Alex Jones on What We Can Do Now
It's kind of cool being in the New World Order. Besides the great employee discounts we get at the NWO store on sweatshirts and baseball caps, there's also the stuff Alex Jones knows about the secret passcodes (4:40) in order to authorize:
"HR 6166, that says, that overturns at least nine of the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights, it affects US citizens, where you can be grabbed off the street, have a hood put over your head, disappear into a van, and be taken away to be tortured to death, ladies and gentlemen!"
Well, all I can say is it's about time! I've been hearing about these supposed hoods and vans for many years and to be honest it seems like their time has arrived. Round up Killtown for me, and replace him with a complete idiot--what's that?--Oh, yeah, I guess you did that already. How about Dylan--you don't say! I did think that the September 2006 videos were exceptionally bad, but I'd never guessed. Um, Jim Fetzer? Hahah, just kidding even we noticed when you replaced him with the version 1.5 software program. Wow, the patches were worse than the original--who'd have guessed?
Seriously though, look at this video and realize it's Alex Jones in Austin and he can't fill an old-fashioned record store, although we give him credit for finding one. But it looks and sounds like he has a crowd of about 30 maximum as he gives his delivery.
posted by Pat @ 5:12 AM
27 comments
27 Comments:
Well, seeing as how they're not going after anyone, Killtowns or us, none of us are all that worried. You can be paranoid if you want to, but we don't believe this crap and hate looking like dipshits, something the CTists savor every mintue of.
If you are considered an enemy combatant, no more habeas corpus for you.
Yeah! What happened to the good old days when armed people in civilian outifts and no national army allegiance were just shot on sight?
This cabal has supposedly ruled since the dawn of time and yet only can directly affect the US?
The NWO sucks. The couldn't keep an upper middle class kid from Washington from becoming the richest man on earth and dominating the fastest-growing industry in history, they couldn't keep some yokel from Bentonville, AK from delivering low prices to poor people, they couldn't protect themselves from competition from foreign cars. Hell, they couldn't even prevent some liberal schmuck from Washington from charging five bucks for a cup of coffee and giving the clerks health care and stock options. And let's not even talk about keeping Ken Lay out of court! Is it the NWO or the Keystone Kops we're talking about here?
Well, seeing as how they're not going after anyone, Killtowns or us, none of us are all that worried.
Your right Bubbers, they are going after everyone!
Dog Town: Study current events bro...
Here is a start:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
George W. Bush has shown an outright hostility to freedom of speech. In the name of combating "indecency," the FCC under Bush has raised its punitive fines to outrageous new levels, wasted money on an "investigation" of Janet Jackson’s breast, and pressured Clear Channel to drop the Howard Stern Show. Bush has applied and maintained draconian restrictions on the press in Iraq, even forbidding the photography of flag-draped caskets returning home.
Attacking the fundamental right of free political speech, he signed the horrendous Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill, which severely restricts dissent. The law makes it a crime for non-profit advocacy groups simply to mutter the name of a national candidate within the last sixty days before a general election. There is no excuse for Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech when the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech." Some thought that the Supreme Court would gut the law’s worst provisions, which it did not. If Congress relied on another branch of the government to intervene and protect the public from its excesses, it is guilty of a major dereliction of duty.
As a result of Bush’s policies, the government has even attacked freedom of assembly, creating "free speech zones" and keeping war protesters away when Bush appears on camera. At the outset of the Iraq War, Oakland police injured several war protesters by assaulting them with wooden bullets and concussion grenades, even as they ran away. Some have argued that the protesters, interfering with war commerce, got what they deserved, but the "collateral damage" suffered by the dockworkers probably disrupted the flow of trade that day more than the protests.1
One could feasibly list examples of how Bush has compromised the right of Americans to "petition the government for a redress of grievances," but the single following statement from Bush to Bob Woodward captures the president’s feelings about his responsibility to answer to the people:
"I'm the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
It’s a wonder that Bush would want to deny others freedom in their speech when he so frequently demonstrates such inspiring eloquence in his own.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Many have long argued that Republicans value the Second Amendment more than Democrats. So far, Bush’s policy has fallen in line with the Republican and NRA doctrine on gun control: the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, and instead of passing unconstitutional gun laws, the government should enforce more strictly the 20,000 unconstitutional laws already on the books. In effect, Republicans oppose government undermining the choices of Americans, but so long as government is in the business of doing so, its programs should be fully funded and carried out by Republicans with strict adherence to the letter of the law, resulting in punishments as severe as possible.
