What Kind Of America Is This?

[MichaeltheGreat]

For that, when the revolution comes, Chegitz can see you have one less man in the firing squad when it's your turn to get up against the wall.

[KrazyHorse]

And he'll tell them to shoot low.

I've found that in real life unexpectedly telling someone that they'll be "first up against the wall when the revolution comes" with a straight face is a very good conversation stopper. Especially when you've just met them.

[faded glory]

What did Che run out ; buy the game and download the patch already

[chequita guevara]

I bought the game years ago, lent it to a coworker, and he never gave it back. I kinda liked it, but there were always more important things to spend money on.

I should probably get a copy, since your MP messages to each other busted my gut.

[chequita guevara]

Speaking of lousy commie firing squads, I caught the last bit of that Montey Python episide about the bicyclist, Mr. Pither. Up against the wall before the firing squad, they all shoot, and John Cleese looks over, "How could you miss?"

Best part was Trotsky pulling out a feather boa and singing "I'm Just an Old Fashioned Girl."

[faded glory]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I bought the game years ago, lent it to a coworker, and he never gave it back. I kinda liked it, but there were always more important things to spend money on.

I should probably get a copy, since your MP messages to each other busted my gut.

Ya its loads of fun to form a roleplaying charector and go along with it..it really brings out the ego in some people.

Well Mobius has me outnumbered 4-1...so hes being a big bully right now. Shove a few nukes up his ass and melt the ice caps and we will see whos boss

[Sprayber]

Well, there have been some good points from both sides here. Some of you are a little out there.

Oh, and by the way...when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" he was full of ****. That line is nothing more than a load of self-sacrificing patriotic **** - I have no obligation to do jack**** for my country, but my country sure as hell is obligated to ensure that I retain my rights granted by the Constitution - otherwise known as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Your going to be a student for the rest of your life, right? With that attitude, you merely take up valuable space that would best be fillled by someone else. Your really whats wrong with the country as a whole. Everyone wants but only a few seems to give.

Everyone else. These are tough times, and tough measures need to be taken. But I'm afraid that my children will grow up in a radically different America than I did. But perhaps that was going to happen anyway. I always thought that it was a good thing that we lived out lives without fear of attacks of this kind. But I am reminded of a quote by someone.

Always keep one eye on the enemy and the other eye on governement.

[Roland]

From W. Safire (who isn't really a leftie, despite publishing in the NY Times) - and copyright be damned.

Seizing Dictatorial Power

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON -- Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts.

In his infamous emergency order, Bush admits to dismissing "the principles of law and the rules of evidence" that undergird America's system of justice. He seizes the power to circumvent the courts and set up his own drumhead tribunals — panels of officers who will sit in judgment of non-citizens who the president need only claim "reason to believe" are members of terrorist organizations.

Not content with his previous decision to permit police to eavesdrop on a suspect's conversations with an attorney, Bush now strips the alien accused of even the limited rights afforded by a court-martial.

His kangaroo court can conceal evidence by citing national security, make up its own rules, find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officers disagree, and execute the alien with no review by any civilian court.

No longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between the government and the accused. In lieu of those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style abomination "a full and fair trial."

On what legal meat does this our Caesar feed? One precedent the White House cites is a military court after Lincoln's assassination. (During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; does our war on terror require illegal imprisonment next?) Another is a military court's hanging, approved by the Supreme Court, of German saboteurs landed by submarine in World War II.

Proponents of Bush's kangaroo court say: Don't you soft-on-terror, due-process types know there's a war on? Have you forgotten our 5,000 civilian dead? In an emergency like this, aren't extraordinary security measures needed to save citizens' lives? If we step on a few toes, we can apologize to the civil libertarians later.

Those are the arguments of the phony-tough. At a time when even liberals are debating the ethics of torture of suspects — weighing the distaste for barbarism against the need to save innocent lives — it's time for conservative iconoclasts and card-carrying hard-liners to stand up for American values.

To meet a terrorist emergency, of course some rules should be stretched and new laws passed. An ethnic dragnet rounding up visa-skippers or questioning foreign students, if short-term, is borderline tolerable. Congress's new law permitting warranted roving wiretaps is understandable.

