-17-2006, 08:55 AM

All valid points Kevin -- I know we need to take the moral high ground and not do things that make Muslims think they are being singled out.  However, these are non-American citizens who have declared war on America (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html" target="_self">literally, not figuratively</a>) and have plotted mass murder and mass destruction.  They used our system of laws against us in order to commit this murder and destruction and now they should be entitiled to be protected by these very laws?  And do they get tried in criminal court or are they combatants to be tried by military tribunalIf anything, they should be tried on a Shariah court, found guilty, and have their heads chopped off in public in accordance with the Quran.

giannidesk

10-17-2006, 09:08 AM

2 quick points:1. Hilarious call back to the Khalid Shaykh Muhammad bit.2. More importantly: The bill Bush signed last week had a piece tacked onto it that bans on-line poker (at least bans funding your account via a U.S. bank).BTW: is that Khalid Shaykh Muhammad?!?! i thought it was Captain Lou Albano! douggrasso wrote:  A.J. wrote: I want Khalid Shaykh Muhammad to have those rights of the American citizens he helped murder.  While we're at it, let's get him signed up for welfare, Medicare and social security too.is that Khalid Shaykh Muhammad?!?! i thought it was ron jeremy!

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 09:17 AM

A.J. wrote: I want Khalid Shaykh Muhammad to have those rights of the American citizens he helped murder.  While we're at it, let's get him signed up for welfare, Medicare and social security too.Khalid Shaykh Muhammed should have gotten co-author credits for the 9-11 Commission Report - so much of it was based on what he told us. And we never needed to torture him or use any of the "tools" granted by this legislation. And, if they tried him with the legal system we already have, he'd be easily convicted on the evidence we have and doubtlessly sentenced to death. I've never once seen the president have justify any of the extra powers he's been granted by Congress or just taken in secret - ostensibly in violation of the Constitution. Have we caught any terrorists with illegal wiretapping of thousands of Americans - including, probably, me? I've never seen any evidence. And what's wrong with getting a warrant? Do they really think they're going to go before a judge and say, "Judge, I think this guy's a terrorist and we want to listen to his phone calls to Yemen. Can we have a warrant?" and the judge is going to say, "What is that in your mouth, gum? NO WARRANT FOR YOU!" Not going to happen. In anti-terrorism cases judges are going to give warrants out like Anna Nichole Smith gives out pussy. This administration doesn't respect the principles of democracy: ballance of powers, checks and ballances, rule of law, transparancy, accountability, civil liberties, none of it. Bush doesn't understand these things, and his cabinet doesn't respect them. So they take whatever powers they want and the Congress, a few old-timers aside, rubber stamps it. And if the democrats ever get a chance to restore these principles to us, they'll be accused of aiding and abedding terrorists. At this point it's just predictable.

Kevin

10-17-2006, 09:22 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: A.J. wrote: I want Khalid Shaykh Muhammad to have those rights of the American citizens he helped murder.  While we're at it, let's get him signed up for welfare, Medicare and social security too.Khalid Shaykh Muhammed should have gotten co-author credits for the 9-11 Commission Report - so much of it was based on what he told us. And we never needed to torture him or use any of the "tools" granted by this legislation. And, if they tried him with the legal system we already have, he'd be easily convicted on the evidence we have and doubtlessly sentenced to death. I've never once seen the president have justify any of the extra powers he's been granted by Congress or just taken in secret - ostensibly in violation of the Constitution. Have we caught any terrorists with illegal wiretapping of thousands of Americans - including, probably, me? I've never seen any evidence. And what's wrong with getting a warrant? Do they really think they're going to go before a judge and say, "Judge, I think this guy's a terrorist and we want to listen to his phone calls to Yemen. Can we have a warrant?" and the judge is going to say, "What is that in your mouth, gum? NO WARRANT FOR YOU!" Not going to happen. In anti-terrorism cases judges are going to give warrants out like Anna Nichole Smith gives out pussy. This administration doesn't respect the principles of democracy: ballance of powers, checks and ballances, rule of law, transparancy, accountability, civil liberties, none of it. Bush doesn't understand these things, and his cabinet doesn't respect them. So they take whatever powers they want and the Congress, a few old-timers aside, rubber stamps it. And if the democrats ever get a chance to restore these principles to us, they'll be accused of aiding and abedding terrorists. At this point it's just predictable.Well said.

Kevin

10-17-2006, 09:32 AM

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 09:48 AM

A.J. wrote: All valid points Kevin -- I know we need to take the moral high ground and not do things that make Muslims think they are being singled out.  However, these are non-American citizens who have declared war on America (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html" target="_self">literally, not figuratively</a>) and have plotted mass murder and mass destruction.  They used our system of laws against us in order to commit this murder and destruction and now they should be entitiled to be protected by these very laws?  And do they get tried in criminal court or are they combatants to be tried by military tribunalAccording to the 9-11 Commission Report, all the laws were in place to locate, capture and prosecute the 9-11 plotters before the attack. It said that bureaucratic infighting, turf battles, disorganization, and assumptions that the laws prevented cooperation between agencies has characterized the chaos that was our intelligence system prior to 9-11. I think that means the administration should have to justify the need for extra incursions into civil liberties - like the wiretapping of Americans - and the degredation of the principles we stand for - like torture. Nobody with the power to demand anything from the president has ever required him to justify these things, (except Warner, McCain and Lugar [or was it Hegel?], and they seemed to have caved quite a bit), so he's never done it. In the meantime, I know Muslims believe we have no respect for thier rights because we've proven so often that we don't. I think these are, in part, laws to allow us to treat Muslims any way that we choose: lock them up indefinitely, make them dissappear to secret locations to be tortured, assassinate them on suspicion of being al-Qaeda like we did in Yemen, and allow the military to try them without the rights we give to other non-citizens in our own civil courts. Essentially, anyone suspected of being al-Qaeda by the United States, can be treated as guilty of being al-Qaeda. That's how we are viewed in the Middle East, and it's because they're essentially right. In the meantime, how many innocent Arabs and Muslims have been held in Guantanamo, "rendered" to foriegn countries and tortured, or detained in secret prisons? Most of the people who have been held in Guantanamo so far have been released without charge. I can think of at least three widely publicized cases of long detainments by the US with torture by foreign countries because of a case of false identity. What are the costs of all this? Well, we've lost the battle for hearts and minds, and we've deserved to lose it. We don't care if innocent Muslims are imprisoned and tortured. The public has been virtually silent on these cases. So more of them will hate us because of our own actions, and more of them will become terrorists. And we're back where we started. In terms of Bush's "Middle East Initiative" which is a plan to spread democracy in the Middle East. well, all this makes that idea the stupidest thing in the world. We send them the message that we don't believe in the principles of democracy, but we want them to adopt them anyway? Doomed to fail. And the question still remains: would our civil courts, with all it's protections of civil liberties, not be sufficient to convict actual terrorists of their crimes? I've not seen it proved. We just decided on 9-11 that democracy was not qualified to deal with terrorists so we scrapped it. Now we deal with the consequences.If anything, they should be tried on a Shariah court, found guilty, and have their heads chopped off in public in accordance with the Quran.Now this idea I like. I know we've got prominent Imams in Saudi, and probably other Muslim allies' governments, conferring with al-Qaeda prisoners, convincing them of the errors of thier ways from an Islamic standpoint, an

Doctor Z

10-17-2006, 09:51 AM

Well, the good news is I'm not building bombs in my basement, so I should be fine.

A.J.

10-17-2006, 09:51 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:  In anti-terrorism cases judges are going to give warrants out like Anna Nichole Smith gives out pussy. That's bullshit Yerdaddy.We all know that Anna Nicole Smith doesn't give out pussy.  There has to be a feeble millionaire willing to marry it and include it in his will.   <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" border="0" />

El Mudo

10-17-2006, 09:59 AM

A.J. wrote: I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img width="230" height="306" border="0" src="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-abraham.jpg" />  I was going to post the same thing This is a war, people. <blockquote />

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 10:05 AM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:  In anti-terrorism cases judges are going to give warrants out like Anna Nichole Smith gives out pussy. That's bullshit Yerdaddy.We all know that Anna Nicole Smith doesn't give out pussy.  There has to be a feeble millionaire willing to marry it and include it in his will.   <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" border="0" />Have you seen these clowns lining up to take credit for fathering her latest speed freak? It's like the cast of "A Night at the Roxbury" if it was directed by Cecil B. DeMille!Hell, I think I might have fucked her at least once!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-17-06 @ 2:06 PM

Dougie Brootal

10-17-2006, 10:08 AM

to clarify my thoughts on this subject... i dont care if we trample on the rights of any muslims or whatever....im just worried that soon it will extend to american citizens (like you and me) who are "suspected" of breaking any other laws as well (i.e. dealing or doing drugs, having unpaid parking tickets, stealing CDs from best buy, etc., etc.)

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 10:10 AM

El Mudo wrote: This is a war, people.  Which, with the president able to do all this shit all along anyway, we are losing. And yet this is more of the same.

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 10:21 AM

douggrasso wrote: to clarify my thoughts on this subject... i dont care if we trample on the rights of any muslims or whatever....im just worried that soon it will extend to american citizens (like you and me) who are "suspected" of breaking any other laws as well (i.e. dealing or doing drugs, having unpaid parking tickets, stealing CDs from best buy, etc., etc.)<a href="http://www.prnewstoday.com/release.htm?cat=publishing-information-services&dat=20060513&rl=NYSA00913052006-1" target="_blank">You're not alone.</a>and<a href="http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?imw=Y" target="_blank">NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls </a>

HBox

10-17-2006, 10:36 AM

El Mudo wrote: A.J. wrote: I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img width="230" height="306" border="0" src="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-abraham.jpg" /> I was going to post the same thing This is a war, people. [color=navy]Is it, really? If we allow this to be classified as a war and we take this measures, when does it end? When there is no one anywhere who wants to do America harm? Or in other words, never?And even if we classify this as a war, does it really rise up to the level of the Civil War? Are these people really jeopardizing the future of the nation? 

