Independence from the Bush Administration (Why we have a duty under the Declaration of Independence to impeach Bush) (1551 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.44 on 89 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by S.O.S. (View user info) at 2006-01-25 15:23:10 EST
LISTEN ALL AMERICANS! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!
I think there is something you need to hear. Chances are, you have read this document before, and chances are you have completely ignored or forgotten its contents. So here now I give you your Declaration of Independance...now with 100% more of my personal footnotes to guide you along toward the path of knowledge, understanding, enlightenment, and justice.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-------------
***[Nice introduction here. Essentially what Thomas Jefferson is saying here is there comes a time for people to stand up and fight against the powers that would seek to rule them to their own ends and seek out a new way of government as is their inalienable right as human beings.]***
-------------
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 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.
-------------
***[This part is especially important. This is the part of the Declaration that US governments since WWII seem to have conveniently forgotten. Some would say that what's good for the gander is good for the goose, but our government in its foreign policy in the age of its superpower status among the world has done nothing but meddle in the affairs and unalienable rights of sovereign states around the globe to suit its own ends, such as to prevent the form of government known as 'Communism' from spreading, even where its been the overwhelming will of the people of that sovereign nation.
We also see here that Jefferson is clearly saying that governments are instituted among men, and their powers are derived from the consent of the governed. Some would argue that this cannot include a system of communism, as communism bypasses the electoral and representative process, thus denying the people their just say in how they are represented. But I say that the communist subject's silence and unwillingness to rise up and challenge such forms of government constitutes consent, for again, it is their human right to abolish such governments as they see fit and to be free from foreign intervention where it is not wanted. For, that foreign power that claims to know whats most likely to "effect the Safety and Happiness" of a soveriegn nation has surely overstepped its bounds.
This part of the Declaration is also important because it contains the unambiguous passage: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government." This applies to every nation of the world and all people of the world, and yes, this also includes these United States. If we feel that our current government is not acting in our best interests, or not performing its duty toward the end of the people's will, or serving itself first and foremost to the detriment of the people, it is OUR RIGHT to overthrow that government and replace it with one that will do its just duty.]***
------------
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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-----------------
***[Here we see Jefferson, in his wisdom, urging prudence in change. He asserts that governments should not, and will not, by the nature of the human condition, be changed becuse of fly-by-night causes - for people are not apt to change their station or take to risk while their current conditions are sufferable or tolerable. But he also makes clear that when the people are subject to long STRINGS OF ABUSES at the hands of their current government, and when the people lose their tolerance for such injustice, it is not only their right, but their DUTY....THEIR DUTY...to throw off such governments. Note that the word 'security' is used here, but it is not used only in terms of their physical security, but also in terms of their above mentioned unalienable rights. This includes those later included in our nation's Bill of Rights, which are treated by our founding fathers as even more important and more fundamental to civilised society than mere physical security, which naturally follows from the aforementioned unalienable rights.]***
-----------------
— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
-----------------
***[Here Jefferson begins to draw parallels to the rule of then King George. Many of these do not apply to our current situation, the exposure of which is the purpose of this footnoted edition; therefore, I will, instead, attempt to highlight but a few of the major infractions our current administration has made against the people of this nation and other nations their rights and privileges as described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of these United States.
1: George Bush has repeatedly authorized electronic surveillance without first seeking warrants from the court that was set up for the very purpose of imposing a judicial check on the power of the president, lest that president overstep his authority and reduce our venerated institution to a seat of tyranny against the people. While the Bush administration tries to convince the public that this is a necessary power to have in a time of war - in this case, not the war with Iraq, but the open-ended "War on Terror", which, like the "War on Drugs", could last the rest of our lives - the fact remains that the careful system of checks and balances that was so prudently built into our form of government by our founding fathers is being completely subverted and undermined by not first obtaining warrants for covert eavesdropping on Americans, who, as taxpayers and citizens of this country are entitled to the rights prescribed under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.
2: George Bush has mislead the citizens of the United States into a war against a sovereign nation with the use of false and fabricated intelligence, neglecting obligation for diplomatic prudence and ignoring the need for multilateralism in world affairs. The current president has stated repeatedly that the sovereign nation of Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and close ties to the terrorist group Al Quieda, both of which have since been called into serious question by a number of independent investigative bodies. Furthermore, the Bush administration continues to change its reasoning for going to war to mislead the public and take focus away from the initial lies they has perpetrated.
3: The Bush administration has detained US citizens in at least two KNOWN occasions (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/true-tyranny-defined-bush-admin-v-jose.html) indefinitely, and in solitary confinelment, without charging them with a crime, while at the same time refusing them the right to legal council. By defining them as enemy combatants in the ever-widening "War on Terror", the president tries to justify such actions against citizens of his own country.
