Skip to main content

"Surge" Without Congressional Approval Is Impeachable Offense

By Francis Boyle
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois

Failure to obtain additional authorization from Congress for this substantial enlargement of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq would constitute an impeachable offense under the terms of the United States Constitution for violating the Constitution's War Powers Clause and Congress's own War Powers Resolution."
http://tinyurl.com/yk49tl
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

PB, good posts, good points, but you aren't gonna get some people's head out of the sand long enough to even open their eyes, much less their ears.

It is reported now that Bush is going to have to answer to people now, instead of sitting there in his glory with a "blank check"... now who can argue with that? ONLY those who won't listen to the truth, that's who.
Tom Matzzie caused this to come into my inbox. I decided to pass it on for anyone who wants to take action It's outrageous: after the voters, the generals, and the Iraq Study Group all told the President to lead us out of Iraq, he is planning an escalation and will send more troops as soon as this month.

Congress can block an escalation but it is uncertain if they will. They need to hear from us immediately and loudly. We owe it to our troops—and the Iraqis—whose lives are on the line.

Can you sign the petition opposing an escalation in Iraq? We'll deliver your comments to your representatives by the end of the day—there's no time to waste. Click below.
http://pol.moveon.org/noescalation/one_click_sign.pl?0=...50NZkTD7Ppojvlbg&t=1
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Congress already gave the President permission, for good or ill, to use forces in Iraq. FDR didn't get permission to land on Normandy.

Permission granted can be UNGRANTED.
By the way, FDR had the support of Congress, and a vast majority of the American People to DEFEAT THE AGGRESSOR, NAZI GERMANY.
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
Keep smoking whatever causes you to listen to a guy named Francis who use to be a legal advisor for the Palestinian Liberation Army.

Francis Boyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle


Hey, I don't smoke, but whats your beef with this Francis? I don't think I said I agree or disagree with Francis. I put the post herE for your info and debate,just because I post something does not mean I agree with it everytime!! It might mean, I wanted to share what they're saying. I always come back and will add my 2 cents.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Congress already gave the President permission, for good or ill, to use forces in Iraq. FDR didn't get permission to land on Normandy.

Permission granted can be UNGRANTED.
By the way, FDR had the support of Congress, and a vast majority of the American People to DEFEAT THE AGGRESSOR, NAZI GERMANY.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Congress already gave the President permission, for good or ill, to use forces in Iraq. FDR didn't get permission to land on Normandy.
Why is it the republicans always have to prove a point by using what FDR did or Clinton to pass a republican agenda? Anyway, the Nazi's were the agressors then. In the case of the Iraq war, we are the agressor. Oh, by the way, has anybody seen Bin Ladin? Seems like we forgot about the real terrorists!
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
Keep smoking whatever causes you to listen to a guy named Francis who use to be a legal advisor for the Palestinian Liberation Army.

Francis Boyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle


Hey, I don't smoke, but whats your beef with this Francis? I don't think I said I agree or disagree with Francis. I put the post herE for your info and debate,just because I post something does not mean I agree with it everytime!! It might mean, I wanted to share what they're saying. I always come back and will add my 2 cents.


I HATE CALLING PEOPLE NAMES LIKE FRANCIS...Would not name a son that, BUT YOU SHOULD RECALL THAT THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER WAS WRITTEN BY "FRANCIS" Scott Key.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
Keep smoking whatever causes you to listen to a guy named Francis who use to be a legal advisor for the Palestinian Liberation Army.

Francis Boyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle


Hey, I don't smoke, but whats your beef with this Francis? I don't think I said I agree or disagree with Francis. I put the post herE for your info and debate,just because I post something does not mean I agree with it everytime!! It might mean, I wanted to share what they're saying. I always come back and will add my 2 cents.


I HATE CALLING PEOPLE NAMES LIKE FRANCIS...Would not name a son that, BUT YOU SHOULD RECALL THAT THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER WAS WRITTEN BY "FRANCIS" Scott Key.