This message was edited by HBox on 10-17-06 @ 2:37 PM

HBox

10-17-2006, 10:37 AM

Tall_James wrote: FMJeff wrote: "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."Wonderful. But if the Democrats take the house in November this could never happen so you have nothing to worry about. They would never be complicit...or would they?  Yeah, Bush would NEVER hide anything from Congress.

narc

10-17-2006, 10:38 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:  In anti-terrorism cases judges are going to give warrants out like Anna Nichole Smith gives out pussy.  You mean downed-out and sloppy?

FezPaul

10-17-2006, 10:45 AM

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f281/FezPaul/hack/MPyn.gif

El Mudo

10-17-2006, 10:50 AM

And even if we
classify this as a war, does it really rise up to the level of the
Civil War? Are these people really jeopardizing the future of the
nation?  I
don't believe the Civil War "jeopardized" the future of the nation
(PLENTY of countries have survived internal secession movements, which
was what that war was about, it wasn't even a "Civil War" in the sense
in that the South's goal was NEVER to take over the United States
government) And, were we directly threatened by the
Germans in World War 1? We got into that to "make the world safe for
democracy". In this sense, we are being threatened by people who
seek to eradicate and undermine this nation because they cannot bear
being in the same world with it. 

This message was edited by El Mudo on 10-17-06 @ 2:50 PM

UnknownPD

10-17-2006, 11:02 AM

FMJeff wrote: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html</a>"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."Wonderful. Finally a way to stop those "Mexican Savages"

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 11:06 AM

El Mudo wrote: And, were we directly threatened by the Germans in World War 1? We got into that to "make the world safe for democracy". In this sense, we are being threatened by people who seek to eradicate and undermine this nation because they cannot bear being in the same world with it. This "Islamo-fascist" line of thought is a bit like saying we're at war because of the existance of "Montana" militias, that nobody actually gives a rat's ass about except for a handful of law enforcement officers assigned to keep an eye on them. The question is: Does al-Qaeda and it's affiliated groups, which the US intel community estimates as about 5,000 people, have any capacity to actually "eraticate and undermine" America? Because if not, then it's ultimate goal is irrelevant, and the degree to which we act like we are at war should be equal to the amount and ability of damage these people are actually capable of, don't you think?

FMJeff

10-17-2006, 11:11 AM

Can we please focus blame on where it should lie....mexicans. Thank you.

Kevin

10-17-2006, 11:13 AM

FMJeff wrote: Can we please focus blame on where it should lie....mexicans. Thank you.Yea really, They do not speak english. I mean if english was good enough for Jesus then it should be good enough for everybody.

narc

10-17-2006, 11:21 AM

narc wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: In anti-terrorism cases judges are going to give warrants out like Anna Nichole Smith gives out pussy. You mean downed-out and sloppy?   <img width="200" height="231" border="0" src="http://www.nndb.com/people/545/000028461/jackiemartling.jpg" /> "I also wrote 'Pussy', but I wrote it kind of messily, so I guess I have a 'sloppy pussy.'" That was my favorite scene in that movie

johnniewalker

10-17-2006, 11:38 AM

This should be really interesting.  This seems really similar to the law that got struck down.   The difference being Bush now has 2 different justices.   Alito might move over to the minority, but Roberts is kind of a wild card.

johnniewalker

10-17-2006, 11:48 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: This administration doesn't respect the principles of democracy: ballance of powers, checks and ballances, rule of law, transparancy, accountability, civil liberties, none of it. Bush doesn't understand these things, and his cabinet doesn't respect them. So they take whatever powers they want and the Congress, a few old-timers aside, rubber stamps it. And if the democrats ever get a chance to restore these principles to us, they'll be accused of aiding and abedding terrorists. At this point it's just predictable. Did FDR respect checks and balances?  Bush is being responsive his constituency.  Its very true he's not being transparent, accountable, or any good on civil liberties.   I think he understands he has power controlling the executive and legislative branch.  The judicial has cut down some policies, but other than them with a complete Republican government I can see how he sees it as a mandate and there really is no other checks on them.  Its not unprecedented what he's doing and no he's not Hitler get over it.

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 12:10 PM

FUCK BILL GATES!!!!!!1

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-17-06 @ 4:27 PM

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 12:29 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- johnniewalker wrote:Did FDR respect checks and balances? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Who gives a shit? He's not president and the circumstances aren't even remotely similar. Besides, he won a war, Bush is losing three, if you consider the Wurr on Turr a real war. Bush is being responsive his constituency.  Its very true he's not being transparent, accountable, or any good on civil liberties.   I think he understands he has power controlling the executive and legislative branch.  The judicial has cut down some policies, but other than them with a complete Republican government I can see how he sees it as a mandate and there really is no other checks on them.  So you agree with me: Bush is ignoring the principles of our democracy and undermining the Constitution by implimenting policies that, according to the entire intelligence community, are losing the Wurr on Turr because the republicans are letting him. Glad to get that settled.Its not unprecedented what he's doing and no he's not Hitler get over it.  I never compared him to Hilter. Don't accuse me of that shit if you got no real arguments.

narc

10-17-2006, 12:37 PM

If by winning a war you mean having his polio ridden body crap out while getting hummers from mistresses and ignoring his butt-ugly wife, while Patton and Eisenhower did the heavy lifting, then yes.

Comedian

10-17-2006, 12:51 PM

Assassinate please

HBox

10-17-2006, 12:58 PM

narc wrote: If by winning a war you mean having his polio ridden body crap out while getting hummers from mistresses and ignoring his butt-ugly wife, while Patton and Eisenhower did the heavy lifting, then yes.   HEY! If he didn't ignore the warnings and let Pearl Harbor happen they never would have had the chance![size=1]And if you were married to Eleanor Roosevelt you'd be getting it on the side whenever you could too.

johnniewalker

10-17-2006, 01:12 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  johnniewalker wrote:Did FDR respect checks and balances? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who gives a shit? He's not president and the circumstances aren't even remotely similar. Besides, he won a war, Bush is losing three, if you consider the Wurr on Turr a real war.  Bush is being responsive his constituency. Its very true he's not being transparent, accountable, or any good on civil liberties. I think he understands he has power controlling the executive and legislative branch. The judicial has cut down some policies, but other than them with a complete Republican government I can see how he sees it as a mandate and there really is no other checks on them.  So you agree with me: Bush is ignoring the principles of our democracy and undermining the Constitution by implimenting policies that, according to the entire intelligence community, are losing the Wurr on Turr because the republicans are letting him. Glad to get that settled. Its not unprecedented what he's doing and no he's not Hitler get over it.  I never compared him to Hilter. Don't accuse me of that shit if you got no real arguments.  So how one of the most beloved presidents acts in times of crisis isn't relevant?  He tried to dismantle the Judicial branch.   What is more relevant then or is Bush's presidency wholly unsimilar to any other presidency?   How about how legislatures and executive branches typically act?  They act to extend their power.  My point is there is hardly any checks on him with a republican government.  That's far from ignoring the principles of democracy.  Did the people hold him or his government accountable in 2004? That's the principle of democracy, its not on Bush.   "According to the entire intelligence community"... apparently Bush is acting in a vacuum.  Its statements like that which undermine your argument.  There must be no point to debating it because its a known truth.  I definately believe that his civil liberties record is not good, but to say that hes trampling a fundamental principle is up for debate.  The consititution gives congress much power and that conflicts with civil liberties.   I just thought a comparison to hitler would fit nicely at the end of that rant.  Sorry if my comparison to a leader who is everything you described was out of line.

narc

10-17-2006, 01:16 PM

I forgot. They only got married because they were cousins. What happened to Hayden Panettiere anyway?

Jujubees2

10-17-2006, 02:38 PM

El Mudo wrote:  A.J. wrote: I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img height="306" src="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-abraham.jpg" width="230" border="0" />  I was going to post the same thing This is a war, people.  Please 'splain to me who we are war with?  Everytime GW opens his mouth he speaks of a war on terror.  That's no more a war than the war on drugs.  Now if you're speaking of Iraq, it's a war the U.S. started (on faulty intelligence).

furie

10-17-2006, 02:49 PM

habeas corpus was over-rated anyway.

Hottub

10-17-2006, 02:59 PM

And throwing the Chief Justice in Jail?

epo

10-17-2006, 03:18 PM

Honestly it's a war, but if our mistakes from history have taught this nation a goddamn thing, it's that we can't give up liberty for the cause of security.  It's bullshit everytime and historically it doesn't freaking work.  Think about this one idea:  If the Bush administration was right and the terrorists DID attack us for hating our wonderful freedom, then during the course of our fighting said terrorists we made our nation less free.  If that happens, regardless of the military or intelligence victories to defeat these terrorists, didn't they win on some level?  In fact they might have won on the most important level to them.  Personally I don't think we should lose on any level.

Gvac

10-17-2006, 03:56 PM

Just a warning to my fellow RonFez.netters - tread lightly.Word of your dissatisfaction with the nation's leadership has reached some pretty high levels.   <img border="0" src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/Gvac/rumors3.jpg" />

HBox

10-17-2006, 03:57 PM

Hottub wrote: And throwing the Chief Justice in Jail?  He needed to be taught a thing or two for getting so lippy.

El Mudo

10-17-2006, 04:12 PM

HBox wrote: Hottub wrote: And throwing the Chief Justice in Jail? He needed to be taught a thing or two for getting so lippy.   Well. to be fair to Lincoln, he never had Roger B. Taney thrown in jail...he only threatened to What he did was arrest newspaper editors, reporters, legislators, judges, and other prominent politicians that opposed him And this was in Maryland alone <blockquote />

Hottub

10-17-2006, 04:16 PM

Goddam Copperheads!All held w/out Habeas Corpus!

