Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Looks like the Republican morality is floating to the surface for all to see.

Quote:

Top Washington Times Editor's Wife Confirms Racism Allegations

2006, Indictments, Investigations, George W. Bush
The second most powerful editor at The Washington Times is a white supremacist racist who says blacks are "born genetically 15 to 20 IQ points lower than a white person" and that abortion is necessary "to keep the black and minority population down in this country." His wife, Marian, confirmed this, on the record, in an interview with reporter Max Blumenthal for the Oct. 9 issue of The Nation magazine.
Francis B. Coombs Jr., the managing editor of The Washington Times, a major media ally of the Bush administration, is described by multiple newsroom sources in Blumenthal's piece as an unreconstructed "racial nationalist" and a hater of blacks and Jews.

SOURCE

Quote:

Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors
September 29, 2006 3:02 PM

Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:
Rhonda Schwartz contributed to this report.

Saying he was "deeply sorry," Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from Congress today, hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18.

A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.

In a statement, Foley said, "I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."

The full details will be included in a report tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. The media would have to do that voluntarily which means they have to get out of their predominantly Leftwing socialist anti-American, anti-military, anti-Bush mindset. In WWII, the American and free European press was 100% behind the effort. We got all the bad news every day but also the victories and triumphs were front page headliners and featured on the movietone news in the theaters. And the press was mostly responsible about NOT leaking information that hamstringed our own efforts and provided useful information and encouragement to the enemy. That's what we need again and the bad guys quickly have no place to hide.

In WWII, the German press was also 100% behind the effort. Germans got all the victories and triumphs every day, they were front page headliners and featured on the movietone news in the theaters. And the press was definitely responsible about not leaking information that hamstringed Germany's efforts and provided useful information and encouragement to the enemy. Didn't help a lot, though.

Foxfyre wrote:

Sure you have. Every time you see the US or Britain or Israel condemned for not "understanding the pain, agony, repression, anger, frustration" of the terrorists, for not negotiating, for defending themselves, etc. etc. etc., it loudly broadcasts condemnation of the good guys and HUGE support for the terrorists. The media featured war protests are exactly what kept the Viet Cong fighting on after we had them whipped. They've told us so. (No, don't ask for a link because I don't want to have to hunt one up. I have posted this previously however.)

How does it support the terrorists? If all the media suddenly stopped reporting the "bad news", or stopped criticizing the US for abducting people, for detaining people, for torturing, for running a secret prison system - would Iraq be a peaceful country tomorrow? Or next week? Or next month, or next year?
According to your theory, the situation in Iraq must have been excellent three years ago, when approval for the war in the US was extremely high. And the situation now must be a real quagmire, because of what the press is writing and what the TV channels are reporting. Is that what you are saying?

Foxfyre wrote:

You do it exactly the way we combated Tokyo Rose and Baghdad Bob. You get to them via television, newspapers, pamphlets, internet, radio, whatever methods are available to get drilling the message home. Mothers, love your sons! Reject violence and help them grow up free, happy, prosperous. Your leaders are telling you lies. Read your Quran and see the messages of peace there. 90% of Islam rejects violence and destruction. That is what Allah wants you to do.

And that wouldn't be labelled "propaganda" and plain and simply ignored? How do you react to Ahmadinejad's speeches and appeals to the West, to his offer to talk to Bush in front of TV cameras? Do you really think this has any effects on the mindset of anyone?

Foxfyre wrote:

It's only one of many ways to approach the problem. I don't underestimate our enemy one bit. I think all the anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-Western culture, and anti-Israel people do. (Anti in this case are those who criticize us more than they ever criticize the terrorists.)

What would be another way to approach the problem, in that case?

Foxfyre wrote:

No. I trust our military to understand the basic rules. You do not intentionally target citizens and you do whatever you can to mitigate civilian losses. Prisoners will not be treated inhumanely nor are we savages who try to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on people. But the people must allow the military to do what it HAS to do to take out the terrorists and if that means flattening a town or a neighborhood, so be it. Far better and less costly to do that than have years and years of terrorists attacks inflicting the same mayhem and more, just on a smaller scale. That also means allowing our government to do what it has to do to discover where the terrorists are and target them. And it means condemning those who intentionally thwart that process.