Ashcroft’s Justice Department has indeed turned up the heat on enforcing unconstitutional gun laws, boasting: "Under the President’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program, federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 68 percent over the last three years. Last year, the Department set a new record of charging 23 percent more individuals for violating federal firearms laws." The Bush administration has asked for a $95 million increase in spending on gun control programs for 2005. He has also expressed willingness to renew the Assault Weapons Ban.
Moreover, although Bush signed the law passed by Congress that allowed airline pilots to carry guns on planes – one of the few security measures after 9/11 that might have actually prevented the terrorist attack – his administration initially refused to implement it. Bush acquiesced only after Congress and the Senate reconvened and voted, by a supermajority, to force Bush to put guns in the hands of pilots.
In spite of what Republicans in the NRA and Democrats in the Violence Policy Center might say, Bush has hassled gun owners more than any recent president, and has shown only contempt for any moderation in the War on the Second Amendment.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The Third Amendment is always the toughest to discuss in its relevance to today. Just as we must recognize that the "well regulated militia" line in the Second Amendment referred to a citizen’s militia when it was written in the late 18th century, we must consider the Third Amendment in proper historical context.
The American colonists had just fought a revolution against Britain, the world’s superpower that had imposed its will on much of the planet’s peoples. The Third Amendment was written in memory of the Quartering Act of 1765, which compelled American colonists not only to give up sovereignty within their own homes, but also to pay taxes to build housing for British soldiers. After winning the Revolution, the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the new American government from coercing its people into providing for its imperial and colonial ambitions the way Britain had done.
As the U.S. government levies taxes on Americans – and even on Iraqis – to pay its soldiers fighting for the global quasi-Trotskyite democratic revolution that the War on Terrorism has become, Americans should judge for themselves if the Bush administration has disgraced the spirit of the Third Amendment. The manner in which the U.S. military treats the houses of Iraqis has hardly been a manner "prescribed by law." We can only hope that the U.S. government does not take the final steps in defying the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Third Amendment, by giving new meaning to "bringing the soldiers home."
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This one is a no-brainer. The Patriot Act's "Sneak and Peak" provision allows the feds to come into your home, search your residence, and leave without telling you for up to six months. It has expanded the government’s powers under the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act to get warrants for wiretaps from special courts, not subject to the same oversight as typical courts. Another provision allowed the FBI to obtain library records from librarians, who had to keep their mouths shut about confrontations with officials. Within months of 9/11, law enforcers had visited nearly 10 percent of America’s libraries "seeking September 11-related information about patron reading habits."2 The Justice Department has resurrected COINTELPRO, a surveillance program that subverted groups and incited violence between political dissidents in the Vietnam era. The administration’s ultimate goal of "Total Information Awareness" flies in the face of any decent understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
Under Clinton, the Fourth Amendment was already in serious trouble due to the War on Drugs and other domestic surveillance programs. It has gotten indescribably worse since the 1990s, when Aschroft complained that Clinton wanted "to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications."3 If today’s Aschroft met his counterpart from the 1990s, he would probably say that his avatar’s warnings against Clinton’s policies were frightening "peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty" and that such anti-government paranoia only gives "ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends."
The Bush administration has no intention to allow the anachronistic Fourth Amendment to disrupt the War on Terrorism. This is a war for freedom, after all, and we cannot let trivial liberties get in the way.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Shortly after September 11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Justice Department detained more than a thousand individuals, whom Bush labeled as "terrorists" even after the Justice Department admitted the detainees had no connection to terrorism.4 In addition, at least dozens of Americans were detained without due process of law because of a phony "material witness" status.5
The Patriot Act has greatly expanded federal asset forfeiture powers, which allow the government to confiscate property without even accusing its owners of a crime. Those who "smuggle" their own money out of the country may now see it seized. The administration has worked to extend the despotic power of eminent domain, which allows the government to seize property for such unconstitutional purposes as federal production of interstate electrical lines.
When the founders discussed "due process of law" they meant more than the arbitrary power of executive edict. The Fifth Amendment has fallen victim to numerous beatings over the years, but Bush and company rank among its all time worst enemies.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Perhaps James Madison meant to write at the end of this sentence, "unless the president considers the accused an ‘enemy combatant.’"