This message was edited by Hottub on 10-17-06 @ 8:17 PM

TheMojoPin

10-17-2006, 05:49 PM

El Mudo wrote:  HBox wrote:  Hottub wrote: And throwing the Chief Justice in Jail?   He needed to be taught a thing or two for getting so lippy.   Well. to be fair to Lincoln, he never had Roger B. Taney thrown in jail...he only threatened to What he did was arrest newspaper editors, reporters, legislators, judges, and other prominent politicians that opposed him And this was in Maryland alone  Why don't you ever bring up the original Alien & Sedition Act?  It's a much better example since it doesn't even have the pretense of civil war like Lincoln had.  It's especially shocking given that it was created and endorsed by a number of our freedom-lovin' "founding fathers."  The Lincoln-Bush comparison, I'm sorry, is laughable.  The "war on terror" and the American civil war aren't even in the same league much less the same ballpark when it comes to jusitfying each president's distortions, modifications and abuses of power.  The biggest difference is that for the most part Lincoln was telling people what he was doing and that it was ideally a short term situation until the civil war was resolved.  Yeah, that's still pretty vague, but he at least made it look like he wanted to stop most of what he was doing as soon as possible.  Bush doesn't even bother to do that.  It's the sense that we need to just suck up all of his power violations indefinitely or even forever that worries and infuriates so many people.  It seems like such a shortsighted arrogance that creats dangerous opportunities for the wrong people and agendas.  I don't doubt both Bush and Lincoln believe(d) that their actions are just...I truly think Bush usually thinks he's doing the right thing...I just think Bush has next to none of Lincoln's reservations about what he's doing or any real plans to ever get us back to "normal."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-17-06 @ 9:51 PM

Bulldogcakes

10-17-2006, 06:03 PM

I dont know who the fuck Habeus is, but tell Bush to leave his fucking corpus alone. Fucking graverobber.

Recyclerz

10-17-2006, 08:46 PM

Kevin wrote: FMJeff wrote: Can we please focus blame on where it should lie....mexicans. Thank you.Yea really, They do not speak english. I mean if english was good enough for Jesus then it should be good enough for everybody.I dunno man, all the guys I know named Jesus do speak Spanish. And to everybody who thinks this law is a necessary tool for W to prosecute his "wars" effectively and not a historic, shameful gutting of the Constitution's checks and balances on the powers of the executive, I have three words for you: President. Hilary. Clinton. Sleep well, my princes, sleep well.

The Jays

10-17-2006, 09:08 PM

This is a war? Please. If this was a war, then why do we deficit spend? We've never declared war on anything, the term war is just thrown around whenever the Republicans want to rally their "base" around whatever evil they declare that day. War on drugs, war on porn, war on terror, it's all just a word thrown around so that, instead of spending all that money on actual causes, like healthcare, or transportation, or welfare, we spend it to kill drug lords and Muslims, because somehow, people in countries thousands of miles away are a threat to us because "they hate our freedom." Well, we have one less freedom for them to hate us for today, now that our president can imprison and torture whoever he wants, just like Saddam used to do. No wonder Rumsfeld shook that guys hand once, he probably thought to himself, "One day, I'm gonna be led by a man who has power like you."

Seriously, this country is fucked up. We give out money to farmers who live on unfertile land, claiming "disaster relief", meanwhile, we let a city rot for five days after a real disaster occurs. We got people on Wall Street earning six figures on average while the people who went in and cleaned up the area after 9/11 are left to die slowly while their bank accounts are drained from the medical bills that the government won't pick up because they didn't start showing symptoms until two years later. We got people who bought into the idea of getting a college education for free joining the military, just so that they get to hear that their tours of duty in Iraq are being extended another year, and that their brigades are going to be held in Iraq till 2010, and for what? To secure a desert that never had weapons of mass destruction, and to infuriate more and more Muslims who hate our country already? To have them babysit death squads who are going around killing Iraqis, while trying to avoid the next improvised explosive device?

Five years later, we have a hole in the financial district, and the only thing we fill it up with are the corpses of freedom and security.

johnniewalker

10-17-2006, 09:19 PM

Recyclerz wrote: Kevin wrote: FMJeff wrote: Can we please focus blame on where it should lie....mexicans. Thank you.Yea really, They do not speak english. I mean if english was good enough for Jesus then it should be good enough for everybody.I dunno man, all the guys I know named Jesus do speak Spanish. And to everybody who thinks this law is a necessary tool for W to prosecute his "wars" effectively and not a historic, shameful gutting of the Constitution's checks and balances on the powers of the executive, I have three words for you: President. Hilary. Clinton. Sleep well, my princes, sleep well. What is the rationale for this?  I'm trying to figure out what their argument is.  I assume it goes beyond protecting freedom from terror.  There must be some reason to not allow prisoners of war or prisoners of terror access to our court systems.

CuzBum

10-17-2006, 09:53 PM

<img src="http://images.43things.com/profile/00/00/df/57112s160.jpg" border="0" />SAVE US GOATBOY!

HeyGuy

10-17-2006, 11:35 PM

El Mudo wrote:  A.J. wrote: I think another group of people did that in past history, they looked like this.<img height="306" src="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-abraham.jpg" width="230" border="0" />  I was going to post the same thing This is a war, people.  When congress declares this war you can start calling it war. It is not WAR. But the far right loves to spread fear in  everyones minds.

narc

10-17-2006, 11:37 PM

Please. Congress hasn't declared war in 60 years and since they've discovered they don't have to, they're not going to probably ever again. It has nothing to do with spreading fear.

HeyGuy

10-17-2006, 11:46 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: El Mudo wrote:  HBox wrote:  Hottub wrote: And throwing the Chief Justice in Jail?   He needed to be taught a thing or two for getting so lippy.   Well. to be fair to Lincoln, he never had Roger B. Taney thrown in jail...he only threatened to What he did was arrest newspaper editors, reporters, legislators, judges, and other prominent politicians that opposed him And this was in Maryland alone  Why don't you ever bring up the original Alien & Sedition Act?  It's a much better example since it doesn't even have the pretense of civil war like Lincoln had.  It's especially shocking given that it was created and endorsed by a number of our freedom-lovin' "founding fathers."  The Lincoln-Bush comparison, I'm sorry, is laughable.  The "war on terror" and the American civil war aren't even in the same league much less the same ballpark when it comes to jusitfying each president's distortions, modifications and abuses of power.  The biggest difference is that for the most part Lincoln was telling people what he was doing and that it was ideally a short term situation until the civil war was resolved.  Yeah, that's still pretty vague, but he at least made it look like he wanted to stop most of what he was doing as soon as possible.  Bush doesn't even bother to do that.  It's the sense that we need to just suck up all of his power violations indefinitely or even forever that worries and infuriates so many people.  It seems like such a shortsighted arrogance that creats dangerous opportunities for the wrong people and agendas.  I don't doubt both Bush and Lincoln believe(d) that their actions are just...I truly think Bush usually thinks he's doing the right thing...I just think Bush has next to none of Lincoln's reservations about what he's doing or any real plans to ever get us back to "normal."This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-17-06 @ 9:51 PM How about the fact that lincoln was also doing this to better HIS OWN COUNTRY and not starting shit in a foreign place with a country who has done dick to us?Please dont compare Lincoln, one the the greatest American Presidents to Bush. He will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. Unless 20 years after he leaves office another right winger sells his presidency as being the best thing ever, just like Bush has done with Reagon. I remember Reagon was a joke, now hes so loved by the right like he was the 2nd coming of Jesus.Wait Idont believe in Jesus but you know what I mean.

narc

10-17-2006, 11:52 PM

The melodramometer of this thread is now reading off the fucking charts.

nwm

10-18-2006, 01:12 AM

FMJeff wrote: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html</a>"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."Wonderful. Consider the source of that statement (ACLU)

moochcassidy

10-18-2006, 01:34 AM

its scary that the implementation of some aspects of this law are essentially classified to the average joe...how can you have a law thats kept secret from the fucking people?if laws like this keep coming and institutions like guantanemo bay are allowed to continue in secrecy our children are seriously in the shiznit.

A.J.

10-18-2006, 02:37 AM

TheJays wrote: War on drugs, war on porn, war on terror, "War on Poverty".<img height="200" src="http://www.computersupport.ca/Restoration/LBJ.gif" width="160" border="0" />

A.J.

10-18-2006, 02:42 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: Please 'splain to me who we are war with?  Everytime GW opens his mouth he speaks of a war on terror.  That's no more a war than the war on drugs.  Now if you're speaking of Iraq, it's a war the U.S. started (on faulty intelligence).A.J. wrote: However, these are non-American citizens who have declared war on America (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html" target="_self">literally, not figuratively</a>) and have plotted mass murder and mass destruction.   <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html" target="_self">Our declaration of war against terrorists</a>.

Yerdaddy

10-18-2006, 03:09 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.J. wrote:Our declaration of war against terrorists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support.  America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.   We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. "OKay. We's probly gunna fergit that last un. Aaaand we's probly gunna fergit them Paris and Germny uns too. Ah hell! What wuz ah talkin about agin?!" 

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-18-06 @ 7:16 AM

Yerdaddy

10-18-2006, 03:24 AM

johnniewalker wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   johnniewalker wrote:Did FDR respect checks and balances? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who gives a shit? He's not president and the circumstances aren't even remotely similar. Besides, he won a war, Bush is losing three, if you consider the Wurr on Turr a real war. Bush is being responsive his constituency. Its very true he's not being transparent, accountable, or any good on civil liberties. I think he understands he has power controlling the executive and legislative branch. The judicial has cut down some policies, but other than them with a complete Republican government I can see how he sees it as a mandate and there really is no other checks on them.  So you agree with me: Bush is ignoring the principles of our democracy and undermining the Constitution by implimenting policies that, according to the entire intelligence community, are losing the Wurr on Turr because the republicans are letting him. Glad to get that settled. Its not unprecedented what he's doing and no he's not Hitler get over it.  I never compared him to Hilter. Don't accuse me of that shit if you got no real arguments.  So how one of the most beloved presidents acts in times of crisis isn't relevant?  He tried to dismantle the Judicial branch.   What is more relevant then or is Bush's presidency wholly unsimilar to any other presidency?   How about how legislatures and executive branches typically act?  They act to extend their power.  My point is there is hardly any checks on him with a republican government.  That's far from ignoring the principles of democracy.  Did the people hold him or his government accountable in 2004? That's the principle of democracy, its not on Bush.   "According to the entire intelligence community"... apparently Bush is acting in a vacuum.  Its statements like that which undermine your argument.  There must be no point to debating it because its a known truth.  I definately believe that his civil liberties record is not good, but to say that hes trampling a fundamental principle is up for debate.  The consititution gives congress much power and that conflicts with civil liberties.   I just thought a comparison to hitler would fit nicely at the end of that rant.  Sorry if my comparison to a leader who is everything you described was out of line.  I have to say that you really should consider the points you are making. You're conceding my points in one sentence and then contradicting them in the next. My point is there is hardly any checks on him with a republican government.  That's far from ignoring the principles of democracy.  Checks ARE a principle of democracy. "Checks and ballances" or "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances" target="_blank">separation of powers</a>"  [quote]The separation of powers (or trias politica, a term coined by French political, enlightenment thinker Montesquieu) is a model for the governance of democratic states.  Under this model, the state is divided into branches, and each branch of the state has separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility; however, each branch is also able to place limited restraints on the power exerted by the other branches. The normal division of branches is into the executive (or government), the legislature, and the judiciary. The US

El Mudo

10-18-2006, 04:09 AM

How about the fact that lincoln was also
doing this to better HIS OWN COUNTRY and not starting shit in a foreign
place with a country who has done dick to us?

