Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,855
5,431
1,743
Katy, TX
#81
Could it be that perhaps people and/or organizations within the United States raise funds for terrorists groups that fight in other countries?

No can't be, those memories of the Islamic charities being shut down for sending money to identified terrorists org's must not be real...neither were those IRA fundraisers back in the 80's.

If I read the order correctly what it does is give the US gov't permission to freeze the assets without prior warning in order to prevent wire transfers from taking palce before the "proper paperwork" is completed.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
65
Edmond
#83
Could it be that perhaps people and/or organizations within the United States raise funds for terrorists groups that fight in other countries?

No can't be, those memories of the Islamic charities being shut down for sending money to identified terrorists org's must not be real...neither were those IRA fundraisers back in the 80's.

If I read the order correctly what it does is give the US gov't permission to freeze the assets without prior warning in order to prevent wire transfers from taking palce before the "proper paperwork" is completed.
True.
 

OStateMan

Banned
Banned
Feb 4, 2004
5,233
804
743
Vail, Colorado
#84
What I find funny on these posts is that it's usually started by some teenage or early 20-something college student who hasn't even been out in the real world for anything other than a hamburger -- and suddenly they're experts on politics, our constitution, or world economics.

Let me ask you young geniuses whom you would have advising you if you were President of the United States?
Your roommate?
Your frat brother who can drink more and pick up more women than you?
Your economics or pre-law professor?

A President....any President...surrounds himself with advisors from the best and brightest the WORLD has to offer. People that not only have GRADUATED from college, but probably have advanced degrees and YEARS of practical business or political leadership positions that put them in much better shape to interpret current and future economic and geo-political events much more than some sniveling, horny, underaged, can't-even-buy-a-beer-legally, geek with a computer that gets most of his/her world information and opinions from Katie Couric.

It's never as simple as your little world.

You don't have one iota of the information it takes to make a rational decision for the US or the world's economy.
You probably have trouble deciding whether to super size or not.

We have a system of checks and balances that prevents dictatorships. Presidents also have certain powers in times of war and despite many of your leftist denials of war or threats to our own well being, this is a time of war.
There are no arbitrary, dictatorial moves that go unchecked.

This is why there's little reason to argue politics with anyone. Neither you nor I have enough information to make the hard decisions our leaders make day in and day out.
They make decisions based on a vast number of inside, covert information, economic forecasts, and have a stable of the best and brightest of legal representatives to keep them advised of any legal ramifications.

Although it's quite entertaining to argue politics and try to impress upon each other our personal views....we actually don't have a clue as to what's really going on other than what the press corp or Katie Couric wants us to hear.

Just make sure you continue to put your money where your mouth is and vote.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
36
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#85
Guess no one is going to touch this one. Maybe if we just skip it and continue to talk about how only terrists will be effected, we might look like the argument is ours.

Criminals have rights to. I know no one gives a crap if they do or not because it doesn't affect them because they're such angelic contributors to society but it isn't rare for the accused to be found not guilty. But it doesn't matter anymore cause we're stopping terrists! Yeeeeehawwwwwwww.!

I still don't think you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Allowing something like this to come into law means you're trusting the judgment of the government to determine if someone is guilty of falling into one of those categories before being judged by a jury of their peers with the evidence and facts laid out on the table. Not just evidence can be taken, all possessions. This can happen to someone that you don't even know is guilty or not. The government sure knew Iraq had WMD's and that an 8 year old kid is a terrorist didn't they? Why wouldn't I trust them? :rolleyes: Maybe, just maybe, it can be your name that somehow ends up on this special list of terrist fighting and be made an example of and then maybe I can post your story on here and defend you against all the Bush supporters who find nothing wrong with this.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
36
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#86
A President....any President...surrounds himself with advisors from the best and brightest the WORLD has to offer. People that not only have GRADUATED from college, but probably have advanced degrees and YEARS of practical business or political leadership positions that put them in much better shape to interpret current and future economic and geo-political events much more than some sniveling, horny, underaged, can't-even-buy-a-beer-legally, geek with a computer that gets most of his/her world information and opinions from Katie Couric.
Anyone mind posting the extremely long list of resignations of the best and brightest people the WORLD has to offer that our president surrounded himself with? Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
65
Edmond
#87
Anyone mind posting the extremely long list of resignations of the best and brightest people the WORLD has to offer that our president surrounded himself with? Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!
While you're at it, why don't you run the list of those that left the clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter & Nixon administrations. This is absurd. These positions are political and people come and go for a variety of reasons.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
43
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#90
I tried really hard to stay out of this thread after I said I would but I just can't take it anymore!

Ostateman,

In this day and age when more people vote for American Idol than the do for the President of the United States I would think you would be praising an 18 to 20something for taking an active roll in political discussion and showing concern for the welfare of his country.

Instead, you're saying because he's 18-20something that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion or share his opinion because he doesn't know enough yet about the real world.

I'm not sure if you are aware but the voting age is 18. You can die for your country at 18.

I wonder what the 18 to 20 something year old troops in Iraq would say to your comments, or Parents whose 18 to 20 something kid died serving their country.

