Bush signs Military Commission Act - Bloggers Beware

Rockpuck, I don't have a lot of time to add to this post, but wanted to throw in a link from an interview with Noam Chomsky on his views of "who runs America". It's said, and I would have a lot more research to do on this, that banks basically run the country. Maybe more specifically, the Federal Reserve. It's also been said that there is a sort of elitist philosophy at work (that may actually be a simple byproduct of greed at the highest levels) that our monetary and employment system needs to be structured so that as many people as possible can be controlled and enslaved in a cycle of too low wages and too much debt.

Here are some pieces, though, from the Chomsky interview:

"Systems like capitalism and socialism and communism have never been tried. What we've had since the Industrial Revolution was one or another form of state capitalism. It's been overwhelmed, certainly in the last century, by big conglomerations of capital corporate structures that are all interlinked with one another and form strategic alliances and administer markets and so on. And are tied up with a very powerful state. So it's some other kind of system -- call it whatever you want. Corporate-administered markets in a powerful state system."

Further, "Does the US system work? Yeah, it works in some ways. Take, say, the last 10 years. One percent of the population is making out like bandits. The top 10 percent of the population is doing pretty well. The next 10 percent actually lost net worth, and you go down below and [it gets] still worse. I mean, it's such a rich country that even relatively poor people are still more or less getting by. It's not like Haiti.

On the other hand, it's an economic catastrophe. The typical family in the United States is working, latest estimates are, about 15 weeks a year more than they did 20 years ago -- just to keep stagnating, or even declining, incomes. That's a success in the richest, most privileged country in the world? But it works. I mean, you and I are sitting here and we're not starving, so something's working. It's a little unfair in my case because I'm up in that top few percent who, like I said, are making out like bandits. But most people aren't. So it's a mixed success. "

Also, "I don't see why we have to have a system in which the wealth that gets created is directed, overwhelmingly, to a tiny percentage of the population. Nor do I see a system that has to be as radically undemocratic. I mean, remember how undemocratic it is. A private corporation, let's say General Electric, is, in fact, just a pure tyranny. You and I have nothing to say about how it works. The people inside the corporation have nothing to say about how it works, except that they can take orders from above and give them down below. It's what we call tyranny.

And when those institutions also control the government, the framework for popular decision-making very much narrows. In fact, that's the purpose of shrinking government. It's so that the sphere of popular decision-making will narrow and more decisions will fall into the hands of the private tyrannies."

Also, "...government's shrinking, meaning the public role is shrinking. And business -- that is, unaccountable private power -- has to take its place. That's the dominant ideology. Why should we accept that? Suppose someone said, "Look, you've got to have a king or a slave owner." Should we accept it? I mean, yes, there are much better systems. Democracy would be a better system. And there are a lot of ways for the country to become way more democratic."

Finally, "There are a lot of changes that can be made. Now let's take, say, living wages. There are now living-wage campaigns in many places. They're very good campaigns, it's a great idea. But if you had a free press, what they would be telling you is the following, because they know the facts. If you look at American history, since, say, the 1930s, the minimum wage tracked productivity. So as productivity went up, the minimum wage went up. Which, if you believe in a capitalist society, makes sense. That stops in the mid-'60s.

Suppose you made it continue to track productivity. The minimum wage would be about double what it is now. Now, to say that we should continue doing what was done for 30 years and what just makes obvious sense -- there's nothing radical about that. If you had a free press, this would be all over the front page. But you're not going to find it on the front pages, because the corporate media and their leaders and owners, they don't want that to be an issue. Well, you know, this doesn't have to remain. We're free agents. We're not living in fear of death squads. We can organize to change these things. Every single one of them. "

He's a bright guy. The article is a good read, but there is a lot more available. This just scratches the surface. I'm middle class. The debate about the employment situation (or the political, ideological, etc.) situation in this country could go on. But I agree, the minimum wage should be higher. You might also watch the interesting documentary called The Corporation.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

Originally posted by OnTheDeck
It's said, and I would have a lot more research to do on this, that banks basically run the country.

A lot of research has already been done & posted here & here. You can start your own researches at those links & continue in whatever direction you want from there.

I think what the Bush Administration doesn't realize (or maybe they do realize & just don't care) is that, by continually contradicting our Rights under the First Amendment (& the rest of the Constitution in general), his Admin is actually committing Breach of Oath to "preserve, defend & uphold" the Constitution. It's not merely the President who has to take that Oath, ya' know.