The USA, in these past years, have come to stand for secret prisons, for extraordinary renditions, for abducting and interning innocents, for torture, etc. etc.
All these problems have occured while the military was under supervision of a democratically elected civilian government. What reason would I have to trust a US military which would be allowed to do whatever it deemed necessary?
And why not look at was has been done in other countries to counter terrorist attacks? How about the UK during the IRA attacks? Did they go in and flatten Irish towns or neighborhoods? Were they successful?

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no way to justify the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. The loss of live and the suffering was unimaginable. It was inexcusable. Except that it ended a war, saved millions of lives, and freed a people to become a peaceful, productive economic leader in the world.

May I point out that the terrorists are not a nation-state-like entity like Imperial Japan was during WWII? Even nuking Iraq would very likely help the terrorist's case.
You've pointed out that the pictures of victims of Israel's attack on the Lebanon only served as propaganda for Hezbollah. Why do you think this would be different with the victims of American attacks? Trying to demoralize all the (potential) terrorists worldwide is of course a futile endeavor - the negative images would rather serve to recruit more.

And, finally: What happened to "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis?

0 Replies

Sheesh.

A bunch of Righties need to figure out that the people were 100% behind the Second World War because it was a noble cause that they believed in. The people aren't behind the current war because it isn't a noble cause that they believe in. You blame the media for this, but perhaps you should instead examine the cause itself before declaring 60% of the country 'manipulated by the media.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, it's the old "cause and effect" question... Two things happening at the same time:

- The war in Iraq is going badly.
- The media reports a lot of bad news from the war in Iraq.

You can construct two connections:

- The war in Iraq is going badly because the media is reporting negatively.
- The media is reporting negatively because the war in Iraq is going badly.

Which one is more likely? Hm?

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

In WWII, the German press was also 100% behind the effort. Germans got all the victories and triumphs every day, they were front page headliners and featured on the movietone news in the theaters. And the press was definitely responsible about not leaking information that hamstringed Germany's efforts and provided useful information and encouragement to the enemy. Didn't help a lot, though.

Germany was on the wrong side of the war in WWII too, and it had a nutcase for leader. But Hitler could not have held out as long as he did if he had not had the press, admittedly one that he controlled, and the people with him.

So if you conclude that the USA is as bad as Nazi Germany, or is on the wrong side of the War on Terrorism, then this discussion is over before it even begins wouldn't you say? Unless you are going to be neutral and keep your mouth shut, in any war the first thing to do is pick a side. I picked the side that is not committing terrorism or harboring, financing, supporting, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists. And in my opinion, if the right side had the press and the people supporting it that a wacko like Hitler had, the Iraq war would already be over and we would have made a huge dent in the war on terrorism already.

OE writes

Quote:

How does it support the terrorists? If all the media suddenly stopped reporting the "bad news", or stopped criticizing the US for abducting people, for detaining people, for torturing, for running a secret prison system - would Iraq be a peaceful country tomorrow? Or next week? Or next month, or next year?

According to your theory, the situation in Iraq must have been excellent three years ago, when approval for the war in the US was extremely high. And the situation now must be a real quagmire, because of what the press is writing and what the TV channels are reporting. Is that what you are saying?

The USA was making great strides in Iraq before the first assault on Fallujah. And it was pure public opinion that caused us to pull our punches there and I believe that is where the worst troubles began. The terrorists learned they could do their worst and we would blink. And they were hugely abetted by a media who began running anything that would make the President or military look bad on Page1 and running anything good on inside pages or not at all. Did that make a huge difference? I believe it absolutely did.

And you think the terrorists don't chortle everytime they see our President 'embarrassed' on the front pages of our papers? You don't think they're encouraged when they see little other than news of war protests and criticism of US leadership and rarely see anything good printed about the US?

Quote:

And that wouldn't be labelled "propaganda" and plain and simply ignored? How do you react to Ahmadinejad's speeches and appeals to the West, to his offer to talk to Bush in front of TV cameras? Do you really think this has any effects on the mindset of anyone?

You fight a war by whatever means. If you think it is wrong to use 'propaganda' to tell the truth for the purpose of achieving victory and peace, then again the discussion is over before it starts. When people have the option of hearing both the lies and the truth drilled into them, most people are pretty good at picking out the truth. Right now, the people are hearing only the side that favors the terrorists. That's almost true in the USA as well.

If (the rhetorical) you are sufficiently contemptuous of America or sufficiently hate our President that you prefer that to having the good news featured along with the bad, again this discussion is over.