It's not the "anti bush crowd" that thinks it "targets them"

It's unconstitutional, that is what I take issue with.

When 3/4 of congress votes to pass an amendment to the constitution taking away habeus corpus as the military commissions act does, and property as this one does, then I will be fine with it.

Until then it is absolutely unconstitutional and that is why I am against it. If it was Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush sr, I don't care who it is. It's flat out wrong.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#91
It's not the "anti bush crowd" that thinks it "targets them"

It's unconstitutional, that is what I take issue with.

When 3/4 of congress votes to pass an amendment to the constitution taking away habeus corpus as the military commissions act does, and property as this one does, then I will be fine with it.

Until then it is absolutely unconstitutional and that is why I am against it. If it was Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush sr, I don't care who it is. It's flat out wrong.
Abraham Lincon took away Consitutional rights during the Civil War, does that make him a bad man?

Look at the reason he's doing it. He's trying to make it more effective to catch and punish those who are hindering our efforts in Iraq, and once it serves it's purpose, it will go away, just like all the others. No US citizen who isn't in bed with the terrorists needs to worry about this order.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
43
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#92
how many terrorist attacks have we had in the last, say 50 years?

3?

why do we NEED these laws? Is it really gonna make any difference if we confiscate the assets of someone who is in custody of the authorities already?

What are we gonna do, take the 20k in assets they have and apply it to the national debt?

And why do we need to suspend habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens? Is it worth the risk because we can prosecute them just the same without suspending their rights. What if they happened to be innocent?
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#93
how many terrorist attacks have we had in the last, say 50 years?

3?

why do we NEED these laws? Is it really gonna make any difference if we confiscate the assets of someone who is in custody of the authorities already?

What are we gonna do, take the 20k in assets they have and apply it to the national debt?

And why do we need to suspend habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens? Is it worth the risk because we can prosecute them just the same without suspending their rights. What if they happened to be innocent?
Obviously the President thinks we need it.
 
Nov 24, 2006
220
0
566
#94
hahaha, that's exactly what I was thinking too!

And of course, the expected response followed immediately.



Sutton1,

What exactly does the President need to do to open your eyes? Does he need to break out the sniper rifle and start shooting people from the white house for sport? Would sexually molesting a collie at his next press conference do it?

It sickens me that you are willing to give up THE CONSTITUTION like a drunk hooker looking for a quick buck.

Don't you value your constitution? The founding principles of this country?

Personally, I am not willing to just lay down and watch it be eroded before my very eyes.

And it's not about being a BUSH HATER. I voted for the guy twice.

I don't care about PARTY POLITICS. I CARE ABOUT MY COUNTRY.

My country is first and foremost. A political party is just something used to corrupt my government and burden my country.

Bush hater...hahaha

Question...would the collie's name start with a "R"?
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
65
Edmond
#95
how many terrorist attacks have we had in the last, say 50 years?

3?

why do we NEED these laws? Is it really gonna make any difference if we confiscate the assets of someone who is in custody of the authorities already?

What are we gonna do, take the 20k in assets they have and apply it to the national debt?

And why do we need to suspend habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens? Is it worth the risk because we can prosecute them just the same without suspending their rights. What if they happened to be innocent?
If you are speaking of attacks on US soil, not too many. What we don't know is how many have been foiled prior to getting underway. Your argument is extremely weak.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,855
5,431
1,743
Katy, TX
#96
When 3/4 of congress votes to pass an amendment to the constitution taking away habeus corpus as the military commissions act does, and property as this one does, then I will be fine with it.
Link to it Aaron...I'm fairly certain it specifies that the military commission are not used on citizens of the United States.

Nevermind, I'll do it. The Constitution applies to US citizens the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not.

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c1091H27jX:e8389:
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
24,260
22,074
1,743
#97
I love threads like this......

The opening line of it is..."since Bush appointed himself a dictator"....which would truthfully read since he "was given additional authority in war time by an overwhelming majority of senate in which few if any dems lost their seats since the vote"

Then it turns to wiping a$$es with the constitution from the crowd who constantly avoids the question of what freedom they lost because the last time I asked it the answer I recieved we wearing arabic T-shirts to airports?????

The very title is false.

I love the posts with stuff like "I don't understand executive orders and the exact authority when compared with due process and checks and balances......but this is unconstitutional"...... "What if" "What if". Bush isn't going to go down in history as George Washington or Lincoln......but at least keep your hatred factual.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
36
OKC
#98
i guess many of you still don't feel that privacy is a right. since the gov can look at pretty much any of your records anytime they feel, that does mean your right to privacy is gone. but just keep ignoring this.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
24,260
22,074
1,743
#99
i guess many of you still don't feel that privacy is a right. since the gov can look at pretty much any of your records anytime they feel, that does mean your right to privacy is gone. but just keep ignoring this.
This is the exact crap I am talking about.......

The "government" can't look at anything anytime they feel. That is disgustingly false generalizing. Dissent is at the essence of patriotism......idiocy isn't.