One more step towards King Bush; Quietly Ripping up the Constitution

2007-07-20 08:04:08

#1

chuyskywalker: Admin; +2,439|7137|"Frisco"

Obviously, I'm not one often to get involved in the D&ST talk section, but somethings are just too monumental to not speak about:

- http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=3127

TFA wrote:
A few days ago, Bush signed a new executive order in which he uses broad language to claim that he has the power to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The language in the executive order is broadly defined and does not specifically identify a specific group of individuals that the order applies to. It opens up the possibility of anti-war protesters and other political dissidents having their property confiscated for simply speaking out against the war.

The legalese is a bit tough to muddle through, so I made a translation for you.

TF-EO wrote:
all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States [which could] pose a significant risk of committing, an act [such as] undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq

I'm upset.

2007-07-20 08:07:50

#2

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6850

That's nothing. We've just had a guy thrown in jail for material support of terrorism. Why?

His SIM card was found in the home of one of the people involved in the recent British bomb plot......................................

2007-07-20 08:09:15

#3

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7025|Salt Lake City

That isn't good, considering that the Supreme Court isn't exactly in a position that it wouldn't necessarily shoot this down as being unconstitutional.

2007-07-20 08:11:06

#4

chittydog: less busy; +586|7124|Kubra, Damn it!

This is troubling.

Let's see lowing and his crew defend this one...

2007-07-20 08:12:35

#5

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6831|Texas - Bigger than France

I'm not too sure if this extends to freedom of speech, but if it does this blows. Chuy, as the website guru, how does this affect you if freedom of speech is limited, with reference to the anti-war posts here?

Sounds like the same penalty extended to drug dealers though - confiscation.

2007-07-20 08:13:55

#6

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6850

chittydog wrote:
Let's see lowing and his crew defend this one...

That's easy, if you disagree they can just take your computer away.......................

2007-07-20 08:18:20

#7

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6677|New York

While we're at it, let's make public executions legal too.

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2007-07-20 08:25:43

#8

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6662|Kyiv, Ukraine

Quick! Look! Britney Spears is in public with no underwear!

Constitutional crises looms, America yawns, changes channel.

The 29%ers will talk some more about 9/11, yada yada yada, Bush is under attack by liberal loons, yada yada yada. Everyone else needs to get a gun or a passport. I'll stay here in the middle of a 3rd-world mafia haven where its safe.

2007-07-20 08:28:11

#9

-101-InvaderZim: Member; +42|7133|Waikato, Aotearoa

Pug wrote:
I'm not too sure if this extends to freedom of speech, but if it does this blows. Chuy, as the website guru, how does this affect you if freedom of speech is limited, with reference to the anti-war posts here?

Sounds like the same penalty extended to drug dealers though - confiscation.

Not so much Anti-War - try anti-Bush (Have u read all the posts i have made on how mr bush is a warmonger, a dickhead and an idiot?)

But yeah u have a point. Its pretty scary stuff if ur an american

2007-07-20 08:36:56

#10

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6831|Texas - Bigger than France

After reflecting a bit...if this does extend to free speech: what happens if an editor of the LA Times or NY Times writes an anti-war editorial? Or Lettermen makes a joke? In theory, those news corps will now be under government control, and because of Letterman, the government would own a television network & General Electric.

So no, I don't think this is designed for free speech. I think its more focused towards non-peaceful protests or support of what the government considers to be the enemy (aka funding).

However the immediate seizure thing is pretty unsettling...what if they're wrong?

2007-07-20 08:41:55

#11

Maj.Do: Member; +85|7041|good old CA

wow doesnt seem like the supreme court doesnt think this is unconstitutional.

2007-07-20 08:44:42

#12

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7025|Salt Lake City

Pug wrote:
After reflecting a bit...if this does extend to free speech: what happens if an editor of the LA Times or NY Times writes an anti-war editorial? Or Lettermen makes a joke? In theory, those news corps will now be under government control, and because of Letterman, the government would own a television network & General Electric.

So no, I don't think this is designed for free speech. I think its more focused towards non-peaceful protests or support of what the government considers to be the enemy (aka funding).

