Holy Sh*t Bush Has Made War Protest Illegal !!!

anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed

Well on the bright side, at least after they seize all you property and assets and imprison you , they can't torture you too much !

Invalid Link Removed
 
Yeah I like that whole "pose a risk of". How exactly can that be determined and how is it even remotely legal to prosecute someone for "future crimes".

****, even in Minority Report they at least had those precog people who could actually see the future.
 
Tiberius said:
Yeah I like that whole "pose a risk of". How exactly can that be determined and how is it even remotely legal to prosecute someone for "future crimes".
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the Order had been worded as follows I still think Bush is once again overstepping his bounds, but the it may at least be debatable or defendable under some strange Tony Snow rationale:


"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed __________________ an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."


But, when you consider this part I omitted, or to pose a significant risk of, this is worrisome and could be abused very readily.
 
bigSMokey said:
Exactly. If the order had been worded as follows, I still think he is once again overstepping his bounds, but the Order may at least be debatable or defendable under some strange Tony Snow rationale:


"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, __________________ an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."


But, when you consider this part I omitted, or to pose a significant risk of, this is worrisome and could be abused very readily.
Click to expand...

...and in a worse case scenario what if you replace the word IRAQ with the words UNITED STATES
 
Tiberius said:
Yeah I like that whole "pose a risk of". How exactly can that be determined and how is it even remotely legal to prosecute someone for "future crimes".

****, even in Minority Report they at least had those precog people who could actually see the future.
Click to expand...

Pose a risk of would be Mohammed Bin Al Jaheed making a giant bomb. Isnt attempted murder a crime? Isnt attempting to solicit a prostitute a crime? You are not very insightful if you can see that having the intention of doing many things is illegal. I dont know how you think this is unreasonable. More wing nut conspiracy theories on the internet. Say it isnt so!

If treasonous speech was illegal then John Murtha, Michael Moore, Obama, Edwards, Gore and just about every other democrat besides Leberman would be down vacationing in Gitmo.
 
CNorris said:
Pose a risk of would be Mohammed Bin Al Jaheed making a giant bomb. Isnt attempted murder a crime? Isnt attempting to solicit a prostitute a crime? You are not very insightful if you can see that having the intention of doing many things is illegal. I dont know how you think this is unreasonable. More wing nut conspiracy theories on the internet. Say it isnt so!

If treasonous speech was illegal then John Murtha, Michael Moore, Obama, Edwards, Gore and just about every other democrat besides Leberman would be down vacationing in Gitmo.
Click to expand...

Since when has the right-wing trusted the government? This country is now officially ass-backwards.
 
CNorris said:
Pose a risk of would be Mohammed Bin Al Jaheed making a giant bomb. Isnt attempted murder a crime? Isnt attempting to solicit a prostitute a crime? You are not very insightful if you can see that having the intention of doing many things is illegal. I dont know how you think this is unreasonable. More wing nut conspiracy theories on the internet. Say it isnt so!

If treasonous speech was illegal then John Murtha, Michael Moore, Obama, Edwards, Gore and just about every other democrat besides Leberman would be down vacationing in Gitmo.
Click to expand...


Dude, you are one seriously ****ed up ombre if you don't see a problem with using the words "pose a risk of" in a legal document. "Pose a risk of" doesn't mean attempt, buddy boy. It means someone thinks they might do something sometime in the future. No timeline has to be given even according to this document. To top it off, only 1 guy has to make the call and he doesn't have to answer to anyone. So there doesn't have to be a reason at all.

This isn't about right and left. Wake the **** up, kiddo. This is about an executive order that we'd expect to see in the USSR not the USA.
 
"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary
 
jomi822 said:
"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary
Click to expand...


What's really really ****ed up about this is, complaining about Haliburton in any way can make you a target:

"pose a significant risk of... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction"

Since Haliburton has all those contracts, if you do anything to hurt that company they can say you are undermining the efforts to promote economic reconstruction in Iraq.
 
Tiberius said:
What's really really ****ed up about this is, complaining about Haliburton in any way can make you a target:

"pose a significant risk of... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction"

Since Haliburton has all those contracts, if you do anything to hurt that company they can say you are undermining the efforts to promote economic reconstruction in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Complaining about Haliburton (the company Clinton used during the Kosovo conflict) doesnt mean ****. Threatening to blow up their company or conspiring to do so does mean something. I cant believe someone would be paranoid enough actually believe this is an attempt to limit protesting or free speech.