Quote:

May I point out that the terrorists are not a nation-state-like entity like Imperial Japan was during WWII? Even nuking Iraq would very likely help the terrorist's case.
You've pointed out that the pictures of victims of Israel's attack on the Lebanon only served as propaganda for Hezbollah. Why do you think this would be different with the victims of American attacks? Trying to demoralize all the (potential) terrorists worldwide is of course a futile endeavor - the negative images would rather serve to recruit more.

And, finally: What happened to "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis?

No they are not a nation-state and nobody understands that as well as our President understands it. And war against them can't be organized and conducted as it would against a nation state. So you do things differently and as expediently as possible while doing as little harm to the innocent as reasonably possible. But the naysayers would have us conduct this war as if there was no war at all and are willing to put our people and fighting men at any level of risk rather than make a terrorist uncomfortable. Or they want us to conduct it as if we were fighting a nation state.

Nobody advocates torture or trampling on people's civil rights. But the naysayers trivialize torture and violation of civil rights by demanding that terrorists be treated as citizens or at least as prisoners of a normal war. This is absurd.

We sure as hell won't win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis by abandoning them to the terrorists or by pulling our punches to the point that this drags on for years instead of the weeks or months necessary to achieve victory if we would just get behind our President and let him do it.

The War on Terror won't be won within this administration, but we could sure put a huge dent in it with a clear victory and a free and democratic Iraq.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/jh/2006/jh060925.gif

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I picked the side that is not harboring, financing, supporting, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

No. Instead, you picked the side that is abducting people, detaining innocents for years, transfering captured people to countries where they get tortured, running a secret prison system, while sentencing torturers and murderers to a couple of weeks in jail, etc. etc. Do you ever wonder what "your side" has become in this fight against "the other side"?

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion, if the right side had the press and the people supporting it that a wacko like Hitler had, the Iraq war would already be over and we would have made a huge dent in the war on terrorism already.

If Bush had a state-controlled propaganda machine like Hitler had, the Iraq war would be already over? What a bizarre statement...

Foxfyre wrote:

And you think the terrorists don't chortle everytime they see our President 'embarrassed' on the front pages of our papers? You don't think they're encouraged when they see little other than news of war protests and criticism of US leadership and rarely see anything good printed about the US?

No, I don't think so. I don't think the terrorists buy the New York Times, read the polls about Bush's job approval and when they are low enough they go out, full of joy, to blow themselves up in front of a recruiting office.

Likewise, I don't think that the US soldiers in Iraq would, upon reading a headline insulting Ahmadinejad in the morning edition of the Tehran Times, happily mount their tanks, stop the civil war that day, and turn Iraq into a happy and peaceful country.

Foxfyre wrote:

You fight a war by whatever means. If you think it is wrong to use 'propaganda' to tell the truth for the purpose of achieving victory and peace, then again the discussion is over before it starts. When people have the option of hearing both the lies and the truth drilled into them, most people are pretty good at picking out the truth. Right now, the people are hearing only the side that favors the terrorists. That's almost true in the USA as well.

Sure. But look at you. You have the possibility to hear both the lies/truths by the White House and lies/truths by Ahmadinejad. Which side do you pick? The one you had already picked before? Or do you change your mind, because Amy is such a sincere guy?
Think about that. Now imagine the Iraqi Foxfyre double in Baghdad who has already picked the side of the Mahdi Army. What kind of influence would the American propaganda have on you?

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody advocates torture or trampling on people's civil rights.

Nobody advocates it. Still, it's happening all the time. Weird, isn't it?

Foxfyre wrote:

We sure as hell won't win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis by abandoning them to the terrorists or by pulling our punches to the point that this drags on for years instead of the weeks or months necessary to achieve victory if we would just get behind our President and let him do it.

Do what? What's the plan? Get behind your President to do let him do what, exactly? Can you tell me?

Foxfyre wrote:

The War on Terror won't be won within this administration, but we could sure put a huge dent in it with a clear victory and a free and democratic Iraq.

It would be a victory against terrorism indeed. Still, it should be mentioned that Iraq there was hardly any connection at all between terrorism and pre-invasion Iraq. It was certainly not the "breeding ground" for terrorists that it is today.
But yes, winning the war in Iraq would help solve the problem the invasion created there in the first place.

0 Replies

The "morality" certainly is showing.