However the immediate seizure thing is pretty unsettling...what if they're wrong?

But that's the whole point. The wording is so vague that anti-war speech could get classified in this manner.

2007-07-20 08:50:38

#13

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7051

I guess some of you did read the entire thing right?

"Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. "

2007-07-20 08:53:39

#14

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7025|Salt Lake City

usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess some of you did read the entire thing right?

"Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. "

That section sounds to me like it's a CYA for the US government, not US citizens.

2007-07-20 08:56:21

#15

topal63: . . .; +533|7007

What do you expect from this guy (wannabe dictator)?

Last month (Nov. 2005), Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

_____________________

And this dickhead echos the sentiment:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-20 08:58:44)

2007-07-20 09:00:41

#16

Pierre: I hunt criminals down for a living; +68|6964|Belgium

Sad but true... You one liberated Europe of a fascist dictator, opposed decedes another dictatorship (USSR) and look how you're country changed since 2001... http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,, … amp;feed=1

The Guardian wrote:
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
-removed-

2007-07-20 09:01:35

#17

golgoj4: Member; +51|7063|North Hollywood

usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess some of you did read the entire thing right?

"Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. "

The fact that it doesn't EXPLICITLY say 'citizens' makes me wonder. This is just one more step away from democracy.

2007-07-20 09:03:24

#18

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7051

Pierre wrote:
Sad but true... You one liberated Europe of a fascist dictator, opposed decedes another dictatorship (USSR) and look how you're country changed since 2001... http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,, … amp;feed=1

Ok FFS there is a thread for this one.

Jesus christ here we go again.

2007-07-20 09:05:42

#19

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6677|New York

topal63 wrote:
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

_____________________

And this dickhead echos the sentiment:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Bush should have been impeached awhile ago. The amendments of the constitution effectively help keep the constitution up with the times. If we don't have that document to follow, what have we got?

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2007-07-20 09:05:48

#20

Pierre: I hunt criminals down for a living; +68|6964|Belgium

usmarine2005 wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Sad but true... You one liberated Europe of a fascist dictator, opposed decedes another dictatorship (USSR) and look how you're country changed since 2001... http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,, … amp;feed=1
Ok FFS there is a thread for this one.

Jesus christ here we go again.

I guess you did read the entire thing right?
And did you understand what it says?

2007-07-20 09:06:14

#21

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6850

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess some of you did read the entire thing right?

"Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. "
That section sounds to me like it's a CYA for the US government, not US citizens.

Which is exactly what it is.

2007-07-20 09:06:22

#22

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6814|South Florida

Wow Chuy, I think this is the first thread started by you that i've ever read. (Aside from announcements)

15 more years! 15 more years!

2007-07-20 09:07:44

#23

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7051

Pierre wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Sad but true... You one liberated Europe of a fascist dictator, opposed decedes another dictatorship (USSR) and look how you're country changed since 2001... http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,, … amp;feed=1
Ok FFS there is a thread for this one.

Jesus christ here we go again.
I guess you did read the entire thing right?
And did you understand what it says?

I guess you can search?

2007-07-20 09:11:30

#24

Pierre: I hunt criminals down for a living; +68|6964|Belgium

usmarine2005 wrote:
Pierre wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:

Ok FFS there is a thread for this one.

Jesus christ here we go again.
I guess you did read the entire thing right?
And did you understand what it says?
I guess you can search?

I'm not Fancy Bollox, so I don't waste my time searching through some posts.
So, did you understand the article?

2007-07-20 09:14:20

#25

topal63: . . .; +533|7007

heggs wrote:
topal63 wrote:
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

_____________________

And this dickhead echos the sentiment:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Bush should have been impeached awhile ago. The amendments of the constitution effectively help keep the constitution up with the times. If we don't have that document to follow, what have we got?

Almost a million people would agree with that! (signed their name on the dotted line - I quote Nike - "Just do it!")
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?p … _ctrl=1061

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-20 09:15:41)

BF2S Forums One more step towards King Bush; Quietly Ripping up the Constitution

TFA wrote:

TF-EO wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

The Guardian wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Pierre wrote:

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Pierre wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Pierre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Pierre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Pierre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

heggs wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Board footer