No court of law would side with an attack on free speech, and no president is stupid enough to even attempt to attack free speech. (Some democrats are attempting though with the "fairness" doctrine.)

In today's age of radically anti Bush, anti executive power media if someone was actually abused the media would parade them around for the next 3 years.
 
Tiberius said:
Dude, you are one seriously ****ed up ombre if you don't see a problem with using the words "pose a risk of" in a legal document. "Pose a risk of" doesn't mean attempt, buddy boy. It means someone thinks they might do something sometime in the future. No timeline has to be given even according to this document. To top it off, only 1 guy has to make the call and he doesn't have to answer to anyone. So there doesn't have to be a reason at all.

This isn't about right and left. Wake the **** up, kiddo. This is about an executive order that we'd expect to see in the USSR not the USA.
Click to expand...

Bush doesnt have to answer to anyone? You mean not even the supreme court? I want what you are smoking please. No timeline has to be given on when someone is going to bang the prostitute they picked up, but that is irrelevant. And if you are even attempting to relate this document to limiting free speech you are completely delusional. Must be all the Alex Jones movies and books.
 
jomi822 said:
"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary
Click to expand...

So treasonous violent criminal acts count as protesting now? :think:
 
CNorris said:
So treasonous violent criminal acts count as protesting now? :think:
Click to expand...

well since cheney defined war protesting as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...it doesnt really sound that far fetched. especially when there are no checks and balances on this executive order.

the supreme court? id like to ahve some of what YOU are smoking my friend. there are 9 members of the supreme court...with the majority of sitting judges republicans. it doesnt matter what bush does, he is always going to have support from the republicans, including those sitting on the supreme court.
 
jomi822 said:
well since cheney defined war protesting as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...it doesnt really sound that far fetched. especially when there are no checks and balances on this executive order.

the supreme court? id like to ahve some of what YOU are smoking my friend. there are 9 members of the supreme court...with the majority of sitting judges republicans. it doesnt matter what bush does, he is always going to have support from the republicans, including those sitting on the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
jomi822 said:
the supreme court? id like to ahve some of what YOU are smoking my friend. there are 9 members of the supreme court...with the majority of sitting judges republicans. it doesnt matter what bush does, he is always going to have support from the republicans, including those sitting on the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Not only that fact, but Chuck's assertion that Bush or any other president answers to the Supreme Court shows a profound ignorance of our system of government. It is congress that has the greatest ability to put the breaks on a President, in more ways than one.

But jomi, that's the way it is with the radical right, if you shift too far from their system of beliefs, you are either on drugs (preferably smoking something), a nutcase, nutjob (the term "nut" is such a powerful arguement that it may adorned with any number of suffixes). A tinfoil hat wearer, drinking Kool-Aid (whether the implication is the Kool-Aid contains drugs or cyanide, I'm not sure), a pinko, an America-Hater. This list is not exhaustive. Facts are secondary or minor considerations.
 
jomi822 said:
and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary
Click to expand...

You think that's scary, Google the terms May 9th directive. When and if 9/11 Act 2 commences, the subject of that directive with be all the more grave.
 
ive read it. gives bush complete dictatorial power over the entire nation.

bet it happens right before elections
 
CNorris said:
No timeline has to be given on when someone is going to bang the prostitute they picked up, but that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You might want to actually look at laws pertaining to prostitution before making stupid analogies that don't even make sense.
 
bigSMokey said:
But jomi, that's the way it is with the radical right, if you shift too far from their system of beliefs, you are either on drugs (preferably smoking something), a nutcase, nutjob (the term "nut" is such a powerful arguement that it may adorned with any number of suffixes). A tinfoil hat wearer, drinking Kool-Aid (whether the implication is the Kool-Aid contains drugs or cyanide, I'm not sure), a pinko, an America-Hater. This list is not exhaustive. Facts are secondary or minor considerations.
Click to expand...

Or you can do what the radical right does and clump all of this into one word.....LIBERAL :rolleyes:

or the other...TERRORIST. I think CNorris likes to use both of these together while trying to make some point about how evil these people (liberls or those who believe differently than him) are. From what i gather from his pontifications, liberals are more of a threat to this country than al qaeda. I guess since I can be considered a liberal i am therefor 'threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people'. Should I be expecting a visit from the spetsnaz or SS, CNorris?
 