4: The Bush administration tries to intimidate dissenters and whistle-blowers by authorizing the FBI to spy on those groups that do not share their ideology, and by leaking information to the press in an attempt to damage the position of political enemies, even while compromising the undercover nature of their position. (See: Scooter Libby)
5: The Bush administration, for reasons one could only classify as self-serving due to its close ties with big oil, has ignored and attempted to cover up repeated warnings about the dangers of fossil fuels and their effect on our fragile environment and the immediate need to persue and subsidize alternate energy technologies. As further evidence, the administration has refused to seek an international solution to the scientific problems surrounding global warming and has neglected his duty as a world leader to, if not sign the Kyoto accord, to engage in open talks about the subject with scientists and foreign leaders. The administration has also opened up our venerated National Parks to invasive oil and natural gas drilling, which not only further compromises our environment, but endangers the prospect that future generations of Americans will reap the benefits of these pristine, wild places.
6: The Bush administration has failed in its duty to provide timely disaster relief to hurricane-stricken areas, or to appoint personnel capable of performing such duties in a competent manner.
7: Evidence suggests the Bush administration knew about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and either failed or maliciously neglected to act to prevent them. Furthermore, the Bush administration failed to demand a full investigation into the allegations of a government coverup by allowing New York mayor Rudy Gulianni to discard the forensic evidence of the World Trade Center crime scene.
It is for these reasons the people of the United States of America have the clear duty and obligation to insist this administration be impeached from office, or under the precepts of the Declaration of Independence upon which this great country was founded, overthrow that government that would stand in the way of such justified action.
The lines of tyranny and oppression are often murky, and in times of war, these lines can be blurred altogether as circumstances dictate. But the reasons enumerated above DO NOT and SHOULD NOT fall beneath the shields of war and if history has taught us anything it is that any leader who seeks to utilize the fears of his people in a time of war to his own ends is dangerously approaching the threshold of tyranny.
Fortunately for us, the framers of our constitution have made it difficult for tyranny to take root and remain in our government for any length of time. Their foresight and wisdom and the ideals they held dear have served us well for over 2 and a quarter centuries - but it requires the united will of the people to take action by demanding their voices be heard and their elected representatives be vigilant in their resistance to the gross and vulgar abuses of power by the executive branch. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the people to inform themselves and remain mindful of the activities of said representatives so that their authority, and the checks and balances they provide are not being abused or neglected in favor of special interests and to the detriment of the people of the United States of America.]***
Thank you for reading. I encourage each one of you to contact your congressmen and senators and let your voices be heard. A country doesn't just look after itself and the head cannot be allowed to do as it pleases when it is at the expense of the body.
Contact your Congressmen: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Contact your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
User Reviews
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-12 22:58:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, ETS.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-01-26 13:53:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS?
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2006-01-26 09:42:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-01-26 04:57:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, Bush only has two more years. By the time they go through all the legal bullshit to get him out, his term will be up anyway so it's not worth it.
-------------------------
AMEN to that, Julie. BTW, are you related to mofo?
As for the post, anything that's anti chimp-faced-retard is fine by me. Bravo.
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2006-01-26 08:19:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Not a bad piece of writing... for a 12 year old.
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-01-26 04:57:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Grammar_Nazi (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:42:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, the CIA, NSA, NRO, and SPECTRE could be collecting information on all of us right now, but guess what? It's too much information to be processed. THAT'S why there are filters for words like MAIL BOMB, MATYRDOM, ASSASSINATE, JIHADJIHADJIHAD, and HOMOSEXUAL. And even with those filters and rooms filled with thousands of monkeys analyzing (heh, ANAL-yzing) said data, it's statistically unlikely that any actual human will know ANYTHING about you. As far as I'm concerned, every nation in the world can spy on me, because chances are, they're all spying on LOTS of other people, and it's FAR more likely that one of them will arouse a greater iota of suspicion than I would.
-------------------------------------------------
This is a really good point that I didn't think of. You figure by the time the government actually comes accross the information on your plans to bomb something, assassinate someone, or kill everyone in the country with bird flu germs, you have already gotten away with it, changed your name to Pedro, and fled the country.
Also, Bush only has two more years. By the time they go through all the legal bullshit to get him out, his term will be up anyway so it's not worth it.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 23:45:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Somehow it was strangely satisfying to come back from a night of debauchery to find that I was, once again, proven right....
I wish you people would figure it out.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 23:43:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://newsbusters.org/node/3298#obvious
So if that is the heart of your argument and the thing that Bush should be impeached for, you are wrong.
------
AAAAND.....indoninja just pwned your shit. You no longer have a law broken. Buh-buye now. Go the fuck away. That's right....
Submitted by Dante_Alighieri (user info) at 2006-01-25 22:51:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Who cares? As long as there's food and water here, I'm fine.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 20:52:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't think you really responded to any of my questions except about Clinton. I realize you are saying it isn't a Democrat/republican thing but why do your secondary arguments condem Bush for things that were not even considered impeachable for Bush.
Why would you bring up more stuff about Bush, you don't Impeach someone for a list of things that bother you, you impeach them for one thing.
As for you saying it is illegal to listen to overseas phone calls,
Nevermind the fact that th eexecutive branch is given wider discretion in times of war. nevermind that CLinton would be for such actions (I know you are saying your complaints aren't partisan, but why no cry to overturn executive order 12949, which authorizes even more intrusive powers against US citizens).
And how about this tidbit, which makes wiretapping phone calls where one part is overseas LEGAL.
