Maybe one day you idiots will be able to think for yourselves and try and make a rational, objective, unbiased decision. For now, I see you as loyal to a fault Bush supporters who will defend anything regarding him without question. And that's exactly what you are doing.
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.
WEAK? Really? Then tell me how we were stopping them before?
Since there have been no attacks, we must be stopping them! These laws must work! But wait, they aren't even a year old. What happened before them that allowed us to stop them?
The funny thing is, when another one happens, none of you will stop and say, maybe we don't need those laws after all, they didn't work.
What will happen is the government will say we need MORE laws so we can keep stopping them.
You'll go right along with them because you are mindless idiots, and we'll continue the trend of passing needless laws.
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:
It's up to interpretation. THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT but none of you want to hear that!
If it was specific, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. But it's not!
The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants,
earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.
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.
I don't give a shit about my privacy. The government can find out everything they want to know about me or you or anyone else by any of a number of means legally or illegally. Hell I can find out quite about about someone if I do enough research, hire a private detective, etc.
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.
There's no hatred. Is that all you people can do? Anytime your sacred UNTOUCHABLE leader is questioned you immediately use this PATHETIC defense.
I voted for the dude twice. I'm a registered Republican. I'm politically conservative. Isn't it POSSIBLE, that someone could be unbiased and objective and rational and look at things based on their legitimacy rather than their intent?
I'm all about stopping terrorism. I just don't want to do it with a law that I believe is unconstitutional.
Obviously the President thinks we need it.
So what! He also was in favor of the last immigration policy but IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.
That's why we have checks and balances.
I think we should keep them!
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.
No, I don't think Abraham Lincoln was a bad man. I don't think President Bush is a bad man either.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. Stop trying to make it about that.
Good men sometimes do bad things with GOOD INTENTIONS.
Kaje said it accurately above. You're giving the administration the right to decide guilt vs. innocence without a fair trial.
You want to do that to illegals, or citizens from other countries that is fine with me. While you're at it, torture the heck out of them, I don't care. But NOT to U.S. citizens.
And what is freezing their assets REALLY going to do to a terrorist?
If we find out they are terrorists they are in custody and their assets aren't doing them any good.
But if you want to freeze the assets of someone who IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN then by all means. Take them away. I don't care.
But there is no reason, NONE, to include U.S. citizens.
Can you guys not see where this violates the constitution?
And please stop trying to justify pissing on the constitution because someone else did it with positive results. A lot of people make it home safely every night after drinking enough alchohol to kill themselves, that doesn't make it right. Tell that to the guy who pulls you over next time you drink and drive and see if he agrees with your logic.
on your part.