 So youre saying to me basically in the same sentence that the ends justify the means and then saying that they dont/cant And
what exactly had the South done to the North?  No one was killed
at Fort Sumter, it could have been passed off as a bunch of nuts that
decided to take some federal property they considered belonging to
South Carolina and more than likely squelched by a lack of support of
the upper South, and not an excuse needed for calling for 300,000
troops.  And the idea that the North couldnt have survived without
the South is ludicrous.  As i've pointed out before, PLENTY of
countries have survived internal secession movements, most of the
agricultural by products of the South were cash crops like cotton and
tobacco, so they could have leaned more heavily on the midwest/ opening
far west to replace that agriculture (and there's even some speculation
they would have invaded/taken over/ brought Canada from the
British)  And Lincoln is only "great" because
he's been portrayed that way...he did a LOT of things that if Bush did
today you'd want him hung from the nearest sour apple tree

Hottub

10-18-2006, 04:32 AM

you'd want him hung from the nearest sour apple tree <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/thumbup.gif" border="0" />

CaptClown

10-18-2006, 04:55 AM

Comedian wrote: Assassinate please   <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/nono.gif" /> Do you really want the Secret Service crawling up your ass with an electron microscope? If they will pull a 14 year old girl out of class what do you think they will do to you?<img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/nono.gif" />

Yerdaddy

10-18-2006, 05:17 AM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=748252ff880c73b9&ex=1161316800&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">Many people in charge of creating and implimenting these rules know jack shi'ite about what they're even afraid of.</a>

UnknownPD

10-18-2006, 05:51 AM

CampoNJ wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: El Mudo wrote:  HBox wrote:  Hottub wrote: And throwing the Chief Justice in Jail?   He needed to be taught a thing or two for getting so lippy.   Well. to be fair to Lincoln, he never had Roger B. Taney thrown in jail...he only threatened to What he did was arrest newspaper editors, reporters, legislators, judges, and other prominent politicians that opposed him And this was in Maryland alone  Why don't you ever bring up the original Alien & Sedition Act?  It's a much better example since it doesn't even have the pretense of civil war like Lincoln had.  It's especially shocking given that it was created and endorsed by a number of our freedom-lovin' "founding fathers."  The Lincoln-Bush comparison, I'm sorry, is laughable.  The "war on terror" and the American civil war aren't even in the same league much less the same ballpark when it comes to jusitfying each president's distortions, modifications and abuses of power.  The biggest difference is that for the most part Lincoln was telling people what he was doing and that it was ideally a short term situation until the civil war was resolved.  Yeah, that's still pretty vague, but he at least made it look like he wanted to stop most of what he was doing as soon as possible.  Bush doesn't even bother to do that.  It's the sense that we need to just suck up all of his power violations indefinitely or even forever that worries and infuriates so many people.  It seems like such a shortsighted arrogance that creats dangerous opportunities for the wrong people and agendas.  I don't doubt both Bush and Lincoln believe(d) that their actions are just...I truly think Bush usually thinks he's doing the right thing...I just think Bush has next to none of Lincoln's reservations about what he's doing or any real plans to ever get us back to "normal."This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-17-06 @ 9:51 PM How about the fact that lincoln was also doing this to better HIS OWN COUNTRY and not starting shit in a foreign place with a country who has done dick to us?Please dont compare Lincoln, one the the greatest American Presidents to Bush. He will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. Unless 20 years after he leaves office another right winger sells his presidency as being the best thing ever, just like Bush has done with Reagon. I remember Reagon was a joke, now hes so loved by the right like he was the 2nd coming of Jesus.Wait Idont believe in Jesus but you know what I mean.You can never understand the love of Reagan unless you lived through Carter.

TheMojoPin

10-18-2006, 06:14 AM

El Mudo wrote: How about the fact that lincoln was also doing this to better HIS OWN COUNTRY and not starting shit in a foreign place with a country who has done dick to us?   So youre saying to me basically in the same sentence that the ends justify the means and then saying that they dont/cant And what exactly had the South done to the North?  No one was killed at Fort Sumter, it could have been passed off as a bunch of nuts that decided to take some federal property they considered belonging to South Carolina and more than likely squelched by a lack of support of the upper South, and not an excuse needed for calling for 300,000 troops.  And the idea that the North couldnt have survived without the South is ludicrous.  As i've pointed out before, PLENTY of countries have survived internal secession movements, most of the agricultural by products of the South were cash crops like cotton and tobacco, so they could have leaned more heavily on the midwest/ opening far west to replace that agriculture (and there's even some speculation they would have invaded/taken over/ brought Canada from the British)  And Lincoln is only "great" because he's been portrayed that way...he did a LOT of things that if Bush did today you'd want him hung from the nearest sour apple tree Granted, I'm only studying to be a history teacher at this point, but there's so much wrong with what you're describing it's not even funny.  The vast majority of historians are in agreement that neither the north or south would have likely survived as unified countries had the civil war not happened.  The north couldn't have just automatically shifted their agricultural needs to the west since the same political divisions existed out there that were pulling apart the eastern states.  I'm baffled that there's actually a sentiment out there to try and explain away the need to keep the country unified through force.  I mean, if you're fine with the "fractured states of America," fine, but the country wouldn't have existed as anything even remotely close to what we have today if the states had been allowed to break away.And he was saying that the ends justify the means when you're talking an obvious CIVIL WAR and not with a vague "war on terror."  You don't see the difference?

Jujubees2

10-18-2006, 06:26 AM

A.J. wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: Please 'splain to me who we are war with?  Everytime GW opens his mouth he speaks of a war on terror.  That's no more a war than the war on drugs.  Now if you're speaking of Iraq, it's a war the U.S. started (on faulty intelligence).A.J. wrote: However, these are non-American citizens who have declared war on America (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html" target="_self">literally, not figuratively</a>) and have plotted mass murder and mass destruction.   <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html" target="_self">Our declaration of war against terrorists</a>. Declaring war on al-Qaeda is like declaring war on the Mafia, though we all know there's no such thing as the Mafia).  The conservatives like to use the word "war" to scare people.  When you look back at history, there have been fewer "wars" than military engagements endorsed by congress (such as the first Gulf War and the current situation in Iraq).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States</a>

A.J.

10-18-2006, 07:15 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=748252ff880c73b9&ex=1161316800&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">Many people in charge of creating and implimenting these rules know jack shi'ite about what they're even afraid of.</a> What's funnier to me is when I read about the Sunni and Shia realizing how much they have in common.  That always merits a..."Noooooooo shit."<img height="203" src="http://www.zippyinteractive.com/zx2/2/buford_t_justice.jpg" width="275" border="0" />

El Mudo

10-18-2006, 08:14 AM

Granted, I'm only studying to be a history
teacher at this point, but there's so much wrong with what you're
describing it's not even funny.  The vast majority of historians are in
agreement that neither the north or south would have likely survived as
unified countries had the civil war not happened.  The north couldn't
have just automatically shifted their agricultural needs to the west
since the same political divisions existed out there that were pulling
apart the eastern states.  I'm baffled that there's actually a
sentiment out there to try and explain away the need to keep the
country unified through force.  I mean, if you're fine with the
"fractured states of America," fine, but the country wouldn't have
existed as anything even remotely close to what we have today if the
states had been allowed to break away. I'm
really only basing it on the fact that countless other countries have
survived internal secession movements...I just don't buy the fact that
the North and South couldn't have existed without each other I
also don't believe the "same political divisions" existed out West,
especially in the Far West, as there was really NOBODY OUT THERE...the
government had to GIVE AWAY the land to get people to go out
there.  If you're bringing up Kansas, that's a special case,
because they weren't trying the Douglas Theory of "popular sovreignty"
any other place And what do I really care about what historians think? They're just putting theories into place, just like I am

Yerdaddy

10-18-2006, 08:59 AM

Yeah but could it have been a "second shooter" that killed Stonewall Jackson?Discuss.

johnniewalker

10-18-2006, 09:27 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: The people did not hold him accountable in 2004. That is true. And that is A principle of democracy, and I blame the public for buying the bullshit of the political propaganda machine that the conservative movement now employs to win elections. That, however, does not excuse Bush or Congress from acting within the Constitution, or the other principles of democracy.Which is the point of having a discussion like this; I believe that, because Bush maintains the support of his political base and his party retains control over the other two branches of government, he is being allowed to reduce the civil liberties guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights and defined by 200 years of democratic governance. Ultimately, the people do have the power to change their rulers if they feel they are not acting in their best interests, and the First Ammendment was created to protect my right to explain to you why I think this administration is making bad decisions. It is now your decision whether you think your responsibility as a citizen of a democracy is to listen to my points objectively and consider your own position, or to continue to try to convince me that I should leave Bush alone because the people have voted.  I think what your saying is that Bush is completely acting outside the bounds of the constitution because the Bill of Rights is being impeded.   I don't think this is the first time that the Bill of Rights have been disputed.   They are inherently in conflict with the powers given to the congress.  In Article 1 they explain the broad scope of congressional power, and not till the end do we see our rights defined.  Its true they have been defined after 200 years, and along that way what they have meant has constantly changed.  What exactly the first amendment means, has changed substantially.  A implied right to privacy has been found.  I don't think the principles of democracy are to be held to reflect one specific state.   I doubt the founders would look at this government and say because republicans hold congress and the executive branch that the constitution they wrote was a failure.   Saying that a unified legislature and executive branch should somehow check each other independently is unreasonable.  Its a special case, not the typical case.  The argument would go that the judicial branch would check them(which is what happend in the first case that was the reason for this law), but more importantly its up to people to vote out who they don't approve of.  It shows the power of controlling every elected branch. It's trouncing democratic principles, just a special case where checks are lessened.  I'm not trying to shut you up or try to convince you Bush is good.  I don't care.  I just don't think he's violently abusing the constitution.