I cant wait for martial law to be declared! Then I can practice my martial arts and do some round house kicks!

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
zbtboy said:
You might want to actually look at laws pertaining to prostitution before making stupid analogies that don't even make sense.
Click to expand...

I know what the laws are. The person has to agree to sex for money. It still doesn't establish a time frame, only the intent of sex for money. This analogy doesn't make sense if you thought process is convoluted enough to believe the US gov't wants to take us over like Nazi Germany.
 
bigSMokey said:
Not only that fact, but Chuck's assertion that Bush or any other president answers to the Supreme Court shows a profound ignorance of our system of government. It is congress that has the greatest ability to put the breaks on a President, in more ways than one.

Congress does not have much power unless they have a big enough majority to over ride the president's veto. How many times has Bush had a veto over ridden or had a law passed that directly challenged his authority? How many times has he been challenged by the supreme court? Right now the supreme court would be more of a threat to challenge him. If he was the nazi dictator all the Michael Mooreons believe him to be, Congress would assert power and challenge him.

But jomi, that's the way it is with the radical right, if you shift too far from their system of beliefs, you are either on drugs (preferably smoking something), a nutcase, nutjob (the term "nut" is such a powerful arguement that it may adorned with any number of suffixes). A tinfoil hat wearer, drinking Kool-Aid (whether the implication is the Kool-Aid contains drugs or cyanide, I'm not sure), a pinko, an America-Hater. This list is not exhaustive. Facts are secondary or minor considerations.

If the shoe fits....
Click to expand...

Conservatives believe the government is well meaning in matters of national security. The government is not out to control us, declare martial law, strip us of all our civil liberties and rape the constitution. Those paranoid delusions are for the wing nut tinfoil hat kool aid drinking paranoid basement dwelling losers.
 
CNorris said:
In today's age of radically anti Bush, anti executive power media if someone was actually abused the media would parade them around for the next 3 years.....


Those paranoid delusions are for the wing nut tinfoil hat kool aid drinking paranoid basement dwelling losers.
Click to expand...

Chuck: Pat, can I buy a hyphen.
Pat: Sorry Chuck, only vowels, you'll need to use your keyboard for that. Hey Vanna, send him home with a couple of commas also.
 
CNorris said:
This analogy doesn't make sense if you thought process is convoluted enough to believe the US gov't wants to take us over like Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't find where zbtboy said that. False presumtion is becoming a favored debate technique among the O'Reilly crowd.

Get it through your head: Most Americans don't necessarily hate or fear the government as you've eluded to countless times. They are fed-up with, and completely distrust, this administration.. But then again, you wouldn't have your "America-Haters"" talking point if you didn't make the former assumption.
 
CNorris said:
Conservatives believe the government is well meaning in matters of national security. The government is not out to control us, declare martial law, strip us of all our civil liberties and rape the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, I only wish our government was controlled by conservatives !
 
anabolicrhino said:
No, its "protesting" now counts as a treasonous violent criminal act !

That's the reason people are upset !:think:
Click to expand...

"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

Since when is commiting acts of voilence a form of protesting? I wish left wing idiot protesters became violent. I would love to get a gun and rid this planet of some useless flesh.
 
CNorris said:
Last I checked it was the democrats wanting to limit free speech with the "fairness" doctirine.
Click to expand...

Yes cause the fairness doctrine is much worse than an executive order allowing the president to detain anyone he thinks is a threat to him. That poor old woman that had cheese in her luggage, surrounded with ice packs that leaked, and a cell phone charger next to it (that this administration seems to think was a "dry-run" for terrorists)...I'm sure she's more concerned with the fairness doctrine.
 
zbtboy said:
Yes cause the fairness doctrine is much worse than an executive order allowing the president to detain anyone he thinks is a threat to him. That poor old woman that had cheese in her luggage, surrounded with ice packs that leaked, and a cell phone charger next to it (that this administration seems to think was a "dry-run" for terrorists)...I'm sure she's more concerned with the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah its so alarmist to be suspicious when someone has freaking wires, switches and cheese all taped together. If you are retarded enough to freaking bring cheese in your luggage bag you are an idiot and being stripped searched and harassed is brought on by your own stupidity.

Invalid Link Removed

Looks pretty innocent to me! If you are threatened by the government being alarmed over this, you are the kind of person that would get attacked first if this was a fair world.