"A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling"
http://newsbusters.org/node/3298#obvious
So if that is the heart of your argument and the thing that Bush should be impeached for, you are wrong.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-25 20:37:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ets. still hate bush though so eh. just had to say again.
ets.
Submitted by Nockane (user info) at 2006-01-25 20:11:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's anti Bush, It's a +2
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 20:03:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by User10030 (user info) at 2006-01-25 19:52:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
Do you know that you're name can be rearranged to spell "Oaf sees mess"?
Not that I think Bush shouldn't be impeached.
------------
Well, at least I see the mess...even if I am an oaf.
DJ: what the hell did Stabkill say that's worthy of veneration by anyone but a partisan-minded imbicile? I don't see it.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2006-01-25 19:55:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
My undying man-love for Stabkill continues!
Submitted by User10030 (user info) at 2006-01-25 19:52:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Do you know that you're name can be rearranged to spell "Oaf sees mess"?
Not that I think Bush shouldn't be impeached.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 19:08:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Next...
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 19:07:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:52:38 (#)
Ranking: -1
"has ignored and attempted to cover up repeated warnings about the dangers of fossil fuels and their effect on our fragile environment"
First off, fossil fuels aren't the biggest producer of methane gases. Cow farts and pine tress create bigger holes in the ozone, thus creating "global warming" (even though the heating is just a trend- c'mon guys, the ice ages had to melt somehow).
Secondly, while your enthusiasm is applauded, your solutions are somewhat misguided. overthrow the government? and replace it with what? Impeaching george bush would just put him on trial, not remove him from office.
Thirdly, expect a major political revolution involving a third party in the near future.
---------------------------
A legitimate contending third party in American politics would be a fucking welcome change.
I didn't say 'overthrow the government'. You're taking a few things I said out of context without applying other things I said for clarification. I said because Bush is our president (who swore when he took office to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States) has failed in that task, committing felony offenses in the process, he should be impeached according to the provisions of the Constitution. THEN I went on to say that IF Congress wouldn't carry out a proper impeachment hearing, then by the wording of our Declaration of Independence, we have a duty to overthrow that government.
Get that straight: first...impeachment.
Barring that...revolution.
You ask what we should replace it with... How about the same form of government, but one that will actually LISTEN to the will of its people. That's all I'm saying. I'm not talking about throwing away the Constitution. It's a great basis for a government - perhaps the most elegant ever devised by mankind - but if our representatives can't perform their duties according to the will of their constituencies because they're too fucking busy taking kickbacks from big business and miring themselves in this party-line bullshit, then WE THE PEOPLE need to take action and enact some major fucking reforms.
Lastly, you are confusing your science. The hole in the ozone is not what causes the greenhouse effect. The buildup of greenhouse gasses is, and no, cattle are not the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses - fossil fuels are.
Don't believe me? Google it.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:52:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"has ignored and attempted to cover up repeated warnings about the dangers of fossil fuels and their effect on our fragile environment"
First off, fossil fuels aren't the biggest producer of methane gases. Cow farts and pine tress create bigger holes in the ozone, thus creating "global warming" (even though the heating is just a trend- c'mon guys, the ice ages had to melt somehow).
Secondly, while your enthusiasm is applauded, your solutions are somewhat misguided. overthrow the government? and replace it with what? Impeaching george bush would just put him on trial, not remove him from office.
Thirdly, expect a major political revolution involving a third party in the near future.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:49:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:58:28 (#)
Ranking: -1
So if Democrats get elected in 2008, all of a sudden...just overnight...everything is all better? What a joke U.S. politics have become with people spewing this stuff...
You do know yelling "impeach Bush" appeals to, right? A very small minority that is already convinced to vote democrat so you are influencing nobody.
There are going to be more puzzled faces in 2008 when after all the wrong the republicans have done... they still get elected. The world doesn't understand either... and they are too stupid to, I guess. These kind of tactics fail time and time again.
Alot of democrats seem to be doomsayers and who really wants to hear that?
----------------------
You probably have a bit of a point there, but as long as people like you stand around doing nothing but laughing at the situation instead of trying to solve it, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. That doesn't make you right.
I'm not SCREAMING "IMPEACH BUSH" either... I gave a reasoned and thought-out discourse on the subject, one that I feel personally good about, because I feel it is what needs to be said. YOU, on the other hand, would rather fall back into the safety of public opinion and do nothing.
What's popular is not always right. Neither is what's easy.
I could do the easy thing and say nothing. I could point at people trying to make a difference in their world for the greater good and ridicule their plight as 'meaningless' and 'futile', but I'd rather stand up for what I feel is right than lay down and shut up while the forces that would erode the very foundation of our way of life run amok.
Bottom line - I don't give a shit what you think about me. I'll do what I think is right whether people listen or not, because at least that way, I can live with myself, which, in the end, is all that really matters.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:43:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by The_Grammar_Nazi (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:42:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So... You're saying we should tell Dubya he did a no-no? I mean, that's what impeachment is: Congress scolding the President and rubbing his nose in the puddle he left.