Happy new deal, torturers and blind supporters of so much else this regime has done that is immoral and stupid.

You have been an important part of your country losing some of the most important struggles it has ever engaged in.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I picked the side that is not harboring, financing, supporting, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

No. Instead, you picked the side that is abducting people, detaining innocents for years, transfering captured people to countries where they get tortured, running a secret prison system, while sentencing torturers and murderers to a couple of weeks in jail, etc. etc. Do you ever wonder what "your side" has become in this fight against "the other side"?

Well, at least we know what you think of us, no matter how skewed your perception might be.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And in my opinion, if the right side had the press and the people supporting it that a wacko like Hitler had, the Iraq war would already be over and we would have made a huge dent in the war on terrorism already.

If Bush had a state-controlled propaganda machine like Hitler had, the Iraq war would be already over? What a bizarre statement...

I think it rather bizarre that this is what you took me to have said.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And you think the terrorists don't chortle everytime they see our President 'embarrassed' on the front pages of our papers? You don't think they're encouraged when they see little other than news of war protests and criticism of US leadership and rarely see anything good printed about the US?

No, I don't think so. I don't think the terrorists buy the New York Times, read the polls about Bush's job approval and when they are low enough they go out, full of joy, to blow themselves up in front of a recruiting office.

Likewise, I don't think that the US soldiers in Iraq would, upon reading a headline insulting Ahmadinejad in the morning edition of the Tehran Times, happily mount their tanks, stop the civil war that day, and turn Iraq into a happy and peaceful country.

If you don't think the US soldiers are keeping up with how they and their Commander in Chief and the war is being portrayed by the media, you don't know our soldiers. If you think the terrorists are not keeping up with what the general media is printing, you are way more naive than I thought.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You fight a war by whatever means. If you think it is wrong to use 'propaganda' to tell the truth for the purpose of achieving victory and peace, then again the discussion is over before it starts. When people have the option of hearing both the lies and the truth drilled into them, most people are pretty good at picking out the truth. Right now, the people are hearing only the side that favors the terrorists. That's almost true in the USA as well.

Sure. But look at you. You have the possibility to hear both the lies/truths by the White House and lies/truths by Ahmadinejad. Which side do you pick? The one you had already picked before? Or do you change your mind, because Amy is such a sincere guy?

Think about that. Now imagine the Iraqi Foxfyre double in Baghdad who has already picked the side of the Mahdi Army. What kind of influence would the American propaganda have on you?

It is precisely because I read both sides of the issue and know all the arguments of both sides that I feel I am reasonably well informed. It is the eye witness accounts of those who have been there that persuades me which side is most telling it like is.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody advocates torture or trampling on people's civil rights.

Nobody advocates it. Still, it's happening all the time. Weird, isn't it?

I'm sure that you honestly do believe that. And I feel very sorry for you that you do.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
We sure as hell won't win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis by abandoning them to the terrorists or by pulling our punches to the point that this drags on for years instead of the weeks or months necessary to achieve victory if we would just get behind our President and let him do it.

Do what? What's the plan? Get behind your President to do let him do what, exactly? Can you tell me?

How about WIN THE WAR Mr. President? We trust you to do the right thing but turn the boys loose and let them win it. I will leave the details to military strategists as I am not qualified to tell them HOW to do it. I know they know how.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The War on Terror won't be won within this administration, but we could sure put a huge dent in it with a cleIt is precisely because I DO seriously look at what both sides are saying coupled with what I know of history and what is told to me by eye witnesses to the events of current history that help me sort out which side I most believe. I apparently believe a different side than you believe.ar victory and a free and democratic Iraq.

It would be a victory against terrorism indeed. Still, it should be mentioned that Iraq there was hardly any connection at all between terrorism and pre-invasion Iraq. It was certainly not the "breeding ground" for terrorists that it is today.
But yes, winning the war in Iraq would help solve the problem the invasion created there in the first place

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. But it sure as hell is now. We are where we are and we have a chance to kick the terrorist in the teeth or let them make us slink away with our tails between our legs once again. i think the latter plan is not the way to diminish or eliminate terrorism in the world, and that's where you and I differ completely.

The fact is we are on opposite sides of this OE. And continuing the discussion will likely accomplish nothing more than plowing the same field. You see my side as evil. I see yours as naive, defeatist, and anti-American. I am sure you are a very nice person and that you believe your point of view to be correct and highly moral. Believe it or not, most people who know me think I'm a nice person, and I believe my point of view to be correct and highly moral.