By committing Breach of Oath, that should subject him & all of his criminal cohorts to Impeachment & the Judicial Indictment. By enforcing Unconstitutional actions under law, doesn't that make the Government into a group of terrorists?

...Tyranny, here we come!


[edit on 19-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]

RockPuck,in regards to your post,I certainly agree and I certainly understand. I suppose another aspect to that is why people are really so uninformed about what is going on.They just don't have the time to keep up with it. Anyway, all of that's beside the point.

Government corruption is not anything new. It's been heading in the direction that it's presently in for the last 40 years or better!! Nothing has been done to stop it. The two major political parties are still the only ones who ever manage to get over 20 percent of the vote. Why? What have the Democrats and Republicans done in the last 30-40 years that has been all that great to deserve our vote? What? Somebody please tell me because I am dying to hear it.

Yet,every election we vote along "party lines." We don't give anyone or anything new a chance at all. Why the hell not? We accept the drivel that the two political parties dish out to us as the gospel, while they are continuously sticking it to us!! Folks, regardless of your financial situation do something. Change the way you vote. Protest. Riot. Do something.For the love of God and all that is holy, do something.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What have the Democrats and Republicans done in the last 30-40 years that has been all that great to deserve our vote? What? Somebody please tell me because I am dying to hear it.

Yet,every election we vote along "party lines." We don't give anyone or anything new a chance at all. Why the hell not?

Hmmm...One thing to try is not vote for either of the two parties; Try voting "No Confidence" instead. Considering the controversies surrounding the easy corruption involving the Diebold machines, try voting with Absentee Ballot: That's sure to leave an accountable "paper trail" that will ensure your vote's not corrupted.

The main problem with the Gov is that they're not taking their Oaths seriously: Granted, the Constitution has been proven to be a "social contract" that isn't binding to anyone that doesn't agree to it's own T&C...But the President (Constitution Article 2, Section 1) binds himself legally to "preserve, defend & uphold the Constitution." Not only him, but the Senators and Representatives, and the Members of State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the States also must legally bind themselves to the Constitution (Article 6).

Any & all actions that they perform that does not fall in line with the writ of the Constitution subjects them to Impeachment, then judicial indictment afterwards.

As for Bush coming down on people who exercise their First Amendment Rights when they openly "disagree" with the Government...Doing so is not an act of Treason. According to Article 3, Section 3, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So where does "disagreeing" with the Gov fall into this definition?

Not only that, but the Declaration of Independance confirms that, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principals, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Even Abraham Lincoln confirmed this in his speech before Inaugurating into Office! So where has it been written (except by crooks who break their Oaths) that even attacks on the government itself (in defense of the People & the Nation) constitutes Treason? The whole Patriot Act & the Victory Act are nothing but Unconstitutionally enforced Tyranny & anything that supports those documents is being completely Unamerican.

Seems to me that the real terrorists are hiding behind the corrupted veneer of the Government itself.

I just read an article entitled, "Keith Olbermann & Constitutional Law Prof Jonathan TurleyOn Military Commissions Act" linked here.

The interview starts, "OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board.

OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

TURLEY: It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations.

Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

It couldn't be more significant. "

I urge everyone to read this, because this and related legislation is the most important legislation ever to come out of this country; and it pits the government of the United States directly against the citizens it purports to protect.

A court of law is no longer responsible for determining guilt. The paranoid, terror-obsessed despots that run this country get to determine your guilt, and there is no recourse. No court in this country can dispute these decisions - read these laws if you have the least bit of skepticism. It's real, very real.

So each and every one of you had better pray to God that our government's paranoid gaze does not arbitrarily fall on you, because if it does your life is over.

Our legal system has just been usurped, and the rights granted to every U.S. citizen by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been removed. You are now citizens of a criminal, untouchable and paranoid fascist government.

(cough)-bush-(cough)-A.hole-(cough)

This is nice and well, HR 6166? The same bill that goes into the outlines for what detainee's recieve what rights as pertaining to military tribunals and etc? The same bill that a thread was created for in the skunk works forum regarding a Satanic conspiracy, being that the 666 and the 616 are both present in the name of the bill, being the two major translations of the 'mark of the beast'? I think it is.

But you see, I never heard/read/discussed anything specific in that bill relating to spreading 'enemy propaganda' on the internet. What defines enemy propaganda, and what isn't defined in that category and not subject to these laws (like just badmouthing a government official)?