Since you cant F#CKING read, I will repeat myself.

CNorris said:
"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

Since when is commiting acts of voilence a form of protesting? I wish left wing idiot protesters became violent. I would love to get a gun and rid this planet of some useless flesh.
Click to expand...

violence
violence
violence
violence
violence
violence

ITS NOT PROTESTING. SEE!

violence
violence
violence
 
When a person is offended by the government investigating why wires and cheese would be taped together, and not offended by the government controlling media like a Stalinist society we have a problem.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Let's get real guys.

1. No one in here is a threat to the peace and prosperity of Iraq here. Let's not believe for a second that the gov't will start rounding up Americans who don't vote republican. We're all just a bunch of bodybuilders, not terrorists. It's just more scare tactics which can even further divide us citizens if we allow it to.

2. Everything gets blown out of proportion when you're the president. People hated Clinton because he got a blow job, smoked weed, and just about pardoned every crook he knew. People hate Bush because they think he is stupid or because he nearly choked on a pretzel, or because they compare him to Hitler. It seems as if the only way a president is considered a hero by the masses is if he gets assassinated like Lincoln or Kennedy.

3. A lot of people attack Bush from a corruption angle but let's be real. Every administration has had corruption and scandals. Even the NBA is fukcing rigged now a day LOL.

4. If someone is posing a violent threat then I would hope we do something about it, don't you ? The president is in a no win situation. If he passes no bill then he will get criticized for not passing enough anti-terror bills. If he passes an anti-terror bill then he's suddenly compared to Hitler or Stalin. It's just impossible to satisfy all the people all the time.
 
CNorris said:
Oh yeah its so alarmist to be suspicious when someone has freaking wires, switches and cheese all taped together. If you are retarded enough to freaking bring cheese in your luggage bag you are an idiot and being stripped searched and harassed is brought on by your own stupidity.

Invalid Link Removed

Looks pretty innocent to me! If you are threatened by the government being alarmed over this, you are the kind of person that would get attacked first if this was a fair world.


Since you cant F#CKING read, I will repeat myself.



violence
violence
violence
violence
violence
violence

ITS NOT PROTESTING. SEE!

violence
violence
violence
Click to expand...

Actually. if you bothered to read the facts as opposed to just believing what CNN tells you (I cant believe i just made that comment to you btw) you'll find that in none of the instances in which the TSA brought up had wires been tapped to cheese. The wires, one for a cell phone, and the other for a dvd player were simply next to the block of cheese. And the claim about clay was incorrect as well. There was no clay at all, but a clay like texture after the ice bags leaked. In other words, there was NO DRY RUN at all. Just more fear mongering out of Washington. The TSA on the scene conducted their investigations and found no wrong doing in any of the circumstances! No arrests were made! Yet the high level TSA comes out with this crap?

Again, the issue was not why the TSA stopped these people. They did their jobs quite well. But why did washington feel the need to use the term "Dry-Run" when there in fact wasn't one??

I dont know why i bother explaining this to you, your helpless and i feel sorry for you.
 
zbtboy said:
Actually. if you bothered to read the facts as opposed to just believing what CNN tells you (I cant believe i just made that comment to you btw) you'll find that in none of the instances in which the TSA brought up had wires been tapped to cheese. The wires, one for a cell phone, and the other for a dvd player were simply next to the block of cheese. And the claim about clay was incorrect as well. There was no clay at all, but a clay like texture after the ice bags leaked. In other words, there was NO DRY RUN at all. Just more fear mongering out of Washington. The TSA on the scene conducted their investigations and found no wrong doing in any of the circumstances! No arrests were made! Yet the high level TSA comes out with this crap?

Again, the issue was not why the TSA stopped these people. They did their jobs quite well. But why did washington feel the need to use the term "Dry-Run" when there in fact wasn't one??

I dont know why i bother explaining this to you, your helpless and i feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

BDS in full effect.

Again, the issue was not why the TSA stopped these people.
Click to expand...

It isn't? Oh I got it, its because they used the term dry run in a memo. Stop the presses!!!! :rolleyes:

That poor old woman that had cheese in her luggage, surrounded with ice packs that leaked, and a cell phone charger next to it
Click to expand...


You do understand that to determine if its a legit dry run or not they do actually have to stop and investigate...but I forgot, its not why they stopped them.

cause the fairness doctrine is much worse than an executive order allowing the president to detain anyone he thinks is a threat to him.
Click to expand...