Guantanamo Bay is the clearest and most troubling example of accused criminals detained without any of the benefits of an impartial trial with the due process spelled out in the Sixth Amendment. They do not receive the rights of war prisoners, nor of criminal defendants, because they fall under the makeshift category of "enemy combatant." Of course, Bush does not "accuse" these prisoners of being "enemy combatants" – because then they would have the rights of the "accused." He simply asserts they are "enemy combatants," and that settles that.
The assertion that Guantanamo is constitutional because it is located outside America is ludicrous and unsettling. It is ludicrous because the U.S. has jurisdiction there, and if the government can violate your liberties by moving you outside the country, the Bill of Rights is meaningless. It’s unsettling because it is an admission that the goings on in Guantanamo are even more oppressive than the run-of-the-mill Bill of Rights violations that Americans will tolerate at home.
Bush has violated the Sixth Amendment in other ways, but Guantanamo typifies his attitude toward its basic principles. The Founding Fathers would probably have an impossible time believing Bush’s flagrant disrespect for the rights of the accused. Of course, the Founding Fathers would have probably been considered terrorists, and would likely find themselves detained as "enemy combatants" for all their un-American beliefs and subversive political activism.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Seventh Amendment is often misunderstood. Written in the aftermath of the American Revolution, its purpose was not only to guarantee the rights of defendants in civil cases, but also the rights of plaintiffs – especially of plaintiffs suing government agents for violations of their rights. After seeing mock courts set up by King George III to protect his minions from any meaningful legal recourse, the colonists wanted to guarantee that Americans suing government officials would be guaranteed a trial by jury.
The Bush administration has been frightening in the way it has nullified lawsuits against its actions. The Justice Department simply laughed at attempts of the ACLU to get lists of detained suspects through lawsuits in early 2002.6 Ellen Mariani’s lawsuit against the Bush administration, accusing it of foreknowledge of, and failure to act on, September 11, may seem to many like the material of a conspiracy theory, but we can be fairly sure that the question will never go to a jury. Quite recently, an ACLU legal challenge against the Patriot Act became news after being silenced for three weeks by the Patriot Act.
Perhaps the reason for the inability of Americans to successfully sue administration officials in a trial by jury is that none of these transgressions of which the government is accused is a controversy in which the value at issue exceeds twenty dollars.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
We have seen Martha Stewart sentenced to prison for claiming innocence of a victimless crime. We have seen Tommy Chong sentenced to jail time for manufacturing glassware into the politically incorrect shape of marijuana paraphernalia. We have seen Clear Channel fined by the FCC for about half a million dollars, all over Howard Stern’s performing the same radio material he’s done for years.
These are only some high profile cases of Americans suffering excessive punishments for victimless activities. One low-profile example, which should be widely known, is Mohammed Hussein, the first "criminal" ever convicted under the Patriot Act. He was called a terrorist by the government and media, he lost his money transmitting business, and he received an eighteen-month prison sentence. What did he do to deserve this? What was his crime under the Patriot Act? He incorrectly filled out an application for a state business license.7 Of course, conservatives still argue that the Patriot Act has not been abused.
For decades Americans have endured punishments that had no semblance of proportionality to their "crimes." Under the Bush administration, the Eighth Amendment has been circumvented as increasingly cruel punishments have become decreasingly unusual.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being considered for ratification, some Americans pointed out possible loose ends. The "Antifederalists" – who often preferred the term "Federalists," and resented their opponents for stealing the label – wanted to ensure that the federal government only exercise those powers mentioned in the Constitution and that it did not violate certain fundamental rights. The Antifederalists tended to favor the Bill of Rights, but they feared that the listing of specific rights would be used to rationalize violations of unlisted ones. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to hammer home the notion that the federal government was subservient to the people.
George W. Bush has no conception of the inalienable, unenumerated rights of the American people. He has flouted the personal, intimate right to self-medication by closing down medical marijuana facilities. He has affronted the right to peaceful trade by establishing protectionist steel tariffs and imposing sanctions on other countries, most recently Syria. His administration has abrogated the right to travel with his no-fly list, which uses the pretext of fighting terrorism to prevent political dissidents and those with names similar to those of suspects from flying. On September 11, 2001, the federal government even impeded the right to emigrate by forbidding anyone from leaving the country. His Patriot Act made it a crime to carry significant amounts of cash on a plane. While the Bush administration assaults the liberties specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it also punishes those who wish to relieve their pain from cancer, improve their lives with commerce, or quietly leave the country with their savings – all unwritten, essential rights that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to see so routinely eviscerated in America.