If you update your blog or political journal with something that simply makes the enemy look good in clear terms and the makes the U.S. look bad, what happens to you, as specified in this bill, to cut through the filling here? Cuz i'd really like to know for my own safety. Often I lash out on my journal at numerous political groups, in and out of the United States, including my country but with even more rants on countries seen as enemies to the United States. I always thought that since my rants did go after some of the 'common enemies', that an occasional rant against my own government or military or what have you would not be a big deal.

So, what defines breaking the law to allow law enforcement to arrest you under these terms via blog or journal? Specificly what type of material does it say in the exact writing of the bill itself, thats what im after. And those things are damn long.

That's the cause for serious concern here - the verbage indicates a determination of guilt in a very general way. The most disturbing point is that the law essentially leaves the "determination of guilt" up to the president, or his representative in the government/military.

This means that one man can determine the guilt without judicial oversight or a hearing, according to the law. Period. This is kind of like southern justice at its worst. If the presiding judge is in a bad mood, or is making an err in judgment, there is nothing you can do - and wording has been included making these laws immune to disputation by any court. These laws are final.

Despite this, I think we should feel total freedom to express ourselves. I do, and I intend to continue doing it. This president may try to nullify, or subsume, or create clever laws, or convoluted legislation hoping to invalidate the rights granted to every citizen by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but this will not and cannot be carried out. Our lawmakers, representatives, public institutions and the citizens of this country will not stand idly by while this administration attempts to construct a totalitarian regime.

Playing with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in an attempt to usurp power, and/or to dismiss or manipulate it at your whim, is to debase the philosophy on which those articles were created, and it brings shame and dishonor to the office that attempts to do so. This will not be tolerated, and we the people have all the power and more to defeat an attempt by any man to utilize the public office to which he was elected to exact his style of justice, and to assert control over the people he has sworn to serve.

And it is not criminal to point this out. It is not sedition. As much as this administration would like to consider it as such - it is not. It's a contrarian point of view, and apparently it's against the law - their law. Not ours. If we lose our freedom of speech, there won't be much left.

Ultimately, the citizens of this country, our representatives, members of the military, and even members of this administration have frowned on what this administration has done. Even Hitler had something like 95% popularity - the backing of his military and his people. This administration's actions have created factions within itself, and this includes members of the sitting cabinet-level Republican party all the way up to the White House. Where are you when 82% of your citizens believe you are lying to them, and even members of your military are questioning why they are fighting for you? You're in a bad spot.

I suggest it would be near impossible to enforce a lot of these laws unless they are completely justified, because too many legal authorities are uncomfortable with one man's interpretation of Constitutional law, regardless of Bush's protections against legal disputation. This citizenry cannot and will not be controlled by force.

There is a short interview with Noam Chomsky on Google video, where he points out that not only can people not be controlled by force, but that these controlling and unconstitutional institutions have always collapsed, or imploded under pressure of public outcry and action.

We the people still make this country what it is, and there is no political force that we cannot overcome and bring to justice. It doesn't just behoove the president to enact the will of the people - it's his f**king job!

[edit on 23-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

Anyone here who think this is good to torture people because they are terrorists or because they are suspected should watch this video...

Video of Waterboarding

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Vitchilo]

You know reading through all this stuff you have to wonder. Is there someone already in this thread tracking us?

Think about it.

You're absolutely right! As stated in my previous posts, our government is sending a task force to our message boards and Internet blogs to see what is being posted, make a determination if the material posted is "anti-American talk" or "enemy propoganda", and then to engage the individuals posting this information.

Who determines what qualifies as "enemy propoganda"? THE SAME TWISTED F**KING GOVERNMENT THAT IS SENDING PEOPLE TO MESSAGE BOARDS TO THREATEN ITS CITIZENS. This is an intimidation tactic and it is criminal. Our government is sending individuals to our message boards to "challenge" people with dissenting views. Call it what you want. When people come to my house to challenge me on my political views I ask them why the f**k they're at my house asking me about my political views (not that, you now, that happens a lot...).

If this doesn't scare the living sh*t out of everyone reading this post I don't know what will! These acts of insinuation onto our message boards - the free citizens of his country's message boards - is a hostile and antagonistic act by our government to impose as much control and aggression against its own citizens that it can by law - and under the guise of national security. I am not overreacting here.

This government knows it cannot take away the Freedom of Assembly, but they create "Free Speech Zones" to try to control and mitigate it. They can't take away our Freedom of Speech, so instead they intimidate people that voice a dissenting point of view. They can't take these things away, so they're trying to seep and slither through every available loophole, and fill in every crack until they've sealed us in, little by little, into a tight little controlled box - and THAT is anti-American! Excercising free speech is not anti-American, you paranoid, unConstitutional, pr*cks! We're excercising so much "America" and patriotism that it's coming out of our ears. You're the pr*cks who are taking America away from us (if I seem angry, I am...)!

