|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 23, 2006 5:54:18 GMT -4
Bush should arrest himself, for invading the wrong country! HA HA HA!
lol
|
|
|
Post by octoman on Mar 23, 2006 22:11:19 GMT -4
Perhaps the situation in Iraq is proceeding exactly according to plan. Think of that for a moment.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 23, 2006 22:57:37 GMT -4
Perhaps the situation in Iraq is proceeding exactly according to plan. Think of that for a moment. ??????????????????????????
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 25, 2006 16:25:50 GMT -4
So Bush wants to arrest journalists who leak classified information. Maybe he should start with Robert Novak, who published Valerie Plame's leaked identity as a CIA operative. Guess who probably leaked it? Cheney is high on the list of suspects. What hypocrites! They want to arrest or have the IRS audit everyone on their enemies list while they continue to break the law with impunity. They really want to criminalize any investigation into their own crimes and misdemeanors, like their illegal warrant-less wire-tapping, each instance of which is a felony. But Bush and Cheney think they're above the law. Just ask Alberto I Love Torture Gonzales. Hey neo-Kons, in a private meeting with members of Congress, Bush called the Constitution a g-d piece of paper. How's that for conservative? Bush to United States ConstitutionWell, I've just criticized our fearless leader. I must be with the terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 25, 2006 21:34:51 GMT -4
Well, I've just criticized our fearless leader. I must be with the terrorists.
I hope when you say "our" you are speaking for yourself. Many of us are non-US citizins and live in countries other than the US. Even among the US people here from what I have seen you'd find it hard to find a Bush supporter, and many of us are quite anti-Bush. Do not mistake the following of science and evidence for political support, just because the conclusion that the evidence draws is the same as the offical line.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 26, 2006 0:35:20 GMT -4
Well, I've just criticized our fearless leader. I must be with the terrorists.I hope when you say "our" you are speaking for yourself. Many of us are non-US citizins and live in countries other than the US. Even among the US people here from what I have seen you'd find it hard to find a Bush supporter, and many of us are quite anti-Bush. Do not mistake the following of science and evidence for political support, just because the conclusion that the evidence draws is the same as the offical line. My point is that the Bush Administration is engaging in criminal acts while trampling the Constitution of the United States. Based on some of your posts in this thread, I assume you disagree with that opinion. All federally elected officials swear an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Violating that oath is an act of treason. I also hold Congress accountable for voting in the "Patriot" Act, a thoroughly unconstitutional piece of treasonous legislation. An unconstitutional law is actually null and void, but that won't stop them from trying to enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 26, 2006 1:38:30 GMT -4
Well, I've just criticized our fearless leader. I must be with the terrorists.I hope when you say "our" you are speaking for yourself. Many of us are non-US citizins and live in countries other than the US. Even among the US people here from what I have seen you'd find it hard to find a Bush supporter, and many of us are quite anti-Bush. Do not mistake the following of science and evidence for political support, just because the conclusion that the evidence draws is the same as the offical line. My point is that the Bush Administration is engaging in criminal acts while trampling the Constitution of the United States. Based on some of your posts in this thread, I assume you disagree with that opinion. All federally elected officials swear an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Violating that oath is an act of treason. I also hold Congress accountable for voting in the "Patriot" Act, a thoroughly unconstitutional piece of treasonous legislation. An unconstitutional law is actually null and void, but that won't stop them from trying to enforce it. That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion, but don't try to substitute science or logic with ideology . If you subscribe to a conspiracy theory that is demonstrably arguable--simply because you are in opposition to the current administration-- you'd better have evidence to back it up, or folks on this board will rightly call you on it, no matter what their politics.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 26, 2006 1:51:02 GMT -4
This thread is specifically about Bush's War on Freedom, not the 9/11 conspiracy. But as long as you brought it up, the government's official explanation of 911 is also a Conspiracy Theory, a rather implausible one IMO.
Bush said in his speech to the UN shortly after 9/11 that outrageous conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11 should not be tolerated. I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 26, 2006 4:01:03 GMT -4
Based on some of your posts in this thread, I assume you disagree with that opinion.