So we're stuck. And I think that is unfortunate because I very much believe it will be more difficult to deal with terrorism without you than it would be if we had you with us.

0 Replies

If you're having a hard time convincing someone to join your worldview,

perhaps you should examine the quality of your arguments.

Certainly before assuming that someone is 'anti-american.' It's more a case of 'pro-logic.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I picked the side that is not harboring, financing, supporting, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

No. Instead, you picked the side that is abducting people, detaining innocents for years, transfering captured people to countries where they get tortured, running a secret prison system, while sentencing torturers and murderers to a couple of weeks in jail, etc. etc. Do you ever wonder what "your side" has become in this fight against "the other side"?

Well, at least we know what you think of us, no matter how skewed your perception might be.

You think my perception is skewed. You certainly have the right to do so. I guess I can in turn let you know where I get my perception from. I've been looking for a few articles to back up my statements above. I said in my previous post that you picked the side that was

- abducting people

Quote:

Man sues CIA over torture claims

A man who says he was a victim of the CIA's alleged secret prisons is suing its former chief over torture claims.

Khaled al-Masri says he was kidnapped in 2003 while on holiday in Macedonia, flown to Afghanistan and mistreated.

His is a rare legal challenge to the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - flying suspects to third countries without judicial process.

- detaining innocents for years

Quote:

A Visit with a Man Wrongly Detained at Guantanamo

Murat Kurnaz was detained in the United States detention camp at Guantánamo, Cuba, for almost five years and released three weeks ago

- transfering captured people to countries where they get tortured

Quote:

Canada clears 'al-Qaeda suspect'

A public inquiry in Canada has strongly criticised the country's authorities for wrongly accusing a Syrian-born Canadian of terrorism.

Maher Arar was arrested in New York in September 2002 and accused of being an al-Qaeda member.

He was deported by US officials to Syria where he claims he was tortured.

- running a secret prison system

Quote:

Bush admits to CIA secret prisons

President Bush has acknowledged the existence of secret CIA prisons and said 14 key terrorist suspects have now been sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The suspects, who include the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have now been moved out of CIA custody and will face trial.

Mr Bush said the prisons were a vital tool in the war on terror and that intelligence gathered had saved lives.

- while sentencing torturers and murderers to a couple of weeks in jail

Quote:

Afghan abuse sentence 'lenient'

The Afghanistan government has said it is disappointed by the punishment given to American troops convicted of abusing two Afghan detainees who later died.

The government has said the two soldiers - sentenced up to three months in prison - had been shown unexpected leniency.

[...]

Specialist Glendale Wells pleaded guilty at a military court of pushing a detainee known as Dilawar against a wall. He also admitted doing nothing to prevent other soldiers at the US base at Bagram from abusing him.

In December 2002, Dilawar died at the base - after suffering what an internal US investigation revealed were repeated beatings by American troops while chained to the ceiling by his wrists.

Now, while many people read the news and notice where the American "War on Terror" has led, you seem to be happy to just ignore that or brush it off, maintaining that the other side are terrorists.

Maybe that makes you feel better in ignoring what's happening in the world and in your name.

I think that this is the best way to loose the fight against terrorism.

0 Replies

That Will Live in Infamy
History is prologue. It also tends to repeat itself. So, to understand today, you first have to understand yesterday. To predict the future, you often need only look in your rear-view mirror.

So let's just do that today. Take trip back in time with me. It's a short trip, so you can leave your carry-on's at home. (But no liquids, please. Folks have been known to spill them in the worm hole, and that really plays hell with the fabric of time/space.)

But before we jump let's orient ourselves to our own time, so we recognize it on the way back. Since we will be returning in just a few minutes, a quick review of the top news stories of the day should be enough.

Year: 2006
Date: 29 September
Place: USA

In the News:

US Senate & House approve strict limits on the legal rights of terror suspects.

Yesterday Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects, preparing the ground for military tribunals for those accused or suspected of being terrorist fighters. (More)

The bill creates military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects.
It also grants the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible
It denies detainees the right of Habeas Corpus.
Those subject to commission trials are described only as "any person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents."
The administration says say the definition would not apply to U.S. Citizens - thought the legislation itself does not explicitly preclude US citizens.
The bill embraces President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies "extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom." The limits include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine evidence against him and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.
The Republican-controlled House also approved a bill to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, leaving just the Senate to act to make the it law.
These measures follow passage in 2002 of the "Patriot Act," which greatly expanded the government's domestic law enforcement powers and surveillance of US citizens.