The citizens of this country don't need "enemy propoganda". Our government is doing a swell f**king job creating dissent and outrage on their own. This doesn't need to be pointed out. Seriously. You need look no further than your own coc aine stained bathroom mirror. You have the corner on that f**king market. In fact, I would suggest the situation is so f**king dire for this administration that they are considering sending people to our message boards to try to defend Pol Pot's nephew to its really, freaking freaked out citizens - wait, they're already doing it.

Hey, I have a message for the political pep squads - STAY THE F**k AWAY FROM OUR MESSAGE BOARDS YOU SICK, PARANOID BAS*ARDS!

[edit on 23-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

Just read an Alex Jones article which states, "A coordinated effort to downplay the implications of the fact that the bill affects American citizens, in the face of extensive coverage on the part of Keith Olbermann, is underway in an attempt to offset the possible repeal of this draconian legislation.

The most recent example of a U.S. citizen being targeted using terror legislation involved BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast, who was pursued by Homeland Security and charged with unauthorized filming of a “critical national security structure,” (an Exxon Oil refinery that was readily available to anyone with an Internet connection at Google Maps), under PATRIOT Act legislation. The charge was later dropped after an activist outcry.

The recent historical precedent for U.S. citizens being charged under legislation originally passed in the name of combating non-US terrorists only, provides clear motivation for the Military Commissions Act to be used in the same way."

Also, "Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Therefore any legislation passed by Bush automatically applies to American citizens because, as the Washington Post reported, after 9/11 Bush announced his "parallel legal system" in which he could declare any individual on the planet an enemy combatant and order their summary execution.

"The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say."

Finally, "Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Just to recap, you can be designated an "enemy combatant" by any number of arbitrary criteria determined by whichever official, as it happens to suit him, then arrested without cause or trial, and jailed permanently, or simply executed. Just wanted to sum up.
Is our government taking public relations lessons from Pol Pot?

SOURCE

Originally posted by OnTheDeck
The citizens of this country don't need "enemy propoganda". Our government is doing a swell f**king job creating dissent and outrage on their own.

I have noted, more than once in these forums, that the real terrorists are in the government...Which also led to my pointing out some quotes from the Declaration of Independance & the Constitution as I wrote them.

It's the President's job to enforce the laws legislated through Congress...Not to create laws of his own, as any & all Executive Orders actually do. Any such action is Breach of Oath & Breach of Legal Contract (by swearing the Oath, this binds all Offices & positions, Federal & State, to the Constitution as a legal contract...It's not merely the President who must take the Oath) against the Constitution; Constitutional (Article 1, Section 3) punishment specifies Impeachment by Congress (including automatic disqualification for any government Office) & follows up with Judicial litigation for any such crimes committed by the President & (as stated in Article 6, Clause 3, quoted) "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." which includes all of these Offices!

It's not that Congress has any say over what Unconstitutional legislation may be passed either...Article 6, Clause 2, quoted:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Bold emphasis is mine)
In short, any legislation or Executive Order, any action whatsoever performed by anyone in the government structure can not & must not be allowed to commit any breach of the Constitution itself! Any such legislation, even if passed by Congress & not Vetoed by the President cannot be enforcable by any means!

Therefore, whether or not Congress passed the Patriot Act or not (never having been given time to properly debate & discuss it not withstanding), it cannot be treated as enforcable law! The Military Commission Act is the same...Not to be treated as enforcable by any means.

As a side note to an earlier reference in this thread, the creation of "Free Speech Zones" is clearly an offense against the First Amendment (quoted, bold emphasis mine again):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In short, the establishment of such Zones is abridging those Rights!

These examples & many others of the government committing high crimes, misdemeanors & treason against the People & the Constitution that they've sworn to "preserve, defend & uphold" are the reasons why I've been referring to the real terrorists as being the government itself!

I've also pointed out that there should be no room in the US government for "politics": As politics has been defined as "the art of compromise" but the Consitution doesn't leave any room to be compromised, politics should not be used in the government at all.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]

Midnight - thank you for posting! The citizens of the United States have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as their one and immutable contract with the forefathers of this country. Period. And that contract is binding in this universe and any other universe in perpetuity for ever. Period.

No man or institution can consider himself/itself above the Constitution of the United States. Period. These are immutable laws and cannot be "abridged" or "revoked".