Well, I have say this time I agree With Francis on the Impeachment thing. but need to worry none,because our so called corporate democrats are for this war as well as our far right good old boys republicans!
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
Keep smoking whatever causes you to listen to a guy named Francis who use to be a legal advisor for the Palestinian Liberation Army.

Francis Boyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle


Hey, I don't smoke, but whats your beef with this Francis? I don't think I said I agree or disagree with Francis. I put the post herE for your info and debate,just because I post something does not mean I agree with it everytime!! It might mean, I wanted to share what they're saying. I always come back and will add my 2 cents.


I HATE CALLING PEOPLE NAMES LIKE FRANCIS...Would not name a son that, BUT YOU SHOULD RECALL THAT THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER WAS WRITTEN BY "FRANCIS" Scott Key.


Well, I have say this time I agree With Francis on the Impeachment thing. but need to worry none,because our so called corporate democrats are for this war as well as our far right good old boys republicans!


Impeachment, way to much of that going around anywaty. Personally I want Bush to finish his term, being repeatedly, embarassingly, soundly, and thouroughly whooped on by NANCY. (I've a couple of pals who would lynch me for saying that)
Seriously, what could be more fun than starting out with a RESOLUTION IN THE HOUSE forbidding Bush the RIGHT OR POWER TO INCREASE THE TROOP STRENGTH. A resolution like the one this petition asks for. http://pol.moveon.org/noescalation/
It has to be passed before noon Wednesday, so don't hesitate, SIGN NOW.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
PB, good posts, good points, but you aren't gonna get some people's head out of the sand long enough to even open their eyes, much less their ears.

It is reported now that Bush is going to have to answer to people now, instead of sitting there in his glory with a "blank check"... now who can argue with that? ONLY those who won't listen to the truth, that's who.

Kindred Spirit,
TUESDAY MORNING, WASHINGTON D.C. (BULLETIN) DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TED KENNEDY (DARLING OF THE RADICAL LEFT) INTRODUCED LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE TODAY WHICH, IF PASSED, WILL REQUIRE GEORGE W BUSH TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY VOTE IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS TO INCREASE TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ.

Chances of passage are considered excellent.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Congress already gave the President permission, for good or ill, to use forces in Iraq. FDR didn't get permission to land on Normandy.


They did NOT give him permission to ignore a Judge's ruling on ILLEGAL wiretapping IN the USA and that could happen to ANY of us... (one freedom gone)..

They did NOT stop him from signing into law about reading our FIRST CLASS MAIL... and that could happen to any one of us. (another freedom gone)

Most say they don't care, their mail is boring, so are their phone calls... but these are SUPPOSED to be our freedoms that dubbya has blatantly ignored.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
So what's the difference between a "surge of troops" and "reinforcements"?

Or, nashbama, what is the difference between surge and escalation. AND There is a difference between surge and reinforcements. Generally speaking reinforcements are reserve forces already in theatre, not reservists working at jobs in the USA.
Biggest STRATEGIC mistake was NOT SENDING RESERVE FORCES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
nashbama, I am beginning to feel guilty about pointing out your obvious ignorance so often, but allowing you to continue wandering in the darknes with that bag over your head would be a worse sin.
quote:
Or, nashbama, what is the difference between surge and escalation. AND There is a difference between surge and reinforcements. Generally speaking reinforcements are reserve forces already in theatre, not reservists working at jobs in the USA.
Biggest STRATEGIC mistake was NOT SENDING RESERVE FORCES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
nashbama, I am beginning to feel guilty about pointing out your obvious ignorance so often, but allowing you to continue wandering in the darknes with that bag over your head would be a worse sin.



From MSNBC:

"Most of the increase would be achieved by extending the deployments of those troops already in Iraq by 90 days and accelerating the deployments for troops scheduled to deploy by sending them into Iraq sooner."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/


So by your definition, the "surge" is actually reinforcements. No reference was made to taking reservists from their jobs. Besides, reservists know that they can be called up at a moment's notice. They voluntarily signed up for that duty. Calling up the reserves to reinforce the lines is called "reinforcements".