Okay, oriented? Great. Stay close together and don't wander from the group as we jump three-quarters of a century back in time:

Year: 1933
Date: 23 March
Place: Germany

In The News:

Reichtage Passes Law to Protect Citizens/Nation

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) this day, March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the "Reichstag Fire Decree" through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enables Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

It's legislative title was, "The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich."

It read as follows:

The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[2]

Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Reichstag Fire Decree
On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:

Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [ habeas corpus ], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

(It becomes clear as we move forward a few years, to 1937-1940, that whatever the stated purpose of the Reichstag Fire Decree (which the Nazis used exactly as the Bush administration used 9/11) and the Enabling Act, the Nazis actually used the new powers to gain complete political power without the need of the support of a majority in the Reichstag and without the need to bargain with their coalition partners. The Act essentially allowed the chancellor and his cabinet to enact legislation without the Reichstag, including changes to the constitution. )

Okay gang, back through into the worm hole. Time to go home.

Hey, what, the hell......!?

Oh, we are home.

Hardly noticed.

0 Replies

Save For November

Pin this on your frig so you don't forget to take it to the polls with you in November. Here's who voted for Bush's Enabling Act in the Senate. These votes provided terrorists their biggest win in the war so far. They have succeeded in getting us to abandon the founding principle -- "Justice for All," upon which America was founded. Shame, shame, shame!

The NOT Justice for All - Senate 65

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

0 Replies

We are the frog in the pot.

Joe(only a little bit warmer each hour of each day)Nation

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Save For November

Pin this on your frig so you don't forget to take it to the polls with you in November. Here's who voted for Bush's Enabling Act in the Senate. These votes provided terrorists their biggest win in the war so far. They have succeeded in getting us to abandon the founding principle -- "Justice for All," upon which America was founded. Shame, shame, shame!

The NOT Justice for All - Senate 65

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)

<snip>

Stradee, the choir you're trying to preach to is WAAAAAY over there ...

0 Replies

OE said....

Quote:

May I point out that the terrorists are not a nation-state-like entity like Imperial Japan was during WWII?

Then why do you and so many on the left demand that they be treated like they are?

Why do you and others demand that they get the protections of the Geneva Convention,when they are not part of the GC?

0 Replies

Perhaps some have read more than just headlines?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Stradee wrote:
Save For November

Pin this on your frig so you don't forget to take it to the polls with you in November. Here's who voted for Bush's Enabling Act in the Senate. These votes provided terrorists their biggest win in the war so far. They have succeeded in getting us to abandon the founding principle -- "Justice for All," upon which America was founded. Shame, shame, shame!

The NOT Justice for All - Senate 65

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
<snip>

Stradee, the choir you're trying to preach to is WAAAAAY over there ...

stradee

This really doesn't appear to be about terrorism at all. Had 9/11 not happened, this administration would have desired a similar level of authoritarian control, but would have been pressed to find some PR mechanism (some trumpeted external/internal threat) to facilitate that characteristic of their personalities.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I picked the side that is not harboring, financing, supporting, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

No. Instead, you picked the side that is abducting people, detaining innocents for years, transfering captured people to countries where they get tortured, running a secret prison system, while sentencing torturers and murderers to a couple of weeks in jail, etc. etc. Do you ever wonder what "your side" has become in this fight against "the other side"?

Well, at least we know what you think of us, no matter how skewed your perception might be.

You think my perception is skewed. You certainly have the right to do so. I guess I can in turn let you know where I get my perception from. I've been looking for a few articles to back up my statements above. I said in my previous post that you picked the side that was

- abducting people

Quote:
Man sues CIA over torture claims

A man who says he was a victim of the CIA's alleged secret prisons is suing its former chief over torture claims.

Khaled al-Masri says he was kidnapped in 2003 while on holiday in Macedonia, flown to Afghanistan and mistreated.

His is a rare legal challenge to the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - flying suspects to third countries without judicial process.

