[Ludi]

You may want to justify illegal activity by the government because of your unreasoning fear of what lies beyond, but it will not help you in the end. Only Jesus can do that.

Why do you think I "want to justify illegal activity?" Because I think the idea of people infiltrating my family to spy on me is ridiculous?

You don't make much sense.

[Sixstrings]

There is a bit of truth to what Voice_du_More has to say. There really are tens of thousands of innocent Americans on the no-fly list. How did they get there? Nobody knows, it's top secret. Presumably a lot of folks end up on the list as the result of data mining..

On the other hand, it certainly is absurd to suppose the government has the manpower to closely monitor hundreds of millions of individuals.

But a concerned citizen shouldn't dismiss all this as tinfoil. I can see a slippery slope here, so that the day will come when talking too much about geopolitics can cause some computer to add your name to a list.

[Cid_Yama]

It was Tyler. My title insulted his conservative sensitivities. Reflects on him, not on me. Just plain old political censorship. Usually he just boots it into open discussion.

[Ludi]

But a concerned citizen shouldn't dismiss all this as tinfoil.

Of course not.

[Plantagenet]

The new title for this topic is even sillier then the original one.

If a president violates the constitution then the constitution says he should be impeached.

Sadly, the dems were too cowardly to impeach Bush.

Now Bush is an ex-President, and you can't impeach a president once he is out of office.

[Lore]

Now Bush is an ex-President, and you can't impeach a president once he is out of office.

True, but making it incumbant on the scribes of history to reward him with the well deserved, one of the worst Presidents in history award, should be an example enough for any other would be Constitutional usurper.

[ReverseEngineer]

Please clarify this for me. Are you saying you are making these written arguments in a calculated attempt to convince a mob of people to appoint you executioner so you can personally chop off the heads of people you consider "pigmen?" And that you have the tools and other preparations needed to fulfill that plan? Because it's hard to read that any other way. Please clarify, thanks.

You are way too literal in your reading of the material. I suggest you PM Ludi, who also spent just ages taking everything I write in the literal sense. She appears to grasp now somewhat better what is metaphor and what is literal truth.

Reverse Engineer

[ReverseEngineer]

I suggest you PM Ludi, who also spent just ages taking everything I write in the literal sense.

I would prefer to get clarification from you, not a third party. And I am certain I'm not the only person who needs this clarification, so perhaps you would be kind enough to explain here what is and what isn't intended literally in your post above about beheading people.

This is a little like trying to explain a joke to someone with no sense of humour. If I write, "It's Raining Pigmen", is it REALLY raining Pigmen? Of course not, its a metaphor. So if I write "Heads will roll like Bowling Balls", does this mean you should go long on Brunswick Lanes? I'll explain that one to you, no that is a metaphor also. What it means in reality is that those responsible will be held accountable for their actions by due process of law. What those laws will actually be you cannot really predict at this time. If you understand the context, this is in the subtext.

Now, if you want a codex to be able to decipher when I am using a metaphor and when I am describing actual fact, I can't do that. This comes from reading subtext, which if you are a literal minded person you have a hard time doing. Ludi for instance has a very hard time with it, so does Mos. I can't explain to you in advance all my jokes and all my metaphors, nor will I explain everyone of them to you while I write an essay or after I write it either. It fundamentally ruins the material, just like explaining a joke makes it not funny anymore.

That is about as well as I can clarify what I write for you Shanny. The writing style is abstract, its mostly not literal. Some analytical posts I write however are literal, like the one I recently wrote for the Building Community thread. The source of your confusion probably lies in the fact you find it hard to distinguish between the two, you just don't grasp what is a metaphor and what is literal in my posts. I can only hope over time you will come to understand it better, maybe then you'll appreciate it more. Until then, you'll no doubt remained confused and angry with me a good portion of the time. Not sure what I can really do about that, because I write as I write, I don't really think about "Will Shannymara understand this is a metaphor?" when I write something. When I suggested PMing Ludi, its because you'll probably get a better grasp on how to understand it from someone who has trouble with it herself, but has got better over time at picking out the jokes and metaphors. Not that Ludi is happy with much of that, but at least I get the impression these days she understands it better.

Reverse Engineer

[wisconsin_cur]

Code of Conduct violations split by wisconsin_cur. Give me a few moments and then please check your inboxes.

[Jotapay]

This breaking news story shows memos issued by the Bush administration after 9/11. Bush basically declared himself able to do anything he damn well pleases, completely disregarding the Constitution, rights of American citizens, all international treaties and international law. What an arrogant piece of sh1t. Why is he not in jail again??? Buehler?

NPR reported this morning that Bush declared he could use the US Army to break into American homes without a warrant, completely shredding the Bill of Rights.