When you point out my "obvious ignorance" like I just did with you, I'll take the bag off your head and thank you for doing so. Until then, enjoy wandering in your darkness of misinformation.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
"Surge" Without Congressional Approval Is Impeachable Offense

By Francis Boyle
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois

Failure to obtain additional authorization from Congress for this substantial enlargement of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq would constitute an impeachable offense under the terms of the United States Constitution for violating the Constitution's War Powers Clause and Congress's own War Powers Resolution."
http://tinyurl.com/yk49tl

Arkansas Democrat Gazette publishes column opposing the Surge.
"Some conservatives argue desperately that a “surge” of 20, 000 troops will save the situation. Writing in The Washington Post, former NATO Supreme Commander (and Democratic presidential candidate ) Wesley Clark sets them straight: “We’ve never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40, 000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500, 000 troops in Iraq; adding 20, 000 now seems too little, too late. Further, U. S. troops so far have lacked the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas ‘cleared’ can be ‘held.’”
But, to put it mildly the "surge" is on, and there seems to be only one thing to do about it. Scream ineffectually into the wind.
The Polls say 3 of 10 Americans think the President should follow his own plans. The problem is they are not generals, and they would not be able to be generals if they wanted to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Congress already gave the President permission, for good or ill, to use forces in Iraq. FDR didn't get permission to land on Normandy.


They did NOT give him permission to ignore a Judge's ruling on ILLEGAL wiretapping IN the USA and that could happen to ANY of us... (one freedom gone)..

They did NOT stop him from signing into law about reading our FIRST CLASS MAIL... and that could happen to any one of us. (another freedom gone)

Most say they don't care, their mail is boring, so are their phone calls... but these are SUPPOSED to be our freedoms that dubbya has blatantly ignored.


I don't mind these "invasions" of so called "freedoms" for the security of my country. There is nothing gained by them listening in on your phone calls or mail unless you are a terrorist.
The wiretapping and all has targets and purpose and it is not to spy on normal people.
People are too paranoid of the government when it comes to national security.
quote:
Originally posted by imho:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Congress already gave the President permission, for good or ill, to use forces in Iraq. FDR didn't get permission to land on Normandy.


They did NOT give him permission to ignore a Judge's ruling on ILLEGAL wiretapping IN the USA and that could happen to ANY of us... (one freedom gone)..

They did NOT stop him from signing into law about reading our FIRST CLASS MAIL... and that could happen to any one of us. (another freedom gone)

Most say they don't care, their mail is boring, so are their phone calls... but these are SUPPOSED to be our freedoms that dubbya has blatantly ignored.


I don't mind these "invasions" of so called "freedoms" for the security of my country. There is nothing gained by them listening in on your phone calls or mail unless you are a terrorist.
The wiretapping and all has targets and purpose and it is not to spy on normal people.
People are too paranoid of the government when it comes to national security.



Speaking of paranoid, you have got to be paranoid. People like yourself are those type people that haven't read much about Germany where their freedom slowly slipped away from them, then you had Hitler to take over. Your government has you scared of terrorists to the point you don't mind anyone listening to your phone calls or opening your mail. And you think that it's Washington listening in. Could be. But your local police department, who is a part of US security can also invade your privacy with these new laws of the Patriot Act. With all due respect, you do need to get informed and ask questions as to how this affects you, your freedom. Your problem is you are only listening to one side, the neocons. I can't believe how naive and ignorant you are that you would be willing to trade any freedom for security. The last time I checked my history books, that's what America fought for, freedom. Bush and his neocons have convienced you that you must surrender your rights in order to have security. And most of you people are the very one's that say well, I have nothing to hide. Why should I be concerned about someone listening to my phone calls or reading my mail. And so I guess you wouldn't mind them invading your house just to make sure that you are not hiding anything. When's the last time you've done a freedom check? You're willing for everybody else to give up their rights but you are not willing to give up yours. Quit listening to the propaganda bull from the media and the right wing. Our government has been known to play the fear card to sell the war.
Last edited by Jan55
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
Speaking of paranoid, you have got to be paranoid. People like yourself are those type people that haven't read much about Germany where their freedom slowly slipped away from them, then you had Hitler to take over. Your government has you scared of terrorists to the point you don't mind anyone listening to your phone calls or opening your mail. And you think that it's Washington listening in. Could be. But your local police department, who is a part of US security can also invade your privacy with these new laws of the Patriot Act. With all due respect, you do need to get informed and ask questions as to how this affects you, your freedom. Your problem is you are only listening to one side, the neocons. I can't believe how naive and ignorant you are that you would be willing to trade any freedom for security. The last time I checked my history books, that's what America fought for, freedom. Bush and his neocons have convienced you that you must surrender your rights in order to have security. And most of you people are the very one's that say well, I have nothing to hide. Why should I be concerned about someone listening to my phone calls or reading my mail. And so I guess you wouldn't mind them invading your house just to make sure that you are not hiding anything. When's the last time you've done a freedom check? You're willing for everybody else to give up their rights but you are not willing to give up yours. Quit listening to the propaganda bull from the media and the right wing. Our government has been known to play the fear card to sell the war.