As constitutional scholar Randy Barnett says, "The Ninth Amendment mandates that unenumerated rights be treated the same as those that are listed."8 Bush would probably agree wholeheartedly, as he trashes our enumerated and unenumerated rights equally.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment concludes the Bill of Rights with a demand that the federal government be restricted to activities authorized in the Constitution. The constitutional powers of the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court are highlighted in Articles I, II and III of the main body of the Constitution, and anything outside of this delegated authority is not the proper jurisdiction of the national government. For years conservatives rightly complained that Democrats advanced all sorts of federal programs that had no constitutional basis.
Almost every government abuse I mention in this essay qualifies as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. In addition to these violations, Bush has sharply increased farm subsidies, signing a record $190 billion dollar farm bill, and severely distorting domestic and international markets. He signed into law the largest expansion of Medicare since its inception, looting present and future taxpayers of hundreds of billions and maybe more than a trillion dollars in one of most shameless giveaways to preferred voters and business interests in decades. Aside from giving prescription drugs away free he has unleashed plans to build national surveillance systems to monitor "prescription drug abuse."
Bush has increased federal funding for education, welfare, foreign aid, local law enforcement, and "faith-based" initiatives, and he has developed programs to encourage marriages and to provide relationship counseling. Since Bush took office, the U.S. budget’s discretionary spending has increased about 28%. Through his "compassion conservatism," George W. Bush has perhaps done more to advance the American welfare state than any other president in American history.
There is not a single aspect of Americans’ economic and personal lives that the modern federal government considers off limits. When it comes to providing the federal government with new powers and duties for which there exists no constitutional authority, President Bush ranks among the very few most ambitious presidents in American history.
The Bill of Rights – RIP?
The Bush administration has been utterly hostile to the entire Bill of Rights. I did not focus on it, but one can quickly realize that Bush has violated all the principles of the Bill of Rights in regard to the Iraq War alone. Iraqis have been censored, disarmed, occupied, searched, hassled, regulated by curfew, severely and arbitrarily beaten and punished, tortured, humiliated, and generally abused by a foreign government that respects no limits on its power and regards Iraqis as if they have no impermeable rights at all. This is not to say that Saddam respected anyone’s rights, but it speaks to the lunacy of the U.S. government brutally instituting a constitution abroad when it has no regard for the constitutional safeguards against any of its own actions.
During wartime, the Bill of Rights and its corresponding liberties tend to suffer extraordinary abuse. Bush prides himself as a "war president," and so it should come as no surprise when he treats his foreign and domestic subjects accordingly.
Although, as I’ve said before, some previous presidents may have been as bad or even worse, we must still have a clear understanding and appreciation for how much George Bush and the present government are undermining the principles that made America so special. The first Ten Amendments of the Constitution provide a blueprint for an incredibly free society. Perhaps Bush, who has a phobia against reading anything aside from what his advisors give him, should break with personal custom for at least half an hour and read the Bill of Rights.
From:http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html
It always amazes me how little these morons know about our system of government.
Sure, a House Resolution can overturn the bill of rights. Yep, sure.
I mean seriously, these morons don't understand federalism, seperation of powers, checks and balances, or judicial review.
Then they don't even understand the laws they are supposedly quoting. Look dipshits, AMERICAN CITIZENS, EVEN NATURALIZED CITIZENS CANNOT be an enemy combatant.
And out of curiouslty, what would you call someone fighting against the US, but not aligned with any nation state or national army?
Do you want to call them a POW? Thats fine, but do you realize that the Geneva Conventions ONLY APPLY to prisoners fighting in an army from countries that signed the accords?
Is it just me, or does Alex Jones remind you of that guy in college who would drink 2 sixpacks of cheap beer during a football game and start screaming at the TV?
This speech is bizaare. I love the part where he claims the tv show '24' was created to desensitize people to torture. I knew Keifer Sutherland was in on it!
Then he goes on to claim that George H. W. Bush recruited Bill Clinton as a CIA agent.
Thanks Juji, I didn't think anyone was gonna point that out. I keep hearing this "enemy combatants" bullshit over and over again, and I just wanna strangle every fucker that says it. There's no lie too big, as long as it's critical of Bush or the US.
AMERICAN CITIZENS, EVEN NATURALIZED CITIZENS CANNOT be an enemy combatant.