If you're really THAT scared of spying, then read "Trouble on Triton", specifically the parts about "Ego Booths." You see, the problem with a government "spying" on its people (I use quotes because spying denotes something covert, while if you have even the sketchiest knowledge of it, a better verb is 'surveil') is not any rights violation but the sheer logistics of it. Yes, the CIA, NSA, NRO, and SPECTRE could be collecting information on all of us right now, but guess what? It's too much information to be processed. THAT'S why there are filters for words like MAIL BOMB, MATYRDOM, ASSASSINATE, JIHADJIHADJIHAD, and HOMOSEXUAL. And even with those filters and rooms filled with thousands of monkeys analyzing (heh, ANAL-yzing) said data, it's statistically unlikely that any actual human will know ANYTHING about you. As far as I'm concerned, every nation in the world can spy on me, because chances are, they're all spying on LOTS of other people, and it's FAR more likely that one of them will arouse a greater iota of suspicion than I would.
And if all else fails, I have my poster of Amanda Tapping clad in nought but The Stars and Stripes.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:36:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Stop feeding the alter. He just wants to go to most heated. Just leave it alone.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:34:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:30:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:58:28 (#)
Ranking: -1
So if Democrats get elected in 2008, all of a sudden...just overnight...everything is all better?
-----------------------
Did I say a fucking thing about electing Democrats? No, I didn't.
AGAIN...this is NOT a partisan issue. It is YOU, who are muddling the situation by making it into one.
=====================================================
Exactly.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:33:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:23:29 (#)
Ranking: -1
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/01/25/PH2006012500500.jpg
HAHAH. Losers.
----------------------
You see losers. I see true fucking patriots willing to stand up for what they believe in the face of people like you who would simply laugh at them and ridicule them. Yet you won't say anything about the asshole up behind that podium who's sent there as damage control for the Bush administration to twist public opinion for an upcoming hearing into the NSA scandal.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:30:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:58:28 (#)
Ranking: -1
So if Democrats get elected in 2008, all of a sudden...just overnight...everything is all better?
-----------------------
Did I say a fucking thing about electing Democrats? No, I didn't.
AGAIN...this is NOT a partisan issue. It is YOU, who are muddling the situation by making it into one.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:28:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:16:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why are you such a condescending fuck?
----------------------
Look back over the reviews of this post. I didn't start out being condescending in any way, but I was forced into it because of the instistent stupidity of others.
If people want to play rough, so can I.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:23:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/01/25/PH2006012500500.jpg
HAHAH. Losers.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-01-25 18:16:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why are you such a condescending fuck?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:58:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
So if Democrats get elected in 2008, all of a sudden...just overnight...everything is all better? What a joke U.S. politics have become with people spewing this stuff...
You do know yelling "impeach Bush" appeals to, right? A very small minority that is already convinced to vote democrat so you are influencing nobody.
There are going to be more puzzled faces in 2008 when after all the wrong the republicans have done... they still get elected. The world doesn't understand either... and they are too stupid to, I guess. These kind of tactics fail time and time again.
Alot of democrats seem to be doomsayers and who really wants to hear that?
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:53:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hadley seems to think that both sides of the conversation have to be inside the United States for it to be illegal.
Why don't you enlighten us all, Hadley, where THAT is in the law?
I think there are some of us who'd like to know.
The fact of the matter is, most of you didn't read this post, yet you want to fucking argue. Most of you have taken what some pundits on Fox News have told you, but you are too fucking lazy to go read the law for yourselves, not to mention contact your congressmen and DEMAND justice be done in your country.
This isn't about some fucking adolescent image or 'rebel without a cause' bullshit from a teenage emo dumbass. This is a thought out, reasoned argument that you're all either shying away from, ignoring altogether, or trying to convolute with tangents that are not applicable to the central point.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:43:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You were saying???????
Come on people. Bring it the fuck on!
Attack me!
PUSSIES, THE LOT OF YOU!
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:36:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:24:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
Please, address the issue of whether the law states that both parties must be outside the US or just one. If it doesn't explicitly say both, the intercepts are legal. Plain and simple.
Unless you have proof that both sides are in the US. PROOF. Not allegations by unnamed sources.
--------------------
Read below and find yourself enlightened. Better yet, see for yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:35:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's talk law. You guys wanna get specific? You want PROOF? YOU WANNA TALK LAW? Here we go. Pay close fucking attention, cause I'm only going to lead you through this once. (I have put in capitals the parts of the law Bush has clearly and by his own ADMISSION broken on the basis that somewhere in the Constitution, he is given the right to spy on American citizens in time of war (which we shall also see a bit later is NOT the case.) But first things first... Let's tackle FISA law.
Be sure to read the whole thing before you start you arguments.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reads:
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to ONE YEAR if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN OR AMONG FOREIGN POWERS, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKLIHOOD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WILL AQUIRE THE CONTENTS OF ANY COMMUNICATION TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Then there is this section:
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section UNLESS SUCH SURVEILLANCE MAY INVOLVE THE AQUISITION OF COMMUNICATIONS OF ANY UNITED STATES PERSON.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.