TheMojoPin

10-18-2006, 09:51 AM

El Mudo wrote:  Granted, I'm only studying to be a history teacher at this point, but there's so much wrong with what you're describing it's not even funny.  The vast majority of historians are in agreement that neither the north or south would have likely survived as unified countries had the civil war not happened.  The north couldn't have just automatically shifted their agricultural needs to the west since the same political divisions existed out there that were pulling apart the eastern states.  I'm baffled that there's actually a sentiment out there to try and explain away the need to keep the country unified through force.  I mean, if you're fine with the "fractured states of America," fine, but the country wouldn't have existed as anything even remotely close to what we have today if the states had been allowed to break away.   I'm really only basing it on the fact that countless other countries have survived internal secession movements...I just don't buy the fact that the North and South couldn't have existed without each otherPlease show me a country that survived such a massive seperation on the scale we're talking about.  A country the size of America is a rare thing...unless you have examples of China and Russia pulling apart like that, the comparison simply does not work. And you can "not buy it" all you want, but the north and south would not have been able to survive as united blocs of anything for long.  Such a seperation would have placed massive limitations on their economies and left them both open to international, especially European, influence, control and manipulation.I also don't believe the "same political divisions" existed out West,How can you not believe something that is a major factor for the civil war in the first place?  The issue of slavery alone in the western territories was a literally violent issue over a decade before the civil war actually broke out.especially in the Far West, as there was really NOBODY OUT THERE...the government had to GIVE AWAY the land to get people to go out there.That mass population shifts and land grants didn't kick in en masse until AFTER the civil war.If you're bringing up Kansas, that's a special case, because they weren't trying the Douglas Theory of "popular sovreignty" any other placeKansas was only one territory where they were having conflict.  This country was on a crash course for civil conflict for a good 40 years leading up to the actual civil war.  No president was going to allow any states to secede because, quite frankly, they weren't stupid.  Allowing states to break away sets up a precedent that ultimately pulls the country apart.And what do I really care about what historians think? They're just putting theories into place, just like I amAKA "I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks or for what reason, I've already made up my mind."[/quote]

A.J.

10-18-2006, 10:13 AM

TheMojoPin wrote:  No president was going to allow any states to secede because, quite frankly, they weren't stupid.   <blockquote />This one was: "President Buchanan, dismayed and hesitant, denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want compromise."

narc

10-18-2006, 10:29 AM

Wow, this thread has taken a turn. I actually agree with Mojo on the history part for the most part surprisingly. But I don't think what Bush is doing is any less about self-preservation than what Lincoln was doing, and when the stakes are that high, you obviously can't make an omelette without breaking some civil rights. Nobody should be happy about it. But it might be necessary. Various groups have had to go through this in our history. It sure sucked to be a Japanese guy who was a citizen and got shipped off to an internment camp. Or a Cherokee living in Georgia who was a citizen, had everything taken away and marched off to Oklahoma, where they might have died. And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. I'm saying this isn't anything new where Bush is some great evil. Both previously were done by Presidents that were considered "great" - FDR and Andrew Jackson, the last flagrantly in contravention of the Supreme Court. What's going on today isn't near the level of fucking people over that that was. Did either of those prior actions help preserve the union? Probably not. Did Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus help preserve the union? Even the most devout of Lincoln apologists are dubious about that one. So some of you need to stop thinking about this as something new and start thinking about it as something that occasionally happens throughout history. Do I think the approach is working this time? I don't know. According to Yerdaddy, we're just pissing off the Middle Easterners who want to be our friends, and not really fighting who we're supposed to be fighting. But I literally don't know what else we would do. We've tried more diplomatic means in the past, and we still end up with terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11. And whoever said Iraq had never done anything to us is forgetting the period of time when we had to shower them with cruise missiles every two years just to show them we were serious.

TheMojoPin

10-18-2006, 10:50 AM

A.J. wrote: TheMojoPin wrote:  No president was going to allow any states to secede because, quite frankly, they weren't stupid.   This one was: "President Buchanan, dismayed and hesitant, denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want compromise."Good catch, my mistake.  I still forget that at least half a dozen states bailed on the Union before Lincoln even took office.  Buchanan definitely was that stupid and weak.  Ultimately, if he had somehow been re-elected, I think he would have eventually been forced to act, especially given that his cabinet by 1961 had Dix, Stanton and Holt in it.  Buchanan was definitely the completely wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

TheMojoPin

10-18-2006, 10:55 AM

Various groups have had to go through this in our history. It sure sucked to be a Japanese guy who was a citizen and got shipped off to an internment camp. Or a Cherokee living in Georgia who was a citizen, had everything taken away and marched off to Oklahoma, where they might have died. And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. I'm saying this isn't anything new where Bush is some great evil. Both previously were done by Presidents that were considered "great" - FDR and Andrew Jackson, the last flagrantly in contravention of the Supreme Court. What's going on today isn't near the level of fucking people over that that was. Did either of those prior actions help preserve the union? Probably not. Did Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus help preserve the union? Even the most devout of Lincoln apologists are dubious about that one. So some of you need to stop thinking about this as something new and start thinking about it as something that occasionally happens throughout history.Or people are aware of these incidents and because of them they're even more wary about what Bush is doing now.  It's a cliche, but we're supposed to learn from history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.  While his decisions were far from flawless, I think Lincoln may be the exception in these examples given the circumstances of his time in office.  With the exception of the War of 1812, I can't think of another time in our history was in that dire of a situation, or even close to being that bad.Bottom line, why should Bush's mistakes be excused because of the mistakes of the past?  That's a lazy and dangerous mentality.

FMJeff

10-18-2006, 11:02 AM

nwm wrote: FMJeff wrote: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/bush.terrorism.ap/index.html</a>"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero."Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said."Wonderful. Consider the source of that statement (ACLU)  What's your point? That it is an inaccurate assessment of the powers this bill grants the executive branch? By all means, please illustrate the misinterpretation. You may not be aware, but the ACLU is composed of extremely intelligent, patriotic citizens, many with extensive legal experience, if not a degree in law. I wish the same could be said about our president.

narc

10-18-2006, 11:13 AM

TheMojoPin wrote:  Various groups have had to go through this in our history. It sure sucked to be a Japanese guy who was a citizen and got shipped off to an internment camp. Or a Cherokee living in Georgia who was a citizen, had everything taken away and marched off to Oklahoma, where they might have died. And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. I'm saying this isn't anything new where Bush is some great evil. Both previously were done by Presidents that were considered "great" - FDR and Andrew Jackson, the last flagrantly in contravention of the Supreme Court. What's going on today isn't near the level of fucking people over that that was. Did either of those prior actions help preserve the union? Probably not. Did Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus help preserve the union? Even the most devout of Lincoln apologists are dubious about that one. So some of you need to stop thinking about this as something new and start thinking about it as something that occasionally happens throughout history. Or people are aware of these incidents and because of them they're even more wary about what Bush is doing now. It's a cliche, but we're supposed to learn from history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. While his decisions were far from flawless, I think Lincoln may be the exception in these examples given the circumstances of his time in office. With the exception of the War of 1812, I can't think of another time in our history was in that dire of a situation, or even close to being that bad.Bottom line, why should Bush's mistakes be excused because of the mistakes of the past? That's a lazy and dangerous mentality.  I'm not saying Bush's mistakes should be excused. Presidents don't really deserve a pass. That's part of being President. That's why I said the following:  And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. And some of the people here seem to not know about those things in the past and think that we're this great fountain of liberty and doing the right thing all the time. We are, but only comparatively, and it's partially because of our youth as a nation and some of the advantages North America has over Europe.

HeyGuy

10-18-2006, 01:11 PM

TheMojoPin wrote:  Various groups have had to go through this in our history. It sure sucked to be a Japanese guy who was a citizen and got shipped off to an internment camp. Or a Cherokee living in Georgia who was a citizen, had everything taken away and marched off to Oklahoma, where they might have died. And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. I'm saying this isn't anything new where Bush is some great evil. Both previously were done by Presidents that were considered "great" - FDR and Andrew Jackson, the last flagrantly in contravention of the Supreme Court. What's going on today isn't near the level of fucking people over that that was. Did either of those prior actions help preserve the union? Probably not. Did Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus help preserve the union? Even the most devout of Lincoln apologists are dubious about that one. So some of you need to stop thinking about this as something new and start thinking about it as something that occasionally happens throughout history.  Or people are aware of these incidents and because of them they're even more wary about what Bush is doing now.  It's a cliche, but we're supposed to learn from history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.  While his decisions were far from flawless, I think Lincoln may be the exception in these examples given the circumstances of his time in office.  With the exception of the War of 1812, I can't think of another time in our history was in that dire of a situation, or even close to being that bad.Bottom line, why should Bush's mistakes be excused because of the mistakes of the past?  That's a lazy and dangerous mentality.Bush has been given a pass on all his mistakes more then any other president in my life. I'm not a dem but I hope they win a lot of seats in this years elections. Because he needs to be impeached way more thn Clinton ever did. What Clinton did was lie about getting a blow job. Which he should it was his personal business and Monica didnt even want people to know about it, so the Republicans had a witch hunt and dug and dug until they found something they knew they could embaress him on.Bush there is no need to dig for anything, he has made so many mistakes and has fucked with our freedom and wipes his ass with the constitustion. Plus his lies and mistakes didnt only effect him, they have led to the death of 3000 soldiers and up to 500k civilians. IMPEACH HIM PLEASE

