Letters to the Editor
-
FarrgoNW...
There is too much. Let me sum up.
So, is there any shred of hope that retroactive immunity for the spying telecoms can be prevented? It seems it's all over but the crying but I want to be sure I didn't miss something.
Also, is it only retroactive or do the telecoms now have carte blanche and warrants are optional?
-- farragoNW
There is always hope. The next legally sane president could seat a much larger Supreme Court and those hand picked justices could rule against the imunity deal, if there is anyone that Bushies haven't rounded up and renditioned to Jordan.
Giving someone retroactive immunity would likely give them immunity into the future too so it's likely to be a revolving door for the Cheney Justice Department (with help from Karl Rove) since his long dessicated and diseased fingers are in the Justice department and their planning on what cases to file and which ones to sweep under the rug.
See Dan Abram's 'Bush League Justice' series for a graph on the number of democrat targeted lawsuits versus the number targeting Republicans...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/24343/2/abrams_blj_prosecutions_121207.mov
Anyone remember political witch hunts? Think that the hunting of Bill Clinton was an aberration? You ain't seen nothin' yet...
Nearly all walls, seperations if you will, between the branches of government are torn down and in ruins. The separation between church and state is totally gone as well.
There is MUCH damage that has been done directly to the constitution. The same one that Bush put his hand on a Bible and swore to defend.
And yet impeachment is 'off the table'. And Christ said "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do".
Bush isn't a 'man of god™'. If he is than I'm the easter bunny. This has all been a bloodless coup d'état. America has already been overthrown. We just don't have troops in the streets, yet...
Bush and the Bushist agenda aren't going to go quietly into the night. Not by a long shot...
-
Plisko and Kitt
The vision of biker gangs with their mean girls hugging close to their rear ends (RWBMGAs works just fine for me.
-
@ pete b
You're right, I overstated my point. You're in favor of SOME of the same things they are.
So the terrorists are in favor of America living under the rule of law?
Absolutely. Applying the interpretations you seem to like, the law definitely works in their favor.
They're in favor of the government fighting them by all legal means, while preserving the privacy rights of ordinary Americans -- like you and me?
You bet. All "legal means" these days are nearly nonexistent. If that weren't enough, illegal means are provided for them, such as open borders and leaked agency procedures.
By the way, speaking of legal, I came to find out that the police have no legal responsibility to physically protect anyone. Or rather, if they don't, there is no legal recourse. That's news to me.They're in favor of the President exercising his power within the law, rather than acting as a law unto himself?
Of course. They are in favor of every thing that makes their life easier. And by coincidence so are you. I certainly don't think you are a terrorist, or in favor of terrorism. You are just in favor of some things that work in their favor. As to your characterization of Bush as a totalitarian dictator, that is certainly isn't true, just an opinion. One that works to the favor of terrorists as well.
-
shooter believes
in the "intelligent design" theory of politics.
-
@ shooter242
If they "hate us for our freedoms", then haven't they won if we lose our freedoms? I imagine some al Qaeda leaders chuckling to themselves at how easy it was to get our government to assert unlimited powers to disregard our laws and spy on its own people.
As to your characterization of my "characterization of Bush as a totalitarian dictator", those were not my words. His actual arguments, though, support in principle if not in practice, an unlimited power for the President. From there, it is a very short step to actual practice.
-
It is...
It's frightening to think that all that Bush has accomplished was because of the terrorist attacks on that day in September so many years ago.
Did Bush know? Did the supreme court know? Do the GOP enablers know? How much has Fox News gotten for their part?
It's an interesting view if you allow yourself to think about the possibility that most, if not all that has happened has been planned. Is Reid in on the plan? Does he sense the plan?
Which is more possible: That Bush didn't know, or Cheney didn't know and the whole Patriot Act, that was written before 9/11, was written in days and foisted on a totally obedient Congress, or that everything has gone according to some plan, or plans, and that everything has been occurring at their pace? They don't seem to have lost their control either, after the 'surprise elections' of '04. Was that accounted for, or planned to?
I'm not a huge conspiracy nut so I say these things with the fear that if they are correct, we are in a whole heap of trouble and nothing short of impeachment and a purging of the military leadership of the loyal Bushies will save America and the world in general. I don't take these thoughts lightly. To much has happened, to many things have been destroyed and ignored...
-
OK, Shooter, I'll bite.
If legitimacy is not governed by the rule of law, then by what? Who decides then what's OK and what's not? What can a President do and what can a President not do? Who decides and by what rules? Cancelling a general election, for example. How is that done under a system without the rule of law?
You're statement is at least clear, but needs fleshing out. I must admit I'm curious to see where you might go with this.
-
@HeyZeus
Somehow intelligent design doesn't do it for me. It sounds too normal for people that create whatever truth they want and will instantly switch to the other side and claim that as a truth. They practice the "creative thugery" brand of politics.