Personally I don't really give a hoot about the US Consitution because it has nothing to do with me, I don't live in the US and I don't intend too. I do think that if it's found that Bush broke the law he should be impeached and dealt with under the law. However, that doesn't mean that if a reporter breaks the law in reporting something that is embargoed or classified he should get away with it because it was about the President doing something. Breaking the law to point out that someone else is breaking the law is not an excusable defence. From what I have seen in the case shown by the OP, the reporter did it knowing that there would likely be ramifications and is now crying "woo is me, I'm being reprerssed" when those ramifications land on him.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 26, 2006 15:57:10 GMT -4
Based on some of your posts in this thread, I assume you disagree with that opinion.Personally I don't really give a hoot about the US Consitution because it has nothing to do with me, I don't live in the US and I don't intend too. I do think that if it's found that Bush broke the law he should be impeached and dealt with under the law. However, that doesn't mean that if a reporter breaks the law in reporting something that is embargoed or classified he should get away with it because it was about the President doing something. Breaking the law to point out that someone else is breaking the law is not an excusable defence. From what I have seen in the case shown by the OP, the reporter did it knowing that there would likely be ramifications and is now crying "woo is me, I'm being reprerssed" when those ramifications land on him. When a government's leaders classify all evidence that would likely incriminate them as being protected by "National Security", and then have the gall to threaten to prosecute anyone who exposes these crimes, that government is a totalitarian police state. That's what the US is becoming very quickly, and it's all being justified by the lies surrounding the events of 9/11. According to your line of reasoning, as long as the government says some evidence or event is protected by National Security (the determination of which is solely at their discretion,) anyone who tries to investigate that evidence is committing a crime. How convenient for those in high office to thereby criminalize any attempts at exposing their crimes! That's the textbook definition of tyranny. That should concern everybody who cares about freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Mar 26, 2006 17:02:51 GMT -4
You are now implementing the oversight-comities as well. How many conspirators are there anyway? Somewhere in the order of a hundred thousand?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 26, 2006 22:20:35 GMT -4
According to your line of reasoning, as long as the government says some evidence or event is protected by National Security (the determination of which is solely at their discretion,) anyone who tries to investigate that evidence is committing a crime.
That's not what I said at all, but thank you for reinterrupting my words so you could build a strawman. There is a serious difference between investigating something and publically releasing something. The media is not the organisation to deal with matter of law and breaches of it anyways. Unless you are going to claim that every single person involved in goverment regardless of what their job is or which party they are in is involved, then the correct thing to do with such information is to take it to the police, of if you think the police/FBI are in on it too, the opposition party's senators. Otherwise you open the book to allowing the media to publish whatever they like, regardless to what it might mean. Personally I think that the world media has been going too far of late anyways, publishing things they know will be offensive and cause rioting and deaths. There are more appropriate ways to do things that to be sensationalistic and publish anything you want because you want too. If a person get a list of CIA agents, should they be allowed to publish that with impunity? How about if they release details of a military operation that leads to the deaths of soldiers? What about the reporter that reveals details or border security measures? Why should they be procecuted for the same offence as someone else that isn't, just because of the legality of the actions reported on? You can't have one law for one and one for another.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 26, 2006 23:45:38 GMT -4
The media is not the organisation to deal with matter of law and breaches of it anyways
The Bush Administration is trying to claim that publishing the leaked information about their illegal wiretapping is itself a crime. In other words they believe their criminal activity should be protected by the cloak of National Security. If it hadn't been leaked and published, we still wouldn't know about it. I don't know about your country, but in the U.S. our elected officials are supposed to be public servants, not our bosses. They work for the people, not the other way around. They are not above the law, as Bush and Gonzales would have you believe. The people have a right to know when those they have elected are committing crimes. That's why freedom of the press was included in the 1st Amendment. It was intended to prevent the criminalization of dissent and exposure of wrong-doing. Bush is trying to stifle that process which is just one of his impeachable offenses.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 27, 2006 0:31:44 GMT -4
Perhaps the situation in Iraq is proceeding exactly according to plan. Think of that for a moment. I'd say that's about as likely as Dick Cheney winning the Boston Marathon next month.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 27, 2006 1:24:44 GMT -4
Perhaps the situation in Iraq is proceeding exactly according to plan. Think of that for a moment. I'd say that's about as likely as Dick Cheney winning the Boston Marathon next month. It's working out quite nicely for Cheney and Halliburton with their no-bid defense contract over in Iraq. I'm sure Cheney's deferred salary there isn't a conflict of interest, and had nothing whatsoever to do with their getting the contract. Their subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root has just been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities (concentration camps) here is the U.S. in the event of a national emergency!
|
|