Pathetic, rambling post by a true liberal.
Are you that stupid to believe people are listening to your phone calls?
These things called computers that you are using right now are being used to sniff out calls to/from suspected terrorists. Our local police don't have the resources to listen to you or anyone else and try to fight real crime at the same time.

I have not surrendered a single right under the Patriot Act or any of Bush's policies. With all the lawyers in this country do you think a tapped phone call could put you in jail just because the local cops wanted to lock you up for no reason?

With all due respect, you are nuts.
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm
quote:
Originally posted by imho:
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
Speaking of paranoid, you have got to be paranoid. People like yourself are those type people that haven't read much about Germany where their freedom slowly slipped away from them, then you had Hitler to take over. Your government has you scared of terrorists to the point you don't mind anyone listening to your phone calls or opening your mail. And you think that it's Washington listening in. Could be. But your local police department, who is a part of US security can also invade your privacy with these new laws of the Patriot Act. With all due respect, you do need to get informed and ask questions as to how this affects you, your freedom. Your problem is you are only listening to one side, the neocons. I can't believe how naive and ignorant you are that you would be willing to trade any freedom for security. The last time I checked my history books, that's what America fought for, freedom. Bush and his neocons have convienced you that you must surrender your rights in order to have security. And most of you people are the very one's that say well, I have nothing to hide. Why should I be concerned about someone listening to my phone calls or reading my mail. And so I guess you wouldn't mind them invading your house just to make sure that you are not hiding anything. When's the last time you've done a freedom check? You're willing for everybody else to give up their rights but you are not willing to give up yours. Quit listening to the propaganda bull from the media and the right wing. Our government has been known to play the fear card to sell the war.


Pathetic, rambling post by a true liberal.
Are you that stupid to believe people are listening to your phone calls?
These things called computers that you are using right now are being used to sniff out calls to/from suspected terrorists. Our local police don't have the resources to listen to you or anyone else and try to fight real crime at the same time.

I have not surrendered a single right under the Patriot Act or any of Bush's policies. With all the lawyers in this country do you think a tapped phone call could put you in jail just because the local cops wanted to lock you up for no reason?

With all due respect, you are nuts.

Nuts? What happens to Jose Padilla can happen to you. And it backfires. Padilla was arrested for conspiring to construct a "dirty" bomb. He had no radiological material, he had no explosives, He had minimal contact with radicals. He did have some phone conversations with a Muslim Cleric who had some incidental contact with a Muslim Worshipper who was connected with a person who knew a possible terrorist. He also went to Pakistan to study Islam. The government can't try him for conspiring to create a "dirty" bomb. All the evidence that was available, weak as it was, had been obtained by ILLEGAL wiretaps. After four years in custody he has been charged with material support of a Terrorist organization on the word of another prisoner who implicated him during "stressful" interrogation.
SO, DON'T TELL ME I HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, AND DON'T TELL ME I HAVE LOST NO RIGHTS.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

PBA
Thanks again. (This is getting to be habit) Thom Hartman is a HERO. So is Keith Olberman. At least I am still getting to Olberman ahead of you.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
"Lighten up, Francis."