Do you always misinterpret this bad? Its always been policy to detain anyone showing and or even speaking about threatening the President. I got a bet for you. Go to Washington, go to the White House, hold up your anti-war protest sign and see if you get arrested. If you do, I'll give you $1,000 and pay for your trip. Lets just see how bad you misinterpret these Executive Orders.
 
Iron Warrior said:
If someone is posing a violent threat then I would hope we do something about it, don't you ? The president is in a no win situation. If he passes no bill then he will get criticized for not passing enough anti-terror bills. If he passes an anti-terror bill then he's suddenly compared to Hitler or Stalin. It's just impossible to satisfy all the people all the time.
Click to expand...

Bush can win. He can pass all these laws and become dictator for the next year and a half!!!!! Thats been his plan all along!!!!

:rolleyes:

:fool2:
 
Bobo said:
BDS in full effect.



It isn't? Oh I got it, its because they used the term dry run in a memo. Stop the presses!!!! :rolleyes:

You do understand that to determine if its a legit dry run or not they do actually have to stop and investigate...but I forgot, its not why they stopped them.
Click to expand...

uuuhhh.... The memo came out after this event took place, not before it. The local TSA on scene did their jobs and investigated these events and determined that there was no dry run at all, that there was no connection to terrorism, and that these people were not threats. The local TSA did their jobs and did it quite well. Why then did the TSA in washington leak out that terrorists were attempting dry runs when there was absolutely no evidence at all to support that claim? Why did the media run with it like we were going to be attacked tomorrow?
 
zbtboy said:
Why did the media run with it like we were going to be attacked tomorrow?
Click to expand...


So its the TSA's fault for the drama that MSNBC started? I got it...TSA leaked information that spanned from Sept 16th, 2006 to
July 5th, 2007 because they wanted to create fear among the people.....its not because they wanted to keep everyone aware considering the failed JFK plot, London and Glasgow...its because they have another agenda!

It could never be MSNBC's their fault for trying to break a story...rather its this administration and the TSA (which you now think is washington).


.....and I know how the TSA (or in your terms Washington) loves to give MSNBC, that bastion of right wing news, the scoop.... :rolleyes:
 
The argument about "violence" and then saying "protest doesn't qualify" isn't true. Because it doesn't say you have to commit an act of violence, it just says you have to pose a risk of committed an act of violance at some point in the distant future. So if you protest and they say "hey that guy is really adamant in his views, he might resort to violence if he doesn't get his way" they can use that as justification for seizing eveyrthign he has.


I think folks here are forgetting about something really important. Rights aren't about what law enforcement DOES, they are about what law enforcement CAN LEGALLY DO. So for example, let's say they made it legal to search houses of terrorists without any kind of warrant. You can say, "well they are only going to use it on terrorists", but the problem with that is no due process was given in order to determine the person is in fact a terrorist. As a result, law enforcement can make that decision without oversight. When they can do that, even though they probably WON'T searhc yoru house, they CAN. Because they CAN the 5th ammendment is no longer valid.


You can try and say "oh they won't abuse it, you're being paranoid", and my argument is simply, just because they won't doesn't matter. The point of rights is to remove the possibility of abuse. The bill of rights protect the American people from the American government. Giving the government the power of search and seizure over US citizens without a warrant, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, compeltely invalidates the 5th ammendment protetions against illegal search and seizure. Will they search your house? Probably not. Can they? Most definitely. THAT is the point.



EDIT: Correction, 4th ammendment deals with search and seizure. 5th ammendment however address seizure of property.
 
Tiberius said:
I think folks here are forgetting about something really important. Rights aren't about what law enforcement DOES, they are about what law enforcement CAN LEGALLY DO.
.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point because while the Declaration of Independence declares inalienable rights for all men and the US Constitution provides the structure of how those rights will be protected, it is the local law enforcement officers that actually protect these rights!

The military is a tool to protect the state and by constitutional
provision may not exercise authority over US citizens.

What Bush has done is circumvented the constitution by creating an environment were citizens who are suspected of terrorism or contributing to the destabilization of Iraq can have authority exercised on them by the military.

This environment is real scary because the military swears an oath to protect the United States, not the citizens.

So make sure you have at least one friend who is a local cop, he may be your only hope, because cops swear an oath to protect and to serve the laws and citizens of the land they patrol !!!
 
