Fixed to be more factually accurate.Bubbalo wrote:
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 - HIS COUSIN - involved in the recent British bomb plot......................................
If that's what it takes. I love this country, and fully support our due process system or courts. If the Feds tried to seize my property without due process, I'd take out as many of them as I could. And I guarantee you my K : D ratio would better than 1:1.ATG wrote:
To arms?
Any reason this is not all over CNN and MSNBC?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If that's what it takes. I love this country, and fully support our due process system or courts. If the Feds tried to seize my property without due process, I'd take out as many of them as I could. And I guarantee you my K : D ratio would better than 1:1.ATG wrote:
To arms?
Because it is being overshadowed by the other exec order. You know, "the good one". Current news feed.usmarine2005 wrote:
Any reason this is not all over CNN and MSNBC?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If that's what it takes. I love this country, and fully support our due process system or courts. If the Feds tried to seize my property without due process, I'd take out as many of them as I could. And I guarantee you my K : D ratio would better than 1:1.ATG wrote:
To arms?
Ya but CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc should cut right through that one right? This thread makes it sound like the apocalypse yet nothing? What gives?Kmarion wrote:
Because it is being overshadowed by the other exec order. You know, "the good one". Current news feed.usmarine2005 wrote:
Any reason this is not all over CNN and MSNBC?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If that's what it takes. I love this country, and fully support our due process system or courts. If the Feds tried to seize my property without due process, I'd take out as many of them as I could. And I guarantee you my K : D ratio would better than 1:1.
You've just clarified my point. Public danger is a matter of perception, and as Bush is in power, it is his administration's perception that counts.golgoj4 wrote:
I still dont see your point. Public danger is a matter of perception. Bush can claim all he wants, but without even a declaration of war, I dont see how he can claim that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*sigh* Public danger. The rest was underlined to link other portions of the sentence together. Whether or not you agree that there is public danger is irrelevant, because it is the administration's point of view.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
We aren't at war. We may be waging a war on terror, but that isn't the same as as being at war. If that is to what you are referring, then technically we haven't been covered since we started the war on drugs.
Understand, people, that I'm not trying to defend Bush here; only to dispel rumors that he is the Antichrist.
Perception is built around reputation and credibility. Bush has spent 7 years destroying his. He has managed to alienate even his most loyal fans, amnesty attempts did not help him with his conservative base. Of course Congress has managed to destroy our faith in the legislative branch as well (see approval ratings for both).unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You've just clarified my point. Public danger is a matter of perception, and as Bush is in power, it is his administration's perception that counts.golgoj4 wrote:
I still dont see your point. Public danger is a matter of perception. Bush can claim all he wants, but without even a declaration of war, I dont see how he can claim that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*sigh* Public danger. The rest was underlined to link other portions of the sentence together. Whether or not you agree that there is public danger is irrelevant, because it is the administration's point of view.
Understand, people, that I'm not trying to defend Bush here; only to dispel rumors that he is the Antichrist.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-20 22:41:51)
Though in all likelihood, the most serious conventional threat to an oppressive government here would be explosives, not rifles.Spark wrote:
Well, damned good thing you have a second amendment. Never thought I would say that.
Gas+winebottleunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Though in all likelihood, the most serious conventional threat to an oppressive government here would be explosives, not rifles.Spark wrote:
Well, damned good thing you have a second amendment. Never thought I would say that.