Here is the part about court orders and their requirements. Note the part in CAPS:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805
§ 1805. Issuance of order
(a) Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—
(1) the President has authorized the Attorney General to approve applications for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information;
(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, THAT NO UNITED STATES PERSON MAY BE CONSIDERED A FOREIGN POWER OR AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ACTIVITIES PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:33:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's talk law. You guys wanna get specific? You want PROOF? YOU WANNA TALK LAW? Here we go. Pay close fucking attention, cause I'm only going to lead you through this once. (I have put in capitals the parts of the law Bush has clearly and by his own ADMISSION broken on the basis that somewhere in the Constitution, he is given the right to spy on American citizens in time of war (which we shall also see a bit later is NOT the case.) But first things first... Let's tackle FISA law.
Be sure to read the whole thing before you start you arguments.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reads:
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to ONE YEAR if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN OR AMONG FOREIGN POWERS, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKLIHOOD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WILL AQUIRE THE CONTENTS OF ANY COMMUNICATION TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Then there is this section:
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section UNLESS SUCH SURVEILLANCE MAY INVOLVE THE AQUISITION OF COMMUNICATIONS OF ANY UNITED STATES PERSON.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.
Here is the part about court orders and their requirements. Note the part in CAPS:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805
§ 1805. Issuance of order
(a) Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—
(1) the President has authorized the Attorney General to approve applications for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information;
(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, THATThat no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:32:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I've never done this before - but this is definitely deserving of back-to-back +2's
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:32:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Excellent
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:25:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:17:38 (#)
Ranking: 2
In all honesty, I think that W represents the beginning of the end of what was once a magnificent social experiment.
Look at it this way, what is the one thing that you simply must have in order for a democracy (or in this case a republic) to succeed?
a well informed populace
Without an informed populace you do not have "we the people". That is why freedom of the press is so vital.
and yet where is this free press?
Where was the press when Dick was talking about mushroom clouds over Washington and all the other bullshit that lead us into this war?
Not to lie this entirely at the feet of the media, they are only pandering to what will sell papers. I really blame the US public who would rather watch half naked people stab each other in the back on some fucking island for the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS than learn for themselves what is really going on in the world around them.
I would be shocked if half the people on here have even heard the allegations of the W administration planting news stories both here and in Iraq and yet oh everyone knows the latest antics of that slore Paris Hilton.
If you think about it, 224 years isn't a bad run really.
----
loki, the path of mankind is going to repeat itself.
I foresee a dark age coming. An age of ignorance and decadence. But W is not the one to lay the blame with. Nor the media. Nothing happens without a majority of society being at fault. I never listened to a single thing about DC (where I live and therefore would die if a nuke hit) being destroyed, I supported the war for other reasons. Liberals and Conservatives use the SAME tactics against one another. The recent one is scare tactics. Where conservatives are saying "If you don't keep us in power, you will all die." Liberals are retorting with "If you don't put us into power, you will become slaves in your own country."
Do you see how things are going to hell, not because of one person or one small group of people, but because of a failure to recognize how absurd we have become.
I knew it would happen. I always knew America would fall. And I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but if in 50 years things were radically different, it wouldn't surprise me.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:24:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Please, address the issue of whether the law states that both parties must be outside the US or just one. If it doesn't explicitly say both, the intercepts are legal. Plain and simple.
Unless you have proof that both sides are in the US. PROOF. Not allegations by unnamed sources.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:18:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There are a million miles between "freedom fries" and revolution old boy.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:17:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
SOS.
You are complaining that we are not hitting your primary points. We are using secondary points to show the absurdity of the primary ones. YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER ANY OF OUR QUESTIONS! You are pulling the same bullshit the Republicans do by saying "Well you would say that. Because your against me."
We are putting forth well thought arguements. Give us a well thought rebuttal. Don't just respond with "LOOK! SCARE TACTICS!!! THEY ARE GONNA SPY ON YOU! LOOK OUT FOR THE DARK INEVITABLE FUTURE WHERE ONLY I AM A FREEDOM FIGHTER!"
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:17:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In all honesty, I think that W represents the beginning of the end of what was once a magnificent social experiment.
Look at it this way, what is the one thing that you simply must have in order for a democracy (or in this case a republic) to succeed?
a well informed populace
Without an informed populace you do not have "we the people". That is why freedom of the press is so vital.
and yet where is this free press?
Where was the press when Dick was talking about mushroom clouds over Washington and all the other bullshit that lead us into this war?
Not to lie this entirely at the feet of the media, they are only pandering to what will sell papers. I really blame the US public who would rather watch half naked people stab each other in the back on some fucking island for the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS than learn for themselves what is really going on in the world around them.
I would be shocked if half the people on here have even heard the allegations of the W administration planting news stories both here and in Iraq and yet oh everyone knows the latest antics of that slore Paris Hilton.
If you think about it, 224 years isn't a bad run really.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:09:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:58:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
i swear you're ets.
__________________________________________________________________
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:01:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:46:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
you seem to have set off quite a shit storm
good times
--------------------
I think it's impressive how far people will go to try to circumvent the facts and distort the situation by choosing to focus on the secondary arguments instead of the primary ones.