Yerdaddy

10-18-2006, 01:26 PM

narc wrote: Do I think the approach is working this time? I don't know. According to Yerdaddy, we're just pissing off the Middle Easterners who want to be our friends, and not really fighting who we're supposed to be fighting. But I literally don't know what else we would do. How about this: we stop doing things to piss of people who may or may not want to be our friends, (I never said they do), but who would not be bothered to join a terrorist group unless they're convinced that the US and the West were waging a war against Islam. THAT is a fundamental principle of Islam - that you can only wage war in self-defense. The Islamic sanctioning of violence divides the teachings of the Quran into: a) you cannot kill innocent people, and b) you can kill people who are attacking you. This is where the bigotted anti-Muslim section of the right-wing in America lies to you: they quote the B section and tell you the A section doesn't exist. (Like the Michelle Malkin column I posted a while back that was reprinted in a Yemeni newspaper because they saw it as evidence that Americans hate Islam.) But if you came here to the Middle East you'd see right away that most Middle East Muslims are very clear that their religion defines conditions in which violence is acceptable. Islam literally keeps me safe here. I've never met a Muslim in two years here who condoned 9-11. (I've met some who believe that Mossad did it, or the US government.) I see hatred in people's eyes sometimes. I can feel the mistrust sometimes. And if you asked them if attacking the "occupying" American forces in Iraq is justified, probably most of them would say yes.But that is the difference, and where the real "front line on the Wurr on Turr" is: in the fact that most Muslims are asking themselves at what point the US is making war on Islam.So you answered your own question: we should be fighting the ones we're supposed to be fighting - al-Qaeda. They're those guys in Afghanistan where European soldiers are doing most of the work now because we're now in the middle of a near civil war in Iraq. Where we should not be!That's why we're losing. That's what we have to NOT do if we're ever to "win" this thing.For a much better description of what we should be doing, read Anthony Cordesman's advice to Congress in <a href="http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_congress&task=view&id=173" target="_blank">this document</a>. Seriously, read it. It's a direct answer to your question from just about the most respected source on the subject. We've tried more diplomatic means in the past, and we still end up with terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11. And whoever said Iraq had never done anything to us is forgetting the period of time when we had to shower them with cruise missiles every two years just to show them we were serious. I'm just curious; what were the diplomatic means that lead up to 9-11? And what did Iraq do to us to earn those cruise missles? I really want to know what you think they are because Muslims here would ask the same question.

narc

10-18-2006, 01:36 PM

CampoNJ wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Various groups have had to go through this in our history. It sure sucked to be a Japanese guy who was a citizen and got shipped off to an internment camp. Or a Cherokee living in Georgia who was a citizen, had everything taken away and marched off to Oklahoma, where they might have died. And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. I'm saying this isn't anything new where Bush is some great evil. Both previously were done by Presidents that were considered "great" - FDR and Andrew Jackson, the last flagrantly in contravention of the Supreme Court. What's going on today isn't near the level of fucking people over that that was. Did either of those prior actions help preserve the union? Probably not. Did Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus help preserve the union? Even the most devout of Lincoln apologists are dubious about that one. So some of you need to stop thinking about this as something new and start thinking about it as something that occasionally happens throughout history. Or people are aware of these incidents and because of them they're even more wary about what Bush is doing now. It's a cliche, but we're supposed to learn from history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. While his decisions were far from flawless, I think Lincoln may be the exception in these examples given the circumstances of his time in office. With the exception of the War of 1812, I can't think of another time in our history was in that dire of a situation, or even close to being that bad.Bottom line, why should Bush's mistakes be excused because of the mistakes of the past? That's a lazy and dangerous mentality.Bush has been given a pass on all his mistakes more then any other president in my life. I'm not a dem but I hope they win a lot of seats in this years elections. Because he needs to be impeached way more thn Clinton ever did. What Clinton did was lie about getting a blow job. Which he should it was his personal business and Monica didnt even want people to know about it, so the Republicans had a witch hunt and dug and dug until they found something they knew they could embaress him on.Bush there is no need to dig for anything, he has made so many mistakes and has fucked with our freedom and wipes his ass with the constitustion. Plus his lies and mistakes didnt only effect him, they have led to the death of 3000 soldiers and up to 500k civilians. IMPEACH HIM PLEASE  That's not entirely accurate. There's no problem with lying about said blow job - until you do it under oath, which is perjury/false statements and a crime - always has been and pretty much always will be. Clinton said this wasn't a crime because of the whole "That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." and was able to worm his way out because whatever jackoff lawyer was doing the deposition didn't ask a specific enough question.

WRESTLINGFAN

10-18-2006, 01:54 PM

narc

10-18-2006, 01:55 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: narc wrote: Do I think the approach is working this time? I don't know. According to Yerdaddy, we're just pissing off the Middle Easterners who want to be our friends, and not really fighting who we're supposed to be fighting. But I literally don't know what else we would do. How about this: we stop doing things to piss of people who may or may not want to be our friends, (I never said they do), but who would not be bothered to join a terrorist group unless they're convinced that the US and the West were waging a war against Islam. THAT is a fundamental principle of Islam - that you can only wage war in self-defense. The Islamic sanctioning of violence divides the teachings of the Quran into: a) you cannot kill innocent people, and b) you can kill people who are attacking you. This is where the bigotted anti-Muslim section of the right-wing in America lies to you: they quote the B section and tell you the A section doesn't exist. (Like the Michelle Malkin column I posted a while back that was reprinted in a Yemeni newspaper because they saw it as evidence that Americans hate Islam.) But if you came here to the Middle East you'd see right away that most Middle East Muslims are very clear that their religion defines conditions in which violence is acceptable. Islam literally keeps me safe here. I've never met a Muslim in two years here who condoned 9-11. (I've met some who believe that Mossad did it, or the US government.) I see hatred in people's eyes sometimes. I can feel the mistrust sometimes. And if you asked them if attacking the "occupying" American forces in Iraq is justified, probably most of them would say yes.But that is the difference, and where the real "front line on the Wurr on Turr" is: in the fact that most Muslims are asking themselves at what point the US is making war on Islam.So you answered your own question: we should be fighting the ones we're supposed to be fighting - al-Qaeda. They're those guys in Afghanistan where European soldiers are doing most of the work now because we're now in the middle of a near civil war in Iraq. Where we should not be!That's why we're losing. That's what we have to NOT do if we're ever to "win" this thing.For a much better description of what we should be doing, read Anthony Cordesman's advice to Congress in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_congress&task=view&id=173">this document</a>. Seriously, read it. It's a direct answer to your question from just about the most respected source on the subject.  We've tried more diplomatic means in the past, and we still end up with terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11. And whoever said Iraq had never done anything to us is forgetting the period of time when we had to shower them with cruise missiles every two years just to show them we were serious.  I'm just curious; what were the diplomatic means that lead up to 9-11? And what did Iraq do to us to earn those cruise missles? I really want to know what you think they are because Muslims here would ask the same question.  I'm familiar with Islamic tenants of just war. And I know that it is as you say - that most people over there would really have no problem with us if we weren't in Iraq, and that we would be doing a better job in Afghanistan if we weren't in Iraq (although I don't necessarily think we would've found bin Laden). But none of that really helps us now. Obviously we fucked up. At the time, I thought the fuck up was based upon a reasonable assertion. But we're going to have to deal with that and I don't think leaving Iraq out to dry would really help anything. And I'm talking not so much diplomatic means that led to 9-11. Just an approach. We worked with Middle Eastern governments to

WRESTLINGFAN

10-18-2006, 04:57 PM

Someone give That hack Keith Olberman a fucking handkerchief , What a god damned cry baby

This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-18-06 @ 9:00 PM

tele7

10-18-2006, 05:56 PM

I prefer French Coffin.

CuzBum

10-18-2006, 06:14 PM

Freedom's goin' out in style though:<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Kasket.jpg/250px-Kasket.jpg" border="0" />

HeyGuy

10-18-2006, 11:54 PM

narc wrote:  CampoNJ wrote: TheMojoPin wrote:  Various groups have had to go through this in our history. It sure sucked to be a Japanese guy who was a citizen and got shipped off to an internment camp. Or a Cherokee living in Georgia who was a citizen, had everything taken away and marched off to Oklahoma, where they might have died. And I'm not justifying it this time or saying those times were okay. I'm saying this isn't anything new where Bush is some great evil. Both previously were done by Presidents that were considered "great" - FDR and Andrew Jackson, the last flagrantly in contravention of the Supreme Court. What's going on today isn't near the level of fucking people over that that was. Did either of those prior actions help preserve the union? Probably not. Did Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus help preserve the union? Even the most devout of Lincoln apologists are dubious about that one. So some of you need to stop thinking about this as something new and start thinking about it as something that occasionally happens throughout history.  Or people are aware of these incidents and because of them they're even more wary about what Bush is doing now. It's a cliche, but we're supposed to learn from history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. While his decisions were far from flawless, I think Lincoln may be the exception in these examples given the circumstances of his time in office. With the exception of the War of 1812, I can't think of another time in our history was in that dire of a situation, or even close to being that bad.Bottom line, why should Bush's mistakes be excused because of the mistakes of the past? That's a lazy and dangerous mentality.Bush has been given a pass on all his mistakes more then any other president in my life. I'm not a dem but I hope they win a lot of seats in this years elections. Because he needs to be impeached way more thn Clinton ever did. What Clinton did was lie about getting a blow job. Which he should it was his personal business and Monica didnt even want people to know about it, so the Republicans had a witch hunt and dug and dug until they found something they knew they could embaress him on.Bush there is no need to dig for anything, he has made so many mistakes and has fucked with our freedom and wipes his ass with the constitustion. Plus his lies and mistakes didnt only effect him, they have led to the death of 3000 soldiers and up to 500k civilians. IMPEACH HIM PLEASE  That's not entirely accurate. There's no problem with lying about said blow job - until you do it under oath, which is perjury/false statements and a crime - always has been and pretty much always will be. Clinton said this wasn't a crime because of the whole "That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." and was able to worm his way out because whatever jackoff lawyer was doing the deposition didn't ask a specific enough question.  Thats my point, they had no reason to ask him these questions in the first place, so putting him under oath and making him talk about something that had nothing to do with anything other then to embaress him. I dont blame him for that and he should never had to answer those questions.It amazes me, the religious right, has so many problems with gays, sexuality, freedoms to be and do as you want. Yet they are the biggest closet fags, molestors, and they are fighting a war to give another culture our freedoms, yet they dont want us to be fully free and let people live their lives the way they want to. What Clinton did, was what IMO every president has done, got a blow job or fucked ano

HeyGuy

10-18-2006, 11:59 PM

WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Someone give That hack Keith Olberman a fucking handkerchief , What a god damned cry baby This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-18-06 @ 9:00 PM Why does it bother you that he calls your boy Bush out? And actually speaks the truth? You must love Faux News and your Boy Oreilly.