I am posting this in the hopes that NashBama will read it with care, the article is from a source I think NashBama does not find credible, but I really hope he will read it carefully, you see, it details the President's plan for the "Surge of Troops" and it gives details on what the Iraqi military is to do regarding security.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/12/condoleezza/index.html

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO LOOK AT AN ADVERTISEMENT, IF YOU DO, CLICK ON "ENTER SALON" AS SOON AS IT APPEARS.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Nuts? What happens to Jose Padilla can happen to you...
He had minimal contact with radicals. He did have some phone conversations with a Muslim Cleric who had some incidental contact with a Muslim Worshipper who was connected with a person who knew a possible terrorist. He also went to Pakistan to study Islam.
SO, DON'T TELL ME I HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, AND DON'T TELL ME I HAVE LOST NO RIGHTS.


1) I haven't had minimal contact with radicals. Have you?
2) I have no connections to terrorists. Do you?
3) I haven't been to Pakistan to study Islam. Have you? (they teach it in the US you know).

Unless you answered one of the above as YES - YOU DON'T have anything to worry about.
quote:
Originally posted by imho:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Nuts? What happens to Jose Padilla can happen to you...
He had minimal contact with radicals. He did have some phone conversations with a Muslim Cleric who had some incidental contact with a Muslim Worshipper who was connected with a person who knew a possible terrorist. He also went to Pakistan to study Islam.
SO, DON'T TELL ME I HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, AND DON'T TELL ME I HAVE LOST NO RIGHTS.


1) I haven't had minimal contact with radicals. Have you?
2) I have no connections to terrorists. Do you?
3) I haven't been to Pakistan to study Islam. Have you? (they teach it in the US you know).

Unless you answered one of the above as YES - YOU DON'T have anything to worry about.

1) I don't actually know, you could be a radical for all I know, and I have had contact with you. I could be a radical, and you have had contact with me.
2) Again, I don't know. I do contract work for a Jewish shop keeper, I talk to an immigrant from Mexico. I buy tobacco from an Arab shop keeper.
3) I have not been to Pakistan to study Islam, but I have studied the religion a little, through the internet, I have taken flying lessons, I was licensed to transport explosives and dangerous chemicals, and DID for a while.

Now, I have answered every one of the above with PERHAPS, I DON'T KNOW so do I have anything to worry about?
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
1) I don't actually know, you could be a radical for all I know, and I have had contact with you. I could be a radical, and you have had contact with me.
2) Again, I don't know. I do contract work for a Jewish shop keeper, I talk to an immigrant from Mexico. I buy tobacco from an Arab shop keeper.
3) I have not been to Pakistan to study Islam, but I have studied the religion a little, through the internet, I have taken flying lessons, I was licensed to transport explosives and dangerous chemicals, and DID for a while.

Now, I have answered every one of the above with PERHAPS, I DON'T KNOW so do I have anything to worry about?


#3 might deserve a look by some lower level CIA operatives, but I don't think you'll get the Padilla treatment.

I just think people get some wild ideas about these things without using common sense to understand that it isn't about you and me, it is about national security.

How many million people are in the US? And how many have been held under the Patriot Act wrongly? It is paranoia.
quote:
Originally posted by imho:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
1) I don't actually know, you could be a radical for all I know, and I have had contact with you. I could be a radical, and you have had contact with me.
2) Again, I don't know. I do contract work for a Jewish shop keeper, I talk to an immigrant from Mexico. I buy tobacco from an Arab shop keeper.
3) I have not been to Pakistan to study Islam, but I have studied the religion a little, through the internet, I have taken flying lessons, I was licensed to transport explosives and dangerous chemicals, and DID for a while.

Now, I have answered every one of the above with PERHAPS, I DON'T KNOW so do I have anything to worry about?


#3 might deserve a look by some lower level CIA operatives, but I don't think you'll get the Padilla treatment.

I just think people get some wild ideas about these things without using common sense to understand that it isn't about you and me, it is about national security.

How many million people are in the US? And how many have been held under the Patriot Act wrongly? It is paranoia.