They fail to see that all I've done here is used the Declaration of Independance and the ideals contained therein to make a case for the impeachment of our president. I have laid out in no uncertain terms the reasons this impeachment is warranted and why it is the duty of the American people to see justice done according to said document.
These are the kinds of people who either don't give a shit about REAL freedom (not the buzzword they try to sell you when they want to go to war, but the real thing our country was supposedly founded on) or have been, through the overwhelming bombardment of media numbed to the truth by the constant misleadings of an administration on the political ropes.
In short, these people don't have the slightest idea how close we are to a total meltdown of personal liberty.
I guess it's easy for people to say to themselves "none of this concerns ME! This isn't MY problem! They haven't arrested and detained ME! They haven't spied on ME yet!"
YET.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:58:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i swear you're ets.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:54:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:52:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
The man broke the law by spying on his own people WITHOUT A WARRANT.
It could also be said that he spied on the foreigners his own citizens were calling, thus complying with the law. Can you prove that both ends of the calls were within this country? If not, you have no evidence of laws being broken. And if you can....well, I predict an arrest for possessing classified material in your future.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:51:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"And we should have impeached Clinton for allowing the bombing on the WTC, and for failing to take action against Osama when his location was known."
-----------------------
Again with this childish tendency to point a finger at the other side and say "well, he fucked up too!"
This is not about political parties. This is not about the left side or the right side. This is not about conservative vs. liberal. The effort to reduce this argument to that is nothing more than a perpetuation of the limited way you've been reared to think.
This is about the fact that the Constitution of our country is being compromised because our president is spying on his own citizens without warrants as required under the FISA act of 1978 and detaining US citizens without charging them for a crime and without giving them their constitutional right to legal council or a speedy trial, plain and simple. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTISANSHIP YOU FUCKING TWIT.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:46:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you seem to have set off quite a shit storm
good times
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:39:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You need to go watch a movie instead of failing at political discussions.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319219/
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:32:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You have so far FAILED to make me impressed.
I believe you fit into the "I'm anti-establishment" crowd more than the "self-righteous crowd"
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:24:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
5: The Bush administration, for reasons one could only classify as self-serving due to its close ties with big oil, has ignored and attempted to cover up repeated warnings about the dangers of fossil fuels and their effect on our fragile environment and the immediate need to persue and subsidize alternate energy technologies. As further evidence, the administration has refused to seek an international solution to the scientific problems surrounding global warming and has neglected his duty as a world leader to, if not sign the Kyoto accord, to engage in open talks about the subject with scientists and foreign leaders.
------------------------------------------------
http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=17497
Conflict will center on Clinton/Gore efforts to weaken the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change negotiated only last December, and the administration's failure to propose even one significant domestic measure that would lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Yep Clinton should have been impeached too.
But wait!
"Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials announced the administration's opposition to Kyoto in March 2001, six months before 9/11, arguing that Kyoto would seriously harm the American economy and that the treaty was unfair in that it did not require developing nations to cut their energy use. They echoed the U.S. Senate's 95-0 Sense of the Senate vote against ratifying any such treaty—a stunning display of bipartisan unity and a reason Clinton never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. However, while Cheney blasted Kyoto, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters that, since Kyoto had not been ratified, there was nothing to withdraw from."
Maybe someone doesn't understand how treaties are ratified. Doesn't matter what Bush does. The senate is against it unless other countries have to curb emmissions as well. Kerry wasn't even for it.
So apparently Clinton and kerry were against Kyoto. They both disagreed with you on how dangerous fossil fuels, and greenhouse emmissions are, why are they not criminals? Oh because this has nothing to do with being illegal, you just hate Bush.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:16:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
tengo que tomar agua.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:11:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
THEIR DUTY...to throw off such governments.
----------------------
Wait you want us to throw off the Govt, or impeach him, make up your mind.
Impeaching W and throwing off a govt are two completely different things.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:10:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Someone needs to point Stabkill over here so he can see that I'm actually NOT the "worst of the worst" as he calls it when it comes to mindless liberals.
Really, I think I should be in the middle....
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:08:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
7: Evidence suggests the Bush administration knew about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and either failed or maliciously neglected to act to prevent them. Furthermore, the Bush administration failed to demand a full investigation into the allegations of a government coverup by allowing New York mayor Rudy Gulianni to discard the forensic evidence of the World Trade Center crime scene.
-----------------
And we should have impeached Clinton for allowing the bombing on the WTC, and for failing to take action against Osama when his location was known.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:07:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ask your questions and I'll answer every fucking one of 'em. For now, I'm at work and have a job to do as well. be patient.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:06:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Your thong idea got the ball rolling for that one Wook.
I expect that to be a pretty good seller.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:04:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:39:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Go Go Gadget Capitalism-whore!!
https://www.cafepress.com/Teephphah
----------------------------------------------------
AhHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! https://www.cafepress.com/teephphah.45605001
"Put a smile on someone's face. Just grin and bear it."
Perfect.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:03:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
5 minutes to answer the impeachment question. Which search engine would be that slow?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:02:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Can you tell I love playing Devil's Advocate?
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:52:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
The man broke the law by spying on his own people WITHOUT A WARRANT.
