Letters to the Editor
-
Some eedjit wrote:
[Jim White]: Suspending habeas corpus set back our legal system by hundreds of years.
[Sh**ter]: It was suspended in the case of one man, and that has since been rectified and expanded to all persons in the US by the Supreme Court. Now if one didn't know better and took your word that Habeas Corpus was no more, they would be right to be appalled.
Oh, so the Supes slapped the maladminstration around a bit (and that doesn't alarm the eedjit here). Seems that wasn't enough to bring them to their senses.
Care to explain why the maladministration is still trying to argue (in Boumedienne, ferinstance), that HC is not available?
Just remember that when they deny it to one, they deny it to all.
“We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties,” -- some crazy BDS-infested lb'rul.
Cheers,
-
Re: antiwar.commies
No intent to disparage actual commies by associating them with probable fascists, neo-fascists or proto-fascists.
Actual commies and "antiwar.commies" are mortal enemies, worse than antiwar.commies and neocons.
-
@ Paul R.
I think maybe Criminal Minds may be just a little too generous. Remember The Rockford Files? My favorite episode had two small-time crooks from New Jersey. I think the title of the episode was Just a Couple of Guys. They are my mental image of Bush.
What continues to confound me is just how ham-handed the Bush crimes have been and the absolute resistance to seeing them there is in the general public. We don't need the outrageous conspiracies. The bulk of the evidence is right there for those willing to point it out with the patience and rationality you suggest.
-
@Anonymous
I wanted to address your points specific to the buildings collapse. To be frank, a grand conspiratorial view of the world appeals to me, but the “the buildings did not collapse because of the aircraft collisions”arguments are so weak that they have come to strike me as about as intellectually honest as those supporting Intelligent Design. I mean no personal attack, but I would suggest you give your position some more thought. This particular line of reasoning gives conspiracy theories in general a bad name. And I like conspiracy theories.
“The pile or rubble left over after the two towers collapsed is most strange indeed. There were molten fires from metal that burned for days under the pile of rubble.”
Nothing strange about this observation. The heat of the fires suggested by the NIST report was high enough to melt aluminum, and there was plenty aluminum in the buildings. That they remained molten for days in the wreckage is also unsurprising. Build a big bonfire. Get it really hot and then smother it with dirt. Wait a few days. Dig it up. You will find red hot embers.
“Another point about the rubble, there was only one third the amount of material left after the collapse. Two thirds of the material that should have been there were vaporized and disappeared entirely?”
I have not seen this figure before. Citation please? Regardless, I don’t find it particularly alarming- I am unsure about what you mean by ‘vaporized,’ but I saw a lot of dust.
“Why did professor Steven Jones from BYU find thermate with some samples he had from the towers??”
As far as I now Dr. Jones did not find thermate, he found sulphur, a component of thermate and also of some of the dry wall in the buildings. Do you have a source for thermate? Also, Dr. Jones work on 9/11 has not been peer reviewed. Also, thermate cuts through steel assisted by gravity. Got a suggestion for how thermate fell horizontally through the core beams?
“Why did so many witnesses say they heard bombs going off just before the fall?”
A) I, personally, have no compunction at all about disregarding eye-witness accounts completely. People generally cannot accurately describe a car accident, never mind the events of 9/11.
B) Most of the eye witness accounts I have seen that mention ‘bombs,’ do so in context of something along the lines of “it sounded like a bomb going off” which, as most people have never heard a bomb go off, I interpret as “there was a really loud ‘boom’” which, considering what had just occurred, could have been caused by any number of things.
-
@Anonymous on MSM lack of coverage
The main stream media will not cover large demonstrations on the TV. There has been demonstrations already in this country over the war and it was not covered by TV news. Anything the establishment does not agree with they will ignore any coverage of it.
Traditional media will choose to ignore demonstrations and other signs that the people are, in fact, acting AND believing contrary to their so-called "conventional wisdom" until and unless the demonstrations and other signs of discontent actually does some form of damage to business as usual. Demonstrations can easily be ignored because they are "merely" a bunch of people yelling slogans and wearing t-shirts and carrying signs. Nothing actually occurs to disrupt, at the very least, the traditional media's business as usual. If demonstrations actually DID something (not necessarily violent, mind) disruptive then attention would accrue. If you were able to harrass and hinder reporters going about their treasonous complicity with the criminals raping the country, then they would be forced to report. If you were actually able to get an "unacceptable" candidate forced down their throat by actually defeating one of their anointed ones (on the GOP side, a fruitcake Huckabee would shake them up but a RP would REALLY knock them on their asses). On the Dem side, a Kucinich or Dodd win, or to a lessor degree, a Biden upset, would force them to report. Kucinich would be best, akin to RP's effect.
Peaceful same-old same-old demonstrations are ignored because they are easily ignorable. There must be something disruptive about them at this point in history to get attention. Alternatively, the form that protest takes would need to change from placards and chants during a parade to a form of protest that HURTS the power's that be, be they political powers or corporate powers. A LARGE loss in subscribers for print media as part of a protest would gather a lot of attention from the traditional print media. A large loss of viewers and/or a large push/boycott against advertisers on the various broadcast stations, cable and otherwise, would garner attention. Disruption that prevented people from being able to get to work OR heavily disrupted work itself would garner attention (no, I do not meant violent means with molotov cocktails, etc...at least yet...that sort of thing comes just prior to outright revolt and I do not believe we are close to that at this time).
Ignore police cordons, blow off permits, ignore entirely "free speech zones": the entire country is a free speech zone!.
If you want to NOT be ignored then you have to be impossible to ignore.
My 2 cents.