If any individual or institution, in particular the U.S. government, thinks they can stamp on the Constitution, and strip citizens of this country of their inalienable rights - for whatever reason! The guides in the Constitution ARE NOT PROVISIONAL! - then those parties have violated the most sacred laws of this country - AND ARE THEREBY ENGAGING IN THE CRIMINAL ACT OF TERRORORISM!

They are debasing the laws that put them in office, and dishonoring our country. They disgrace the founding ideologies that made this country. The Office of the President of the United States was not created to enfore one individual's will over the world and your own citizens - especially when it is in opposition to the will of your citizens. This is treason of the highest order, and any laws created by this office that act to revoke, remove, or suspend rights granted by the Constitution are not binding in this country. Try them in China, you might get better luck.

If you want a definition for the word our president is using to remove the rights granted to every citizen, which are immutable and cannot be removed, here are some below:

Some definitions:

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.
Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
FBI Definition

Look familiar? Do other countries that accuse the U.S. of terror seem so far off the mark now? Our government is a terror machine. It is lead by its military. And now that paranoid machine is turning a wild and paranoid eye to its own citizens.

Midnight, keep up the excellent work! Thanks!

Originally posted by OnTheDeck
Midnight - thank you for posting! The citizens of the United States have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as their one and immutable contract with the forefathers of this country. Period. And that contract is binding in this universe and any other universe in perpetuity for ever. Period.

Not quite true; I forgot the exact court-case, but it was proven that no one is bound to the Constitution unless he actually signed it (which the Forefathers did) or he willing declares to bind himself to it. My post above merely points out exactly who is legally bound to it, as specified by Article 2, Section 1 & Article 6.

I believe (& this belief is backed up by documentation & recorded history) this is how our Government got so badly corrupted by the Corporations...They are not bound to the Constitution, except how the government itself keeps control over them. Currently, a too-large percentage of the government is held by corporate puppets (Note how the government refused to enforce law & justice on Enron, for one prime example). The Corps use greed, deception, misdirection & conspiratorial acts to slowly insinuate themselves into control over the government; Who the hell do you think sends the most lobbyists to Washington D.C. anyway?

The real trick is to make sure that the truth gets out to enough people so that they'll stop merely "accepting" what's happening & then something will be done about it...The main problem is that too many people are still too wrapped up in their own lives to care about anyone else. I don't remember who originally said this & I'm paraphrasing from an old memory, but:
"When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Blacks, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Black. When they came for me, nobody said anything because there was no one left."

[edit on 25-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]

I mean both legally and philosophically the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are our contracts. Separating that out, I mean that, legally, the inalienable rights provided in that document to the citizens of this country cannot be taken away. Philosophically, these are the ideas that founded this country, and make it stand out as a beacon of justice and freedom for the rest of humanity.

Amendments can be made to the Constitution, but our rights cannot be taken away. Our president and Congress, however, can attempt to pass legislation, suspending the rights granted in the Constitution, which is happening. I would submit, however, that we should not stand for this very unConstitutional suspension/revocation of those rights.

The fact that our government's intentions and motives have not only been brought into question, but are being opposed by a majority of this country, not to mention members of the military and sitting members of the White House, should give pause. It's a disgrace to the idealogy under which this country was founded, and an affront to the right of freedom and the pursuit of happiness that should be granted by every government to each and every human being on this planet.

Corporations influence politics in the form of soft money contributions. These contributions do not have a cap and can influence government policy. Here is one link that goes into some detail in laymen's terms regarding this.

Here is a link to the documentary called The Corporation. This describes how lawyers have given corporations legal protection granted to individuals, except that these are organizations and not an individual person. Great documentary.

Just read an article (thanks, Rense) that Bush may have missed his opportunity to sign the Military Com. Act into law by delaying signature beyond the requisite 10 day period.

You can read for yourself here. Whether or not this will be recognized by our congress as binding is another story...the author of the article makes an astute observation in closing, "Even as the most amateurish constitutional historians realize, we have not been able to keep the republic Ben Franklin feared we could not 220 years ago. Now it seems we may have to be concerned with that piece of philosophy from Mao — the one about “Power coming out of the barrel of a gun.”

OnTheDeck, I can't use your links. This is what I got:

Error establishing a database connection
This either means that the username and password information in your wp-config.php file is incorrect or we can't contact the database server at localhost. This could mean your host's database server is down.

Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
Are you sure that the database server is running?
If you're unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your host. If you still need help you can always visit the WordPress Support Forums.