WRESTLINGFAN

10-19-2006, 02:10 AM

CampoNJ wrote: WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Someone give That hack Keith Olberman a fucking handkerchief , What a god damned cry baby Dubya is not "my boy" I disagree with alot of his policies, but tough interrogations of these lowlives is justified. Why people want to bend over backwards for these savages and give them the same rights as American Citizens is beyond me. As far as O Reilly he is a hack also, But Olberman is nothing buy a former sports guy from ESPN who got lucky and got his own show, Kinda like a Rush Limbaugh, he is no Edward R Murrow so enough with the "Good Night and good Luck"

This message was edited by WRESTLINGFAN on 10-19-06 @ 6:16 AM

A.J.

10-19-2006, 02:23 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: A.J. wrote: TheMojoPin wrote:  No president was going to allow any states to secede because, quite frankly, they weren't stupid.   This one was: "President Buchanan, dismayed and hesitant, denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want compromise."Good catch, my mistake.  I still forget that at least half a dozen states bailed on the Union before Lincoln even took office.  Buchanan definitely was that stupid and weak.  Ultimately, if he had somehow been re-elected, I think he would have eventually been forced to act, especially given that his cabinet by 1961 had Dix, Stanton and Holt in it.  Buchanan was definitely the completely wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.Thank you.  This may be the only time I'll ever get to make a James Buchanan reference on this board.Franklin Pierce -- you're next!

Yerdaddy

10-19-2006, 03:00 AM

narc wrote:I'm familiar with Islamic tenants of just war. And I know that it is as you say - that most people over there would really have no problem with us if we weren't in Iraq, and that we would be doing a better job in Afghanistan if we weren't in Iraq (although I don't necessarily think we would've found bin Laden). But none of that really helps us now. Obviously we fucked up. At the time, I thought the fuck up was based upon a reasonable assertion. But we're going to have to deal with that and I don't think leaving Iraq out to dry would really help anything. And I'm talking not so much diplomatic means that led to 9-11. Just an approach. We worked with Middle Eastern governments to get control of the PanAm hijackers.We were involved in the peace process and reining in the Israelis. Cruise missiling Iraq was part of that too. Saddam would build up his military and make a show of force to intimidate surrounding governments and his own people, and we'd shoot a couple missiles. Specifically, we did in '96 for violating UN safe zones, and in '98 for  ejecting weapons inspectors. Saddam would at least once a year break the no-fly zone. He'd also ignore whatever sanctions we put on him. We went through law enforcement channels to get the first WTC bombers. All this is a more diplomatic means of dealing with the ME and I think it was probably appreciated. But in the end it didn't keep us safe. So what can we do to keep ourselves safe while not pissing them off further? That is the golden question, and I'm not sure we can, and I think that uncertainty is what is being reflected in our policy.I think it goes back to the bad stuff we did during the cold war obviously. But I feel like before 9/11 we had honestly been trying to make up for it. But for some reason, it's bitten us in the ass more in the ME than anywhere else we pursued our policies (except maybe Vietnam). Let's wrap this up? Thanks for the serious and civil debate. You and johnniewalker have been great about having a rational discussion here. I'm not used to that. Like I'm not used to seeing female flesh. It's refreshing. And, strangely, you've also given me wood.I'll just add this: The relevance of the Iraq thing is that public support for the hard-line policy of going to war in Iraq, then the belief that things were going well, (according to the administration, but contrary to what was being reported by the reporters on the ground and largely based on the statements of military personnel on the ground), which allowed the administration to continue to make monstrous mistakes in Iraq, is similar to the hard-line policies that allow us to treat Muslims - both guilty and innocent of terror-related crimes - like animals. And these are not working. Nor will they work now that they're more legal than before. They will continue to make us hated because Muslims - as crazy as I've come to think most of them are - are still judging us based on our own actions; Iraq, Guantanamo, secret renditions, support for authoritarian regimes, unconditional support for Israel, crazy statements by the administration ("Islamo-facists"), military tribunals, official and unofficial use of torture, etc. Al-Qaeda listed the reasons why it hated us - Iraq War and sanctions, the presence of US troops on Saudi soil, our support for oppressive (and secular regimes) were the big ones. Fuck their opinions; those were stupid reasons. But al-Qaeda is now recruiting off of our actions since 9-11. We've honestly done them more fucking favors than I would have ever imagined. Therefore, I say a change in our actions is necessary, and not a legalization of the old actions.About our ME policies before 9-11: I'd actually say many of our policies are more benevolent now than before. As I've said before, in Yemen, the US took a whole new look at it's aid there after 9-11 and started to make a whole lot of sense. The embassy has been able to fund development projects in the most poor a

JerryTaker

10-19-2006, 05:40 AM

so maybe I was thinking Barak Obama? 20012, maybe?Hey, if he lives another 19000 years, he should be president just on principle...

Yerdaddy

10-21-2006, 03:02 AM

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_detainees" target="_blank">U.S. jails man once tortured by Taliban</a>Arrested by the Taliban in Afghanistan in January 2000, Rahim says al-Qaida leaders burned him with cigarettes, smashed his right hand, deprived him of sleep, nearly drowned him and hanged him from the ceiling until he "confessed" to spying for the United States.U.S. forces took the young Kurd from Syria into custody in January 2002 after the Taliban fled his prison. Accusing him of being an al-Qaida terrorist, U.S. interrogators deprived him of sleep, threatened him with police dogs and kept him in stress positions for hours, he says. He's been held ever since as an enemy combatant.Rahim's story is one of several emerging from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay as defense lawyers make bids to free their clients while the Bush administration tries to use a new law to lock them out of federal courts.After the Supreme Court overturned President Bush's plans for commissions to try detainees, Bush obtained a new law from Congress barring federal courts from hearing appeals for release by any alien "properly detained as an enemy combatant." The Justice Department told district and appellate judges this week they no longer have jurisdiction to hear dozens of such pending cases.A court fight over that is certain.Calling the move to strip jurisdiction "a direct attack on our constitutional structure," Federal Public Defender Steven T. Wax in Portland, Ore., said, "We will litigate that as hard as we can in whatever forum we can find, because they are wrong."Other detainees whose lawyers filed new evidence in U.S. District Court motions this month include:_Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese charity worker arrested at 1:30 a.m. July 18, 2002, in his Peshawar, Pakistan, apartment. Co-workers swear he was a hospital administrator with no connection to terrorists. A dissenting U.S. Army major on the panel that reviewed the unclassified and secret evidence against him called it "unconscionable" to detain him because some employees of the same charity may have supported terrorist ideals._Nazar "Chaman" Gul, a 29-year-old Afghani who thought he was working as an armed fuel depot guard for the Karzi government installed by U.S. forces. The man who hired him swears that was the case, but he is accused of being a member of a terrorist group. The lawyers say he has been mistaken for a commander of that terror group, named Chaman Gul, also held at Guantanamo.[quote]"Multiple reviews have been conducted since each detained enemy fighter was captured, including for these three individuals," said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon. "There is a significant amount of evidence, both unclassified and classified, which supports continued detention of these detainees and others at Guantanamo."Now 28, Rahim, buttressed by testimony from friends and relatives, says he wound up in Afghanistan in a bid to escape his father, a strict teacher of Islamic education who objected to his borrowing money outside the family for a college trip. With his father holding his passport, he tried futilely to get from his home in the United Arab Emirates to Europe or Canada.Finally a friendly diplomat got him deported to Afghanistan where he and others say he hoped to be declared a refugee and moved to Europe by international aid agencies. He says the Taliban conscripted him and sent him against his will to the Al Farouq terrorist training camp. When he tried to leave 18 days later, they imprisoned him, he says.In spring 2000, Abu Dhabi television broadcast a video of a tearful, fidgeting Rahim saying a U.S. agent recruited him to find Osama bin Laden. "I deserve to die ... but if the Taliban let me live, I want to spend the next 22 years fighting for jihad," he said. On Jan. 17, 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft

Jujubees2

11-03-2006, 10:41 AM

Jesus, does GW really believe this or does he just say it because it's the "party line"?  What is his plan for Iraq except "Stay the course" or "We'll step down when they step up".  And he's still linking Iraq to the war on terrorism.  If we had just stayed focused in Afghanistan things might be different now.<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/</a>

A.J.

11-03-2006, 10:54 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: Jesus, does GW really believe this or does he just say it because it's the "party line"?  What is his plan for Iraq except "Stay the course" or "We'll step down when they step up".  And he's still linking Iraq to the war on terrorism.  If we had just stayed focused in Afghanistan things might be different now.<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/</a>You may question Bush's plan for Iraq --- but he's right when he says to ask Democrats "What's YOUR plan?"  The only plan I heard from a Democrat was from Joe Biden.