But let's get to the target that this blunderbuss order is intended to hit. Here's the big worry in Washington now: What do we do if Osama bin Laden gives himself up? A proper trial like that Israel afforded Adolf Eichmann, it is feared, would give the terrorist a global propaganda platform. Worse, it would be likely to result in widespread hostage-taking by his followers to protect him from the punishment he deserves.

The solution is not to corrupt our judicial tradition by making bin Laden the star of a new Star Chamber. The solution is to turn his cave into his crypt. When fleeing Taliban reveal his whereabouts, our bombers should promptly bid him farewell with 15,000-pound daisy-cutters and 5,000-pound rock-penetrators.

But what if he broadcasts his intent to surrender, and walks toward us under a white flag? It is not in our tradition to shoot prisoners. Rather, President Bush should now set forth a policy of "universal surrender": all of Al Qaeda or none. Selective surrender of one or a dozen leaders — which would leave cells in Afghanistan and elsewhere free to fight on — is unacceptable. We should continue our bombardment of bin Laden's hideouts until he agrees to identify and surrender his entire terrorist force.

If he does, our criminal courts can handle them expeditiously. If, as more likely, the primary terrorist prefers what he thinks of as martyrdom, that suicidal choice would be his — and Americans would have no need of kangaroo courts to betray our principles of justice.

[drake]

Ecthilion, it refers to otherwise good and decent people who stand by and do nothing while their government does evil to others

Evil? Evil is making women wear shrowds and banning them from working....forcing families into starvation and shooting people in public executions for minor infractions. Evil is committing genocide. Evil is killing thousands of civilians.
Really, your concept of evil is pretty skewed che. As Ive said, no America and its government isn't perfect, but to somehow compare it to nazi germany? (Or even suggesting it could degenerate to that level)

The implication I get from Che's statement is that your average German in the mid thirties was happy to follow along with the herd when this Hitler guy came to power, their country was getting stronger and more prosperous - the average German on the street never had it so good!

George Bush doesn't equal Adolf Hitler
Not even f*cking close......you guys listen too much Rage Against the Machine. Really, the paranoia that Che eludes to is ridiculous.

Oh, and by the way...when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" he was full of ****. That line is nothing more than a load of self-sacrificing patriotic **** - I have no obligation to do jack**** for my country, but my country sure as hell is obligated to ensure that I retain my rights granted by the Constitution - otherwise known as the Supreme Law of the Land.

What a loser you are david. No one owes you anything. Your rights are a privilege. Know what privilege means?

No, by going to an all volunteer army. If no one volunteers for the army, tough ****. IE if no one cares, then the government really has no power to force people to fight a war they don't care about, eh?

Thats right. Let someone else protect you and die for you so you can sleep soundly at night and look for handouts from a government you spit on. And guess what schmuck? The military IS voluntary.

-Meaning under the current laws, they could arrest me and lock me up for a good long time if I were near a demonstration against the Bush administration that could be construed to be sympathetic to Bin Laden.

You wouldnt go to jail if it was a peaceful demonstration. You might get beat to crap by private citizens however.

Habeas corpus is the big one, I also lack a right to vote, and other miscellaneous liberties.

When have you been illegally detained? Why do you lack the right to vote? And misc. liberties? Pretty convincing.

"But it is very frustrating for me to hear someone tell me what I should think. What I should think is America, How I should think the government should work, what is best for me etc."

-That's right, let's not give a damn about others, what have they done for us last second

I don't get your point here in reference to the quoted line. I was simply stating that I didn't like other people telling me what is best for me. Do you? Course you don't.

"I believe although sometimes off the mark and sometimes plain wrong, the government of this country always has the best intentions in mind for its people, which is much more than you can say for many countries across the globe."

-You are so naïve.

What makes you think I'm naive? I have my eyes wide open. Explain to me why I'm wrong instead of dropping one liners. Its not an appropriate response.