If you can re-post your links without being logged into your account there, please do so.

[edit on 28-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]

Sorry for the delayed response. The links I posted all worked when I posted them. And I do not post links that require any sort of login. They are all free and clear.

The link for the info on soft money went here (I'm purposely posting the whole link, so you can see where it lead) - www.opensecrets.org...
- but that is coming up blocked. Don't know why. Sites are weird in that they are here one moment and gone the next. Maybe someone didn't like people providing links to their reports/articles? Anyway, here is a link to an explanation of soft money -
link.

My last two links were to this site - electbarnhill.com... and this site - electbarnhill.com... - and they did not require a login for me...

Sorry about that...

On a side note, I wonder if there are disinfo agents, or other mischevious fellows reading certain ATS poster's threads, following the links, and alerting those linked parties of this fact...just something to think about...It's not paranoid thinking in this day and age to think that someone is listening in - our president has asked to be able to listen to phone conversations, and has already formed a task force to infiltrate threads/blogs, so I suggest it's just practical thinking...

Also, I've had posts lock up, or become erased at any point during the posting process, so as a backup, just about every time I finish adding sentence or a paragraph to my posts, I will highlight all of that info, use the "copy" command to copy it to my clipboard, and continue writing. Before I post now, I will copy the entire raw post in the active box, and then click "Post Reply" or "Edit Post". Even if no one is responsible for erasing or sabotaging posts, it's critical to keep your train of thought, and to not have to go back and try to reconstruct your post. It's also a pain in the a**.

*highlight, copy, Edit Post*
[edit on 29-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 29-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

Very interesting article about Military Comission Act from a student at the American University Of Paris...

Ok so midterms elections in the US are on Tuesday. Why am I soo concerned all of sudden ? Because of this wonderful thing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is.

Boring much ? Yes I get your point so here is a little breakdown of what's a problem about this law, passed by the US Congress this October :

First of all, you have to know that the MCA is Congress and Bush's reaction to a Supreme Court landmark ruling: In this decision, the Court struck down the system of military commissions that #head Bush had authorized in November 2001, finding that #head lacked congressional authorization to establish the commission. In 2002, according to my PLO boy Adam, Bush and his partners decided to unsign from the ICC (International Criminal Court). This is without precedent. Anyhoooo ... The Court also found that the commissions' procedures violated basic fair trial standards required by the Geneva Convention, which it said mandated the human treatment of all persons held by the US "in the conflict with Al Quaeda".

Basically, it means no Habeas Corpus anymore. Nobody's free and everybody's guilty. A couple of points to make you scared for life :

- Limited Discovery Rights : The law allows the prosecution to withhold classified sources and methods of interrogations from both the defendant and his counsel. As a result, it will be extremely difficult for defendants to establish that evidence was obtained through torture or other coercive interrogation methods. Unless military commision judges are extremely vigilant, and we can all laugh out loud at the prospect, the prohibition on evidence obtained through torture could become ... virtually meaningless.

- Right to Exculpatory Evidence (I just learnt to spell it) : although defendant have a general right to the disclosure of any exculpatory evidence - which is evidence tending to show they are not responsible for the crime they are accused of committing - they are NOT allowed to see any classified evidence, even if it is exculpatory. Instead, they will be shown an "adequate substitute" (understand : a made-up lie). If the source of the evidence is classified, the defendant could be denied access to important evidence that may establish his innocence.

It's funny how this reminds me of mock trials under communism. I think Soljenitsyne would just love this. And then have a heart attack.

- Death Penalty : The law allows the death penalty for any crime that resulted in the death of another.

AS A CONCLUSION ... enjoy your last days as a free human being. Anybody can be arrested and convicted of a crime they didn't commit since their mock defense won't have access to any file and they can die for it, too. I think it is high time to recognize the current US Government as unrepresentative of their population and especially endangering its population ; as such, the Bush administration is not fulfilling its constitutionnal duty (since it is, anyway, violating the US Constitution) and should be impeached.

AND THE BEST PART OF IT IS :

the definition of unlawful enemy combatant against which the law is addressed.

Includes those who have "purposefully and materially" supported hostilities against the US,
- even if they have not taken part in the hostilities themselves
- even if they are arrested far from the battlefield.

Which basically turns ordinary civilians - such as, I don't know, a cook or a cleaning lady, someone sending money to their soldier friend / family member - into "combatants" who can be placed in military custody and hauled before a military commission, facing the threats cited above.

Thanks for reading. Now you can throw up.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Vitchilo]