It could also be said that he spied on the foreigners his own citizens were calling, thus complying with the law. Can you prove that both ends of the calls were within this country? If not, you have no evidence of laws being broken. And if you can....well, I predict an arrest for possessing classified material in your future.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:02:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:58:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
Then let me add this to the fire, you incompetent jackass. Impeachment means nothing. NOTHING. So answer this WITHOUT SEARCHING: How many presidents have been impeached and who was the last one? And for your final test, who was the last President REMOVED?
Of course, you don't make any mention of the difference between IMPEACHMENT and REMOVAL, so you're not worthy of being in this conversation. Go back to playing with gravy at the kiddie table and leave grown-up talk to the big people.
-----
I know Hadly.....
But I'm staying quiet......
*RAISES HAND!!!* PICK ME TEACHER!!!
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:59:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And don't forget to answer this question: So, with comflicting laws, logic would dictate that one or both of the laws is invalid. Who decides which one?
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:59:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:48:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:40:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is funny, you're most likely on some kind of watch list now you know.
----------------------
I'm counting on it.
I'm going to google "Assassinate Bush" and "Impeach Bush" 3000 times...
Fuck them.
The rest of you may not give a fuck about your rights, but I do. And as long as there is a breath left in this body, I will not just lay down on this.
-----
Really? So by not going out and protesting, by just sitting here like a (Caul I'm stealing your line cause I like it) keyboard Rambo you are making all these bold statements, do something about it. I bet I have been to more protests than you have. Don't just sit there fucking around on google, DO SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:59:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
6: The Bush administration has failed in its duty to provide timely disaster relief to hurricane-stricken areas, or to appoint personnel capable of performing such duties in a competent manner.
---------------------
What about Nagin not following the plan he signed months before hand that stipulated they would use city busses to get poor people out of the city.
Why not blame the mayor or the Governor for not asking the Pres to declare martial law? Every one of you conspiracy nuts would have gone apeshit if a republican president took over a democratic state, especially if it was Bush.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:58:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Then let me add this to the fire, you incompetent jackass. Impeachment means nothing. NOTHING. So answer this WITHOUT SEARCHING: How many presidents have been impeached and who was the last one? And for your final test, who was the last President REMOVED?
Of course, you don't make any mention of the difference between IMPEACHMENT and REMOVAL, so you're not worthy of being in this conversation. Go back to playing with gravy at the kiddie table and leave grown-up talk to the big people.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:56:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
3: The Bush administration has detained US citizens in at least two KNOWN occasions (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/true-tyranny-defined-bush-admin-v-jose.html) indefinitely, and in solitary confinelment, without charging them with a crime, while at the same time refusing them the right to legal council. By defining them as enemy combatants in the ever-widening "War on Terror", the president tries to justify such actions against citizens of his own country.
----------------------------
Two? I only see Padilla. And there is a strong legal argument to no longer consider him a US citizen. You automatically renounce your citizenship if you take up arms against the US. Training in an ALQueda camp would constitute that.
In any case Padilla is no longer in isolation, he is going to court which would show that the system is working, albeit slowly. I am more inclined to believe that Bush didn't want a showdown withthe Supreme court about the "unlawful combatant" catagory.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:52:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:43:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
Really? Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
---------------------
Again, read the fucking post you illiterate dipshit. Better yet, turn on your fucking television!
The man broke the law by spying on his own people WITHOUT A WARRANT.
That is not a misdemeanor. That is a FELONY.
Submitted by Foonbo (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:50:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Give me a good post, or give me death!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:49:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
***[Here we see Jefferson, in his wisdom, urging prudence in change. He asserts that governments should not, and will not, by the nature of the human condition, be changed becuse of fly-by-night causes - for people are not apt to change their station or take to risk while their current conditions are sufferable or tolerable. But he also makes clear that when the people are subject to long STRINGS OF ABUSES at the hands of their current government, and when the people lose their tolerance for such injustice, it is not only their right, but their DUTY....THEIR DUTY...to throw off such governments. Note that the word 'security' is used here, but it is not used only in terms of their physical security, but also in terms of their above mentioned unalienable rights. This includes those later included in our nation's Bill of Rights, which are treated by our founding fathers as even more important and more fundamental to civilised society than mere physical security, which naturally follows from the aforementioned unalienable rights.]***
--------------------
So in this case you are saying that Bush and the patriot act, and expanding the power of the executive in war time (I use expanding loosely, I am sure this has been done anmytime the US was at war, probably anytime in Us history) is a fly by night change, but a revolution lead by you wouldn't be?
Where is the long string of abuses? Where has your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness been hurt? When has anyone you know lost those?
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:49:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
www.billoreilly.com
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:48:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:40:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is funny, you're most likely on some kind of watch list now you know.
----------------------
I'm counting on it.
I'm going to google "Assassinate Bush" and "Impeach Bush" 3000 times...
Fuck them.
The rest of you may not give a fuck about your rights, but I do. And as long as there is a breath left in this body, I will not just lay down on this.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:46:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
***[This part is especially important. This is the part of the Declaration that US governments since WWII seem to have conveniently forgotten. Some would say that what's good for the gander is good for the goose, but our government in its foreign policy in the age of its superpower status among the world has done nothing but meddle in the affairs and unalienable rights of sovereign states around the globe to suit its own ends, such as to prevent the form of government known as 'Communism' from spreading, even where its been the overwhelming will of the people of that sovereign nation.