First, when one American looses a right to the law, EVERY American looses that right.
We are like frogs in a pot of water on a fire. By the time we know we are being cooked it will be to late to stop the process.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
First, when one American looses a right to the law, EVERY American looses that right.
We are like frogs in a pot of water on a fire. By the time we know we are being cooked it will be to late to stop the process.


I disagree. Exactly what right have you lost lately? And to disqualify a response before you make it - to not be inconvenienced is not a right.

As to the frog thing - I'm afraid at the first sign of warm water you have jumped from the pan and into the fire.
quote:
Originally posted by imho:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
First, when one American looses a right to the law, EVERY American looses that right.
We are like frogs in a pot of water on a fire. By the time we know we are being cooked it will be to late to stop the process.


I disagree. Exactly what right have you lost lately? And to disqualify a response before you make it - to not be inconvenienced is not a right.

As to the frog thing - I'm afraid at the first sign of warm water you have jumped from the pan and into the fire.

I have lost the right to freely express my opinion in the public forum of my choice. FREE SPEECH ZONES.
I have lost the right to be secure in my person, papers and home. WIRETAPPING, OPENING MAIL, SEARCHES WITHOUT A WARRANT, EXAMINATION OF MY PHONE RECORDS WITHOUT A WARRANT.
I lost the right to travel to Cuba years ago.
I lost the right to representation by an attorney.
I lost the right to a speedy trial by a jury of my peers.
I lost the right attend public meetings with my elected representative. (this may be obscure) President Bush denied me personally admission to a speech on his Social Security plan specifically because I am a registered Democrat. Maybe it was not Bush Himself, but the person giving out the free tickets checked my name against the voter registration list, and refused me a ticket. The same thing happened to two newspaper reporters and a member of the city council in South Dakota.
I don't miss all of those rights at the moment, but I fear that I may in the future.
And, imho, YOU LOST THEM TOO.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
I have lost the right to freely express my opinion in the public forum of my choice. FREE SPEECH ZONES.
I have lost the right to be secure in my person, papers and home. WIRETAPPING, OPENING MAIL, SEARCHES WITHOUT A WARRANT, EXAMINATION OF MY PHONE RECORDS WITHOUT A WARRANT.
I lost the right to travel to Cuba years ago.
I lost the right to representation by an attorney.
I lost the right to a speedy trial by a jury of my peers.
I lost the right attend public meetings with my elected representative. (this may be obscure) President Bush denied me personally admission to a speech on his Social Security plan specifically because I am a registered Democrat. Maybe it was not Bush Himself, but the person giving out the free tickets checked my name against the voter registration list, and refused me a ticket. The same thing happened to two newspaper reporters and a member of the city council in South Dakota.
I don't miss all of those rights at the moment, but I fear that I may in the future.
And, imho, YOU LOST THEM TOO.


You are so wrong. It is hard to even respond to this ludicrous post. This is about as far in left field as you can get.

Has anyone else lost these rights or just this guy?

Last I checked I still had them (except maybe the travel to Cuba one.) Sorry they won't let you move there.
quote:
Originally posted by imho:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
1) I don't actually know, you could be a radical for all I know, and I have had contact with you. I could be a radical, and you have had contact with me.
2) Again, I don't know. I do contract work for a Jewish shop keeper, I talk to an immigrant from Mexico. I buy tobacco from an Arab shop keeper.
3) I have not been to Pakistan to study Islam, but I have studied the religion a little, through the internet, I have taken flying lessons, I was licensed to transport explosives and dangerous chemicals, and DID for a while.

Now, I have answered every one of the above with PERHAPS, I DON'T KNOW so do I have anything to worry about?


#3 might deserve a look by some lower level CIA operatives, but I don't think you'll get the Padilla treatment.

I just think people get some wild ideas about these things without using common sense to understand that it isn't about you and me, it is about national security.

How many million people are in the US? And how many have been held under the Patriot Act wrongly? It is paranoia.


IMHO, how many have been held under the Patriot Act wrongly? That we will NEVER know. Sadly, that is something that does NOT make it to the media.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×