Jujubees2

11-03-2006, 11:20 AM

johnniewalker

11-03-2006, 11:29 AM

Recyclerz

11-03-2006, 12:15 PM

I think the bottom line is that there is no good plan for finishing up W's adventure, just varying degrees of bad plans.  I think the Democrats are wise - politically - to just keep pointing to W and Posse and saying "Look what they did" because any attempt to broadcast a "solution" before the election will be hammered by the Right-Wing attack machine as surrendering to the terrorists. (When we withdraw, I can already predict the howling points of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter chorus:  "We were only two weeks away from W's plan  succeeding in Iraq when the fucking Defeatocrats made us cut and run!")The proposals being floated now by Fareed Zakaria (originally pro-war) and others and likely the Baker commission probably make the most sense, or at least have the smallest amount of nonsense.  They involve pulling our guys out of the cities and telling the Shia gov't. you have to make a deal with the Sunnis before we come back to enforce it and warning the neighboring countries to stay out while at the same time giving Kirkuk to the Kurds but telling them they can't officially be independent.  Will this increase the bloodshed of innocent Iraqis butchered in sectarian violence before the Sunnis & Shia can decide they can decide on a deal? Yup.  Is it sure to avoid a regional war by countries who think they can take advantage of the chaos to improve their own positions? Nope.  But if anybody has a better plan the world would like to know.  <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/sad.gif" border="0" />

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 11-3-06 @ 4:16 PM

johnniewalker

11-03-2006, 12:33 PM

Recyclerz wrote: I think the bottom line is that there is no good plan for finishing up W's adventure, just varying degrees of bad plans. I think the Democrats are wise - politically - to just keep pointing to W and Posse and saying "Look what they did" because any attempt to broadcast a "solution" before the election will be hammered by the Right-Wing attack machine as surrendering to the terrorists. (When we withdraw, I can already predict the howling points of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter chorus: "We were only two weeks away from W's plan succeeding in Iraq when the fucking Defeatocrats made us cut and run!")The proposals being floated now by Fareed Zakaria (originally pro-war) and others and likely the Baker commission probably make the most sense, or at least have the smallest amount of nonsense. They involve pulling our guys out of the cities and telling the Shia gov't. you have to make a deal with the Sunnis before we come back to enforce it and warning the neighboring countries to stay out while at the same time giving Kirkuk to the Kurds but telling them they can't officially be independent. Will this increase the bloodshed of innocent Iraqis butchered in sectarian violence before the Sunnis & Shia can decide they can decide on a deal? Yup. Is it sure to avoid a regional war by countries who think they can take advantage of the chaos to improve their own positions? Nope. But if anybody has a better plan the world would like to know. <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/sad.gif" />

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 11-3-06 @ 4:16 PM I think your right unfortunately, but I hate that they try to reason the withdrawl with this dribble. that our presence "...gives Iraqi politicians a crutch to avoid creating stability in
their country." I just hate that we're at the point where there is no good ideas other than destroying a country.

Yerdaddy

11-03-2006, 03:01 PM

A.J. wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: Jesus, does GW really believe this or does he just say it because it's the "party line"?  What is his plan for Iraq except "Stay the course" or "We'll step down when they step up".  And he's still linking Iraq to the war on terrorism.  If we had just stayed focused in Afghanistan things might be different now.<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/</a>You may question Bush's plan for Iraq --- but he's right when he says to ask Democrats "What's YOUR plan?"  The only plan I heard from a Democrat was from Joe Biden.Bush should get a pop in the back of the head from his elector. IF the dems win both houses of Congress, it's still the legislative branch of government. They don't conduct foreign policy, the executive does. I guess Bush assumes his constituents are as ignorant of basic civics as he is. But, then, the dems aren't swatting this line back at him so I guess elections are just one big Special Olympics now and we're all winners. Realistically, in their periferal oversight role and budgeting the money, the most the dems would even effect the war would be to act as a threat of hearings to hold the administration accountable for their monstrous fuck ups. They could also demand the administration present a plan in order to recieve the funding for some of the emergency supplimentals for the war. That's really dicey, because ultimately it would be a bluff - they wouldn't be able to actually starve the military budgets and republicans would call them traitors and blame the entire situation on them. I almost hope the dems don't win anything this year because I already see the myriad ways they're going to have the entire situation blamed on them. And, really, for over a year now the options in Iraq have become so few that most objective analysts have little more than faint hopes that anything qualifying as success in Iraq can be achieved. The Bush administration has already screwed the pooch more times than Triumph the Insult Comic Dog backstage at Westminster. If I were a dem I'd have real mixed feelings about suddenly sharing power with these losers.

A.J.

11-06-2006, 03:39 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: A.J. wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: Jesus, does GW really believe this or does he just say it because it's the "party line"?  What is his plan for Iraq except "Stay the course" or "We'll step down when they step up".  And he's still linking Iraq to the war on terrorism.  If we had just stayed focused in Afghanistan things might be different now.<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546821/from/RS.2/</a>You may question Bush's plan for Iraq --- but he's right when he says to ask Democrats "What's YOUR plan?"  The only plan I heard from a Democrat was from Joe Biden.First of all, I don't question Bush's plans for Iraq because he has NONE!And there have been two democratic plans, the Feingold-Kerry plan <a href="http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3362">http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3362</a>The other escapes me but consists of a timetable to turn over control to the Iraqis sooner rather than later.That plan is not entirely without merit.  But what concerns me is clearly defining to the dullard electorate what "withdrawing from Iraq" means.  This plan, if my reading comprehension is working, says that we should maintain a presence in Iraq but that it should be far smaller than what we have there now.  It does NOT mean that every American solider in Iraq should come home.  So first we didn't have enough troops in Iraq but now we have too many.  Mmmkay.What concerns me most is destroying the last shred of credibility we have in the region.  We fucked the Iraqis over in 1991 when George H.W. Bush told the Iraqis to "rise up against Saddam" and then they were promptly slaughtered after we failed to support them.  Now, after liberating them from Saddam (rightly or wrongly) we're going to look like we're about to bail on them again.  And it would give Al-Qa'ida the ammo they need to say that the Americans screw over Muslims.  I again post the following op-ed for your consideration:[QUOTE]October 26, 2006  What Osama Wants By PETER BERGEN <div />WashingtonTHE French saying, often attributed to Talleyrand, that “this is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder,” could easily describe America’s invasion of Iraq. But for the United States to pull entirely out of that country right now, as is being demanded by a growing chorus of critics, would be to snatch an unqualified disaster from the jaws of an enormous blunder. To understand why, look to history. Vietnam often looms large in the debate over Iraq, but the better analogy is what happened in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion. During the 1980’s, Washington poured billions of dollars into the Afghan resistance. Around the time of Moscow’s withdrawal in 1989, however, the United States shut its embassy in Kabul and largely ignored the ensuing civil war and the rise of the Taliban and its Qaeda allies. We can’t make the same mistake again in Iraq.A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Qaeda’s most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. “Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a

Yerdaddy

11-06-2006, 07:34 AM

This thing has been a clusterfuck from the beginning.  We may have a chance to redeem ourselves but an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq is not the answer.  Fortunately, I think Bergen, as an analyst at a moderate liberal thinktank, is appealing to the segment of the left that does consider a total pullout the best solution. It's frightenging that as the left has increasingly adopted this position they are being joined by more and more republicans, and, as opportunities for for potential solutions in Iraq come and go untried, the "fuck it" plan is becomming more and more appealing. But I don't see a complete withdrawal being seriously considered by anyone with any real power. The ideas that do scare me are things like breaking the country apart, which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?ei=5070&en=59d79f13360ce2a0&ex=1162962000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1162827921-I5SdsZALMMPHGp/1Irn4cQ" target="_blank">Joe Biden</a> and <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/7044/galbraith.html" target="_blank">Peter Galbraith</a> were mulling over a few months ago. Fortunately <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/opinion/09cordesman.html?ex=1162962000&en=48207396708d40b1&ei=5070" target="_blank">Anthony Cordesman</a> responded with the problems with the idea and hopefully can keep some reason in the debate. But, then again, nobody's opinions matter except those of the Bush administration. It should be obvious by now that they don't respect anyone's opinion anyway, so it's an excercize in futility to even talk about strategies anyway.Given that this is an utter waste of time, the one benefit of reading these guys' positions is that they are all serious writers directly concearned with Iraq and all of their peices at least offer really good analyses of the most important isses facing Iraq today.  That plan is not entirely without merit.  But what concerns me is clearly defining to the dullard electorate what "withdrawing from Iraq" means.  This plan, if my reading comprehension is working, says that we should maintain a presence in Iraq but that it should be far smaller than what we have there now.  It does NOT mean that every American solider in Iraq should come home.  So first we didn't have enough troops in Iraq but now we have too many.  Mmmkay.  We needed more troops immediately after the invasion. We still need more troops now, (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060410fa_fact2" target="_blank">several military sources on the ground explain in this great article that we have about half the troops the military formulas say we should have in this military environment</a>), but the problem now is the political situation has changed. There's an Iraqi government in place now that is dominated by hard-line Shii'a political organizations that have filled the security forces with their militias who are essentially one side of a civil war lite. Meanwhile there is no definition of success that doesn't include political stability, which means these guys - Iraq's new government - have to choose to reign in the militias in their authority and force them to defend the country or get the fuck out. As long as the American forces are there providing security, there is no incentive for the politicians to crack down on their own forces. It's becomming more accepted wisdom that the only leverage we have to force this is to make them think we're getting out of Dodge. Thus, the time for adding the troops that military situation calls for is long past. "Clusterfuck" you say? [quote]What concerns me most is destroying the last shred of credibility we have in the region.  We fucked the Iraqis over in 1991 when George H.W. Bush told the Iraqis to "rise up against Saddam" and then they were promptly slaughtered after we failed to support them.  Now, after liberating them

A.J.

11-06-2006, 07:56 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: The ideas that do scare me are things like breaking the country apart, which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?ei=5070&en=59d79f13360ce2a0&ex=1162962000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1162827921-I5SdsZALMMPHGp/1Irn4cQ" target="_blank">Joe Biden</a> and <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/7044/galbraith.html" target="_blank">Peter Galbraith</a> were mulling over a few months ago. Fortunately <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/opinion/09cordesman.html?ex=1162962000&en=48207396708d40b1&ei=5070" target="_blank">Anthony Cordesman</a> responded with the problems with the idea and hopefully can keep some reason in the debate. But, then again, nobody's opinions matter except those of the Bush administration. It should be obvious by now that they don't respect anyone's opinion anyway, so it's an excercize in futility to even talk about strategies anyway.You're right and I mentioned somewhere once that what we're looking at is a Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan being made of Iraq.  Thanks Britain for forming a Middle Eastern Yugoslavia of peoples that hate each other!