Tiberius said:
The argument about "violence" and then saying "protest doesn't qualify" isn't true. Because it doesn't say you have to commit an act of violence, it just says you have to pose a risk of committed an act of violance at some point in the distant future. So if you protest and they say "hey that guy is really adamant in his views, he might resort to violence if he doesn't get his way" they can use that as justification for seizing eveyrthign he has.
Click to expand...

If the person is calling for the destruction of the US government is FAR differnet than worthless sheep statements like "Bush lied people died". If a middle eastern professor openly calls for for the destruction of US Democracy, I hope my president would have the balls to deport him at the very least. I would prefer to see the guy go on a vacation to Gitmo.

There is a HUGE distinction between being an idiot protestor, and being a threatening protestor. The legal system, as incompetant as it is, cant get that wrong. If it does I would be the first to sign up for the local militia.

I miss the days when this thread would be all the BDS sufferes complaning about your your right to call Al Quaida from the US without being monitored being taken away. Those were some good times.
 
CNorris said:
If the person is calling for the destruction of the US government is FAR differnet than worthless sheep statements like "Bush lied people died". If a middle eastern professor openly calls for for the destruction of US Democracy, I hope my president would have the balls to deport him at the very least. I would prefer to see the guy go on a vacation to Gitmo.

There is a HUGE distinction between being an idiot protestor, and being a threatening protestor. The legal system, as incompetant as it is, cant get that wrong. If it does I would be the first to sign up for the local militia.

I miss the days when this thread would be all the BDS sufferes complaning about your your right to call Al Quaida from the US without being monitored being taken away. Those were some good times.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the Freedom of Speech only applies as long as you don't demand the removal of the current administration?


Funny you should say that, cus the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights for the express purpose of giving the American people the ability to insult, criticize, or in any other way badmouth the government. The only way to have a free people with free elections is to allow the government to be criticized to the FULLEST extent by the people.

You though appear to be in favor of the Soviet style of "free speech."
 
CNorris said:
If the person is calling for the destruction of the US government is FAR differnet than worthless sheep statements like "Bush lied people died". If a middle eastern professor openly calls for for the destruction of US Democracy,
Click to expand...

These action are specifically granted by the government

Here's a little refresher:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.



...at least they were !
 
CNorris said:
There is a HUGE distinction between being an idiot protestor, and being a threatening protestor. The legal system, as incompetant as it is, cant get that wrong. If it does I would be the first to sign up for the local militia.
Click to expand...

Wow, this just in from the irony department.

Your statement could easily by construed to be an attempt to destabilize the government:wave:

However, I too am an idiot protester!

:cheers:

I will not support idiots or their agenda!
 
Tiberius said:
The argument about "violence" and then saying "protest doesn't qualify" isn't true. Because it doesn't say you have to commit an act of violence, it just says you have to pose a risk of committed an act of violance at some point in the distant future.
Click to expand...

It has to be proven, just like any accusation in which you have been charged. You seem to think the judicial system goes out the window.

So if you protest and they say "hey that guy is really adamant in his views, he might resort to violence if he doesn't get his way" they can use that as justification for seizing everything he has.
Click to expand...

No, they can't.

I think folks here are forgetting about something really important. Rights aren't about what law enforcement DOES, they are about what law enforcement CAN LEGALLY DO.
Click to expand...
And you give up certain rights as a citizen. If you don't want to, you certainly are free to go elsewhere.

but the problem with that is no due process was given in order to determine the person is in fact a terrorist.
Click to expand...


Wrong again. It has to be proven. An Executive Order doesn't eliminate your judicial rights if you are an American citizen....it gives criteria to investigate and charge IF its true. The notion they can pick you up off the street, stick you in Gitmo with no charges, no proof, etc..is ludicrous.

You can try and say "oh they won't abuse it, you're being paranoid", and my argument is simply, just because they won't doesn't matter. The point of rights is to remove the possibility of abuse.
Click to expand...
With your viewpoint, you could never have an effective police force because in some hypothetical situation something CAN be abused.

Now having said all that, President Jimmy Carter enacted the IEEPA which basically stated the same exact thing (Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, )..the only thing Bush has done was apply it to the Iraqi government and for the most part this deals with NON citizens. So in all your protests you have been under this same oppressive boot since 1977. They really abused it :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top