However, nobody really has the administration under their thumb, so however misinformed you believe the it is, it is still in power, and its opinions, even if you do not agree with them, are significant. But Golgo is correct on one account. An actual declaration of war should've been done. I don't care for the "we're-kinda-sorta-fighting-you-but-not-really-it's-sort-of-a-liberation" mentality.Kmarion wrote:
Perception is built around reputation and credibility. Bush has spent 7 years destroying his. He has managed to alienate even his most loyal fans, amnesty attempts did not help him with his conservative base. Of course Congress has managed to destroy our faith in the legislative branch as well (see approval ratings for both).unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You've just clarified my point. Public danger is a matter of perception, and as Bush is in power, it is his administration's perception that counts.golgoj4 wrote:
I still dont see your point. Public danger is a matter of perception. Bush can claim all he wants, but without even a declaration of war, I dont see how he can claim that.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-20 23:13:21)
The difference with these orders is that it includes the Attorney General, who acts as a representative of the Justice system. The Attorney General is bound by US codes. He can skip the court order when time is short to gather intelligence. However the "aggrieved " can force disclosure and even suppress the evidence. The point is it involves the legal system.usmarine2005 wrote:
Guess this kind of thing never happened before...
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13129.htm
"(e) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the
prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited." <-- A little broad isn't it?
What? The second one seems kind of vague as to who they can bring in. Also, a search without a court order. Who cares if the ATG is mentioned, the judicial system is bypassed anyway.Kmarion wrote:
The difference with these orders is that it includes the Attorney General, who acts as a representative of the Justice system. The Attorney General is bound by US codes. He can skip the court order when time is short to gather intelligence. However the "aggrieved " can force disclosure and even suppress the evidence. The point is it involves the legal system.usmarine2005 wrote:
Guess this kind of thing never happened before...
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13129.htm
"(e) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the
prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited." <-- A little broad isn't it?
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … 00-.html#f
Also, the Exec order in question specifically identifies property within the possession or control of "United States persons". The President is invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on US citizens to promote political reform in a foreign country. Seriously.. alarms should be going off now.
unnamednewbie13 I was elaborating on your account of public danger and perception. I never questioned his ability to do so. It is however our duty as citizens to pay attention to what our leaders are doing. Especially when it infringes on our freedoms. I'm not one to shut up and take it when the President drops a deuce on the Constitution.
Ya....a year later after violating civil rights.Kmarion wrote:
Including the Attorney General is important. Because he has to answer to the Senate and the Courts the judicial system is not bypassed.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-20 23:40:01)
I'm not a fan of Willy. I was just pointing the difference in the orders.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya....a year later after violating civil rights. Which at that time when shit was being blown up all over the place could easily be justified.Kmarion wrote:
Including the Attorney General is important. Because he has to answer to the Senate and the Courts the judicial system is not bypassed.
And the second one I mentioned?Kmarion wrote:
I'm not a fan of Willy. I was just pointing the difference in the orders.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya....a year later after violating civil rights. Which at that time when shit was being blown up all over the place could easily be justified.Kmarion wrote:
Including the Attorney General is important. Because he has to answer to the Senate and the Courts the judicial system is not bypassed.
Does section E not leave that open for interpretation? I think it does.Kmarion wrote:
The second one you posted:"all property and interests in property of
persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General:".
Leaving legislation open for interpretation is precisely what we want. That is in fact the role of the Judicial system and the point of this debate. Yes I know who the Attorney General is.usmarine2005 wrote:
Does section E not leave that open for interpretation? I think it does.Kmarion wrote:
The second one you posted:"all property and interests in property of
persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General:".
You keep mentioning the Att Gen. You remember who that was right?
According to some, the judicial system got Bush into office.Kmarion wrote:
Leaving legislation open for interpretation is precisely what we want. That is in fact the role of the Judicial system and the point of this debate. Yes I know who the Attorney General is.usmarine2005 wrote:
Does section E not leave that open for interpretation? I think it does.Kmarion wrote:
The second one you posted:"all property and interests in property of
persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General:".
You keep mentioning the Att Gen. You remember who that was right?
Or it was me and my fellow Floridians screwing with voting machines .usmarine2005 wrote:
According to some, the judicial system got Bush into office.Kmarion wrote:
Leaving legislation open for interpretation is precisely what we want. That is in fact the role of the Judicial system and the point of this debate. Yes I know who the Attorney General is.usmarine2005 wrote:
Does section E not leave that open for interpretation? I think it does.
You keep mentioning the Att Gen. You remember who that was right?