Hey you want to point that out in the exact legistlation? I've already pointed out in a previous thread that U.S. citizens do fall under this draconian piece of legislation.
I mean seriously, these morons don't understand federalism, seperation of powers, checks and balances, or judicial review.
Sure we don't. That is why we keep bringing up information that the Bush admin. has used to curtail, destroy and shred the constitution. Based upon your comments, I'm begining to think you didn't study U.S. history and goverment in school, are from a different country and have no clue what has happened to our system of government, or you don't study current events.
I've already pointed out in a previous thread that U.S. citizens do fall under this draconian piece of legislation.
And we already pointed out why you were wrong, and you ignored it as usual.
That is why we keep bringing up information that the Bush admin. has used to curtail, destroy and shred the constitution.
Well that's a load of crap.
I keep hearing this "enemy combatants" bullshit over and over again, and I just wanna strangle every fucker that says it. There's no lie too big, as long as it's critical of Bush or the US.
For all of you, here is another reason Alex should stick to Canadian history. Again to prove another OS statement as a lie:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/
enemy.combatants/
Americans may be held as 'enemy combatants,' appeals court rules
Government welcomes ruling upholding presidential power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/
09/AR2005090900772.html
U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 10, 2005; Page A01
You can read the articles and chuckle at Alex for his lack of intellect and remind him to stick to Canadian politics and keep the violence to himself.
It seems that SD is almost, but not quite right, as usual.
In the beloved Military Commissions bill, good ole' HR6166:
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions:
'Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
Section 948a(3) defines "alien" as follows: "(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
If you are an alien, you may be subject to the Mil Comm'n. If you're not an alien, you can't be. While the commision can find that one is an unlawful combatant (A
US citizen can fall within the definition of a UEC because a US citizen can be a UEC. A US citizen can be a UEC because a US citizen can go to Afghanistan and join Al Qaeda and fight for the enemy, which makes him a UEC under international law regardless of the fact he is a citizen of the power that captured him. I defy you to draft me a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant that excludes American citizens who are captured in the act of unlawfully conducting hostilities against the U.S. The question is, can a UEC who is an American citizen be tried under this bill? No. ), they can't make a finding re: their status as an "alien." If they are a citizen, the Commission has no jurisdiction.
Is it just me, or does Alex Jones remind you of that guy in college who would drink 2 sixpacks of cheap beer during a football game and start screaming at the TV?
No, he's the guy who screams at the TV while being stone cold sober.
It seems that SD is almost, but not quite right, as usual.
In the beloved Military Commissions bill, good ole' HR6166:
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions:
'Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
Section 948a(3) defines "alien" as follows: "(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."
If you are an alien, you may be subject to the Mil Comm'n. If you're not an alien, you can't be. While the commision can find that one is an unlawful combatant (A
US citizen can fall within the definition of a UEC because a US citizen can be a UEC. A US citizen can be a UEC because a US citizen can go to Afghanistan and join Al Qaeda and fight for the enemy, which makes him a UEC under international law regardless of the fact he is a citizen of the power that captured him. I defy you to draft me a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant that excludes American citizens who are captured in the act of unlawfully conducting hostilities against the U.S. The question is, can a UEC who is an American citizen be tried under this bill? No. ), they can't make a finding re: their status as an "alien." If they are a citizen, the Commission has no jurisdiction.
Hey genius, do you even read the articles you post?
"Judicial review does not disappear during wartime but the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one," said the opinion of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling reverses a lower court decision ordering the government to produce more information to defend its holding of Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen accused of fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and dismisses the complaint of his attorneys.
They aren't grabbing people out of their homes and labelling enemy combatants, these are people who are captured WHILE FIGHTING AGAINST US.
Military tribunals are a step up, in the old days if they caught a US citizen out of uniform fighting against US troops, they would just shoot them on the spot as a spy. You should applaud President Bush for increasing the civil rights of traitors.
Actually, you are quite right, but it's about your position if you are considered an enemy combatant by government.
And how many in this country have been declared that? last I checked, the boys in Gitmo all were toting arms in Afganistan. Did they pull a few from the streets of New York when the papers weren't looking.
That would ultimately render a kind of Sovjet-Nazi style of society without freedom of speech.
Which is what gets you off, I know. It must suck to have no real threat to fight, but making one up isn't gonna do any good.