- detaining innocents for years

Quote:
A Visit with a Man Wrongly Detained at Guantanamo

Murat Kurnaz was detained in the United States detention camp at Guantánamo, Cuba, for almost five years and released three weeks ago

- transfering captured people to countries where they get tortured

Quote:
Canada clears 'al-Qaeda suspect'

A public inquiry in Canada has strongly criticised the country's authorities for wrongly accusing a Syrian-born Canadian of terrorism.

Maher Arar was arrested in New York in September 2002 and accused of being an al-Qaeda member.

He was deported by US officials to Syria where he claims he was tortured.

- running a secret prison system

Quote:
Bush admits to CIA secret prisons

President Bush has acknowledged the existence of secret CIA prisons and said 14 key terrorist suspects have now been sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The suspects, who include the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have now been moved out of CIA custody and will face trial.

Mr Bush said the prisons were a vital tool in the war on terror and that intelligence gathered had saved lives.

- while sentencing torturers and murderers to a couple of weeks in jail

Quote:
Afghan abuse sentence 'lenient'

The Afghanistan government has said it is disappointed by the punishment given to American troops convicted of abusing two Afghan detainees who later died.

The government has said the two soldiers - sentenced up to three months in prison - had been shown unexpected leniency.

[...]

Specialist Glendale Wells pleaded guilty at a military court of pushing a detainee known as Dilawar against a wall. He also admitted doing nothing to prevent other soldiers at the US base at Bagram from abusing him.

In December 2002, Dilawar died at the base - after suffering what an internal US investigation revealed were repeated beatings by American troops while chained to the ceiling by his wrists.

Now, while many people read the news and notice where the American "War on Terror" has led, you seem to be happy to just ignore that or brush it off, maintaining that the other side are terrorists.

Maybe that makes you feel better in ignoring what's happening in the world and in your name.

I think that this is the best way to loose the fight against terrorism.

Among tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, of very good people, there will inevitably be some who are bad. The USA has done a good job of identifying, arresting, prosecuting, stripping rank and pay and imprisoning as appropriate those who are bad. Apparently the Afghanistan government isn't too upset with us. Their president was one of the very few who was kind enough to praise us and our president recently. (Of course that got little media attention while those damning us got front page coverage with photos.)

In the world of crime and punishment on the local level, state level, national level, and international level mistakes are made and **** happens. It's unfortunate but you have imperfect people trying to do things as well as they can under the circumstances.

You said yourself that the War on Terrorism isn't against a nation-state. That is very true and it requires different methods to fight it than would be required against a nation state. I get so tired of people assuming the worst of what America "might" be doing when they have absolutely no clue about it.

You can either look at the hundreds of thousands of people involved, the whole theater of operation, the immense good that has been accomplished, the thousands upon thousands of acts of human kindness that have been demonstrated or you can pick out isolated negative incidents and hold these up as "See? This is what Americans do. This is who they are."

It is instructive that those who most criticize and condemn America and/or its leadership rarely if ever have anything good to say about America or its leadership. Their motive looks very much like it is based on a desire to bring us down or humiliate us in any way they can. I will believe otherwise when the rhetoric, passion, verbage and criticism to express contempt and condemnation for terrorists even remotely approximates the torrent of that dumped on us.

It's hard to appreciate that kind of judgmentalism as being friendship. I think we are wise to take constructive criticism from friends who don't see us as the devil incarnate, don't you?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

OE said....

Quote:
May I point out that the terrorists are not a nation-state-like entity like Imperial Japan was during WWII?

Then why do you and so many on the left demand that they be treated like they are?

Why do you and others demand that they get the protections of the Geneva Convention,when they are not part of the GC?

Because the protections of the Geneva convention are there to protect us as well as our enemy. I don't mean protecting our soldiers from some potential future capture and torture; I mean protecting us from becoming butchers and torturers, just like the people we're supposedly fighting a war against. The Geneva conventions are the right thing to do, even if the other guy isn't doing the right thing. Following them lets us keep our white hats; and that's key to winning this thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre blames the media? It has been fashionable in some circles on the right to blame the media for its supposed leftward lean, but that is far from the truth. Who owns the New York Times and the Washington Post?

Jewish capitalists and entrepreneurs--that's who. Who owns Time Magazine and the major TV channels? It's not the common people. They are owned by the super rich who are hardly going to set up a process which will hurt the conservative cause. From time to time, just to make it look good, they will make a few efforts in the direction of the left but it is a scam. One has only to look at the massive contributions made to the political fundraisers by these same people who own and control the media.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know