Raw Story Article Link

"The power to dispose of the liberty of individuals captured ... remain in the hands of the president alone," said a 2002 opinion written by then-assistant attorney general John Yoo on US methods for transferring suspects.

"Congress can no longer regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements," according to another 2003 opinion written for Alberto Gonzales, then counsel for Bush, which detailed prerogatives for military interrogations.

In another potentially explosive opinion, Bush's administration also gave itself ample space to skirt international law.

The president's "power to suspend treaties is wholly discretionary," according to a memo intended for John Bellinger, who was then legal advisor to the National Security Council.

It is important to note that the Obama administration said that it would review the policies and did not say that it will reject or discontinue them, reported by NPR this morning.

[vision-master]

This breaking news story shows memos issued by the Bush administration after 9/11. Bush basically declared himself able to do anything he damn well pleases, completely disregarding the Constitution, rights of American citizens, all international treaties and international law. What an arrogant piece of sh1t. Why is he not in jail again??? Buehler?

NPR reported this morning that Bush declared he could use the US Army to break into American homes without a warrant, completely shredding the Bill of Rights.

Raw Story Article Link

"The power to dispose of the liberty of individuals captured ... remain in the hands of the president alone," said a 2002 opinion written by then-assistant attorney general John Yoo on US methods for transferring suspects.

"Congress can no longer regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements," according to another 2003 opinion written for Alberto Gonzales, then counsel for Bush, which detailed prerogatives for military interrogations.

In another potentially explosive opinion, Bush's administration also gave itself ample space to skirt international law.

The president's "power to suspend treaties is wholly discretionary," according to a memo intended for John Bellinger, who was then legal advisor to the National Security Council.

It is important to note that the Obama administration said that it would review the policies and did not say that it will reject or discontinue them, reported by NPR this morning.

The Dems allowed this!

[Jotapay]

He authorized the Army to kill US citizens.

Wired Magazine

The Justice Department secretly authorized President George Bush to use the military inside the United States to snoop on, raid and even kill citizens in order to fight terrorism without regard to the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, according to a Oct 23, 2001 memo released by the Obama Administration Monday.

[vision-master]

Where's fish and planted.......

[Ferretlover]

Where's fish and planted.......

More importantly, where are the barrels of tar and the bags of feathers??

[eXpat]

Where's fish and planted.......

[Dreamtwister]

NEWS FLASH! Water is wet.

The real question is "What are you going to do about it?"

[ReverseEngineer]

NEWS FLASH! Water is wet.

The real question is "What are you going to do about it?"

Case noted for disposition at a later date.

Reverse Engineer

[TheDude]

It is important to note that the Obama administration said that it would review the policies and did not say that it will reject or discontinue them, reported by NPR this morning.

A flat statement of rejection would be nice to hear. I assume he's holding fire due to political necessity, which still amounts to an ethical failure on his part if you ask me. Who cares about some sniveling right wingers saying you're going soft on terrorists? Perhaps this will change in the wake of these announcements. Might have been O's plan all along - never forget that the guy is reputedly a rather crafty pol.

[Jotapay]

Obama has not repudiated any of the Bush administration's tactics which eviscerated the Bill of Rights. In fact, he has lied several times during campaign promises where he said he would not continue Bush policies like warrantless spying on the American people, and then weeks later voted for immunity for those corporations which illegally spied on American citizens. The programs not only continue to this day, but have been expanded.

Crafty politician indeed. Typical bald-faced liar too. People who support him are blinded by persona.

[Jotapay]

How much do you want to bet that not only will he not be prosecuted by the Obama administration's Justice Department, but that these transgressions against the Constitution will get increasingly worse over time in the future?

LINKY

Legal expert Michael Ratner calls the legal arguments made in the infamous Yoo memos, "Fuhrer's law."

The memos lay the legal groundwork for the president to send the military to wage war against U.S. citizens; take them from their homes to Navy brigs without trial and keep them forever; close down the First Amendment; and invade whatever country he chooses without regard to any treaty or objection by Congress.

I call it "Fuhrer's law." What those memos lay out means the end of the system of checks and balances in this country. It means the end of the system in which the courts, legislature and executive each had a function and they could check each other.

What Yoo says is that the president's authority as commander in chief in the so-called war on terror is not bound by any law passed by Congress, any treaty, or the protections of free speech, due process and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments -- gone.

Surely, when we have evidence Bush prepared the way to allow the military to imprison or shoot civilians in the various states and created law to put his own troops over the authority of the governors and the national guard of the various states, and when the military were sent to terrorize protesters in St. Paul, [Minn.], Bush was levying war in this sense against the united states?

The authority given by these memos that could be used to raid every congressional office, raid and search every home, detain tens of thousands, would certainly fit a definition of treason.

This would be the president making war against the institutions of the United States.