Instead of making opponets of Bush look like whack-jobs, why don't you work against the things he's actually done. Start by going after Bush's support of Creationism in our schools. That way science standards might have a chance to rise and result in fewer idiots like you.
Democrat, Bush actually never made that statement. It was debunked shortly after it made the rounds.
Democrat, just when I've decided that you're pretty stupid, you show me that I've overestimated your intelligence.
No, Bush never said that the Constitution was "goddam piece of paper." That spurious quote is a pure fabrication, invented by a silly loony-leftist to titillate the drooling morons who visit such sites.
How can we know for sure? Well, making the determination involves something totally alien to you, called critical thinking skills. If Bush ever spoke the words put into his mouth by that particular liar, it would have created a sensation, a month-long media feeding frenzy. The quote would now be part of the nation's political folklore, like Agnew's "If you've seen one slum, you've seen them all."
Whenever my brain-dead actor friends e-mails breathlessly to inform me that Bush has committed another unprecedented crime or that he really has been convicted of drunk driving twenty times, I explain patiently that if these charges contained even a hint of truth, the Democratic National Committee would be the first to let you know. The reason that I am secure in saying that Bush never uttered the foolish words invented by the lefty liar is that no serious person thinks he did.
I realize that reasoning of this sort is completely beyond you, but to most if us, it's easy to follow.
I didn't hear you complain to PDoh to keep his stupid opinions to himself because he's a Brit-Twit...
I would kindly suggest that you
lay off of Alex's being Canadian.
It's ok, i really don't mind. He's just showcasing his ignorance and bigotry, which is actually an improvement over his usual drivel. And I figure hopefully other Canadians will see his rants, and get turned off of the truth movement entirely - just like most Jews want nothing to do with these idiots because of their obvious anti-semitic slant.
"Your right Bubbers, they are going after everyone"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paranoid, paranoid, paranoid. Tell me swing, you say they are going after everybody, but all I want is proof that they are going after you. Prove that they are "after you" and when you've sufficiently done so, then you can work on proving that they are after the other 300 million people, mmkay.
He looks like a loud-mouthed fat inconsiderate sack of crap to me. Just like Fetzer.He also makes retarded points and tries to spread his retarded paranoid ideas to everyone, but in reality, nobody gives a shit about him.
Hey swing still waiting for that proof that the government is after you.
Do you know who decides who exactly is 'an enemy combatant'?
You could always try reading the legislation.
Bubbers-Tell me swing, you say they are going after everybody, but all I want is proof that they are going after you. Prove that they are "after you" and when you've sufficiently done so, then you can work on proving that they are after the other 300 million people, mmkay.
Well yes indeed they are. I see their Black Lincoln Town outside of my estate every evening. These men in black see they are tapping my phone and listening to my every word. I bought that tin foil hat off of Ebay, but it didn't work for some reason. Maybe I should a pan instead eh?
No, Bubbers, they aren't after everyone or me for that matter. My point is as an American citizen, I am now considered guilty until proven innoncent instead of the reverse. My right to privacy as a citizen has been shreaded.
Uhhh two words:
Jose Padilla-U.S. Citizen.
See all about it at this brief:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/jose_padilla2/1.html
Yeah, see, if you're going to complain about government abuse of power, you may wish to pick a person who is:
a) Not guilty as sin.
b) Hasn't already had dozens of appeals and court reviews of his imprisonment.
c) Isn't actually being charged with a crime.
Even if Padilla were innocent, he's one person out of 300,000,000 Americans. That'd be an acceptable error margin. However, he's the furthest thing from innocent, so I have even less reason to agree with your argument. So you're complaining that the US government arrested a guy, allowed his to put forward numerous appeals, allowed his story to become world-famous, and finally charged him with a crime through the normal legal system. And that's your evidence that the government is abusing it's power? What are you, retarded?
Jose Padilla: jihadist.
See, that was one word.
"No, Bubbers, they aren't after everyone or me for that matter."
Okay guy at least you finally got something right, but I have to ask why you said this yesterday..."Your right Bubbers, they are going after everyone!"
And when you said this...."Well yes indeed they are. I see their Black Lincoln Town outside of my estate every evening. These men in black see they are tapping my phone and listening to my every word. I bought that tin foil hat off of Ebay, but it didn't work for some reason. Maybe I should a pan instead eh?"....we know you are trying to be a smartass but all you just did was make fun of basically every truther out there. You're the best player on our team. Thanks guyo.
Post a Comment
<< Home