[Chris 62]

Distrubing quotes

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and by the way...when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" he was full of ****. That line is nothing more than a load of self-sacrificing patriotic **** - I have no obligation to do jack**** for my country, but my country sure as hell is obligated to ensure that I retain my rights granted by the Constitution - otherwise known as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Several people quoted this already, and I will also.

You are dead wrong, you are obligated to support your country, pay taxes, and obey it's laws, whether you think so or not.

In return, you get the provisions of protection provided by the constituion.

As Drake pointed out, rights are privlages of citizenship, not irrevokable mandates to hide behind.
If your unwilling to support the USA, pay taxes and obey laws, your rights are revoked.
If you think otherwise, interview prisoners in correctional facilities about their "rights".

No, by going to an all volunteer army. If no one volunteers for the army, tough ****. IE if no one cares, then the government really has no power to force people to fight a war they don't care about, eh?

Most of the draftees in WW II didn't want to be there, good war or not.
The government certainly can force you to fight upopular wars, and if you refuse, they have a remedy, called prison.

Despite what you may believe, the government could prosecute a unpopualr (such as Vietnam) for a considerable amount of time.

All of this is basic citizenship, and you should already know this.
The USA was NOT set up on the concept that it's citizens are owed anything.

You say your a college student, yet you DON'T know this?!!?

[Lars-E]

Sprayber,

is a new police state emerging?

Americans are not to be judged by these military commisions. But in 10-20 yrs from now - who knows?

[David Floyd]

Sorry. I disagree that rights are a privilege - that's a contradiction in terms. Rights are always there whether the government recognizes and protects them or not - they certainly have a responsibility to.

As long as I follow all CONSTITUTIONAL laws (that does not include adhering to a draft, for example), then the government MUST protect and guarantee my Constitutional rights.

And furthermore, the government does indeed have power to prosecute any war it wants - just not using the draft, not in any circumstances.

[drake]

Taking what one has for granted is the worst thing someone can do david. It IS a priviledge living in this country because of the rights one is afforded.

The people that wrote the constitution, of which you continue to talk of, would be rolling in their grave hearing the way you talk.

When they wrote it, they actually believed in the idea that one would actually enjoy the concept of freedom. David here however doesnt think freedom is a worthy thing to fight for.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand.........

Clause 2 (Article 1, section 9): The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Perhaps not the invasion the forefathers envisioned, but these terrorists attacks could surely be interpreted as an invasion. Any opinions?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sorry. I disagree that rights are a privilege - that's a contradiction in terms.

Your attempting to argue symantics.
The real world is harsh and cruel, as you will find when you leave the ivory towers of acedemia and enter the mainstream world.
It's your privilage to have rights, not the other way around, and you must fight to protect your rights, as history has shown time and again.

Rights are always there whether the government recognizes and protects them or not - they certainly have a responsibility to.

When you wait for others to fight your battles, you are lost before you begin.
The Government is made up of people, not ideals, and people have their own ideas on things.

As long as I follow all CONSTITUTIONAL laws (that does not include adhering to a draft, for example), then the government MUST protect and guarantee my Constitutional rights.

As we have seen throughout US history, the Constituiton is not set in stone, and can be changed and ammended anytime.
Placing your faith this way is quite dangerous, and certainly foolhardy.
Afterall, women don't vote, do they? yes they do, the Constituition was amended.

And furthermore, the government does indeed have power to prosecute any war it wants - just not using the draft, not in any circumstances.

The Draft is tried and true, since the early days of america, and despite all your protestations against it, it will continue, as a leagal and neccesary evil at times.

The real world bites, doesn't it?

[rev]

Re: Distrubing quotes

rights are privlages of citizenship, not irrevokable mandates to hide behind.

Er, whatever happened to the Declaration of Independence's "all men have inalienable rights"?

Most of the draftees in WW II didn't want to be there

I wasn't aware that there was a draft during World War II.

The government certainly can force you to fight upopular wars, and if you refuse, they have a remedy, called prison.

Isn't it a little sad that your government might turn to you and say, "prison or war?" without you being able to do anything else about it? I'd probably have to chose the former, mainly because I'm scared to die -- unless, of course, I were passionate about the war, though that my livelihood and freedoms were really at risk, et cetera.