We also see here that Jefferson is clearly saying that governments are instituted among men, and their powers are derived from the consent of the governed. Some would argue that this cannot include a system of communism, as communism bypasses the electoral and representative process, thus denying the people their just say in how they are represented. But I say that the communist subject's silence and unwillingness to rise up and challenge such forms of government constitutes consent, for again, it is their human right to abolish such governments as they see fit and to be free from foreign intervention where it is not wanted. For, that foreign power that claims to know whats most likely to "effect the Safety and Happiness" of a soveriegn nation has surely overstepped its bounds.
-------------------------
Who says nations have unalienable rights? The US wasn't alone in fighting communism.
Then you go on to say that unless countries stand up to communism they deserve it so we shouldn't interfere in any countries business? What if France had thought that way about the colonies? How do you decide if it was wanted? Every country the US has been involved with has had some portion that wanted said involvment.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:43:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Really? Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Now, decide what constitutes a high crime. Even better, get a concensus. Seriously. It isn't defined. And it sure as FUCK isn't mentioned in your cited document. So who didn't read now?
Furthermore, prove that the law was broken. Yeah, I think the domestic spying is WRONG but that doesn't make it ILLEGAL. See, for every action (short of blatant murder) that Bush has committed and is outlawed by one law, I'm betting there's a way to make it legal under another (correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Lawyer Teeph).
So, with comflicting laws, logic would dictate that one or both of the laws is invalid. Who decides which one? The pseudo-intellectual who would rather excise his own testicles than vote for the man who happens to be President? Fuck off. There is NO legal grounds for impeaching him. And I would love to find some.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:43:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:39:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Go Go Gadget Capitalism-whore!!
https://www.cafepress.com/Teephphah
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know man. Slap that phrase on a couple of thongs, and you might be on to something. CafePress still has thongs don't they? Something about peeling off a woman's pants and finding "STOP TELLING ME TO BE OUTRAGED" emblazoned across her underwear appeals to me.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:42:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To those of you who think this is "leftist whining" don't even know what being a true patriot is.
I'm sitting here defending the Constitution of the United States. I am standing up for the very beliefs that form the core of our country, and you fucking morons call it "leftist".
I don't get it. Explain yourselves. Or are you too chicken shit to argue?
Bring it on. I'll shoot every one of you dumb motherfuckers down and ask for seconds.
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:42:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
All I saw was "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"
are you campaigning or something?
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:42:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Let me state why I dislike this post.
Many people cite Julius Caesar as the end of the Roman Republic. But nothing happens suddenly. What most people don't know is that he was just the climax of decades of Senate appointed Dictators that would seize control (oh yeah. Most people don't realize Caesar was not the first Dictator of Rome. He was the first Dictator FOR LIFE.) thereby slowly dismantling the system of checks and balances.
I'm not gonna say Bush isn't a thorn in the side of America. Because on some levels he is. On some levels he isn't but truely on some levels he is. But it takes a lot more than a little thorn to make me worry. You don't think Hitler wasn't a knife in our side? But we healed from that. We can heal from this too as long as people stay diligent.
And I do recognize you wrote a lot. I respect that.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:40:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is funny, you're most likely on some kind of watch list now you know.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:39:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Go Go Gadget Capitalism-whore!!
https://www.cafepress.com/Teephphah
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:39:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:35:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm a liberal and I think this is stupid. Actually, based on the document you cite, it is illegal.
"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."
This is a "fly-by-night" cause you are pursuing. Fuck off and stop feeding Stabkill and Jack more "liberals are commie pinko asshole faggots" material.
----------------------------
This is not a fly-by-night cause to follow the ruled of impeachment against a president who has broken the fucking law.
Not one of you even read this.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:36:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:30:48 (#)
Ranking: -2
7: Evidence suggests the Bush administration knew about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and either failed or maliciously neglected to act to prevent them.
-----
President Cheney - that's a GREAT idea, dipshit.
-----------------------
The vice president can be impeached as well.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:35:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm a liberal and I think this is stupid. Actually, based on the document you cite, it is illegal.
"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."
This is a "fly-by-night" cause you are pursuing. Fuck off and stop feeding Stabkill and Jack more "liberals are commie pinko asshole faggots" material.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:31:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck off.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:31:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
*YAWN*
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:31:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thems is alot of words.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:30:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
7: Evidence suggests the Bush administration knew about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and either failed or maliciously neglected to act to prevent them.
-----
President Cheney - that's a GREAT idea, dipshit.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:27:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Would U like sum toe jam wit dose pancakes?
Submitted by EchoBoxing (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:27:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i've seen national treasure too.
pancakes you say?
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:27:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
A lot of this was whiny bullshit.
Then you topped it with some crap.
Followed by the contents of a colonoscopy bag.
Great post!
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:27:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know this is a little bit long for an uber post, but please read it. I took the time to write all that shit, the least you could do is read it.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:25:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Uh pancakes?