We Now Sanction What We Once Condemned, page 3

Well.. let's see, I remember a time, not so long ago, when disappearing citizens, taking away their rights as citizens and detaining them into perpetuity without legal recourse was something we accused the Soviets of. This is now a practice prerogative of King George. He also feels that no one has the right to question his authority on these matters. You see no tryanny in that?

What disappearing citizens? We have only detained noncitizens into perpetuity without legal recourse. The patriot act hasn't even been contested in the supreme court, and mostly deals with with legal and illegal aliens (if you go through the fine print). The odd thing about the patriot act is that it in and of itself isn't much of a law. It's actually a collection of changes to previous laws -- don't let the analysts fool you on that part.

Since the supreme court interprets the constitution (not you), then only it can say objectively that rights are lost because of the patriot act (thus rendering it unconstitutional).

"The high court has made it clear it will limit its decision to the narrow but key legal question of whether the Guantanamo detainees—all of them non-US citizens and mostly Muslims seized in Afghanistan nearly two years ago—have a right to seek redress in US courts to their being held incommunicado by the US government."
www.wsws.org...
(emphasis added)

The last time we detained citizens in the manner you described was in WWII (Japanese Americans), and the republicans were not in control of the country at the time.

The Patriot Act has basically voided certain ammendments to the constitution. Being a US citizen no longer protects the individual from undue process. If the administration labels you a terrorist, or terrorist sympathizer, you're pretty much screwed. And worse than that, once you're labled, you can count on the media to parrot the government's position, basically cementing your fate in the mind of Americans. Take a look at this case. It's worth pondering...

February 14, 2005

The Lynne Stewart Verdict
Stretching the Definition of "Terrorism" to New Limits
By ELAINE CASSEL

On February 10, after thirteen days of deliberations, a federal jury in New York City returned a guilty verdict in the case of 65-year-old attorney Lynne Stewart. The jury found Stewart guilty on five counts of defrauding the government, conspiracy, and providing support for terrorism.

Stewart will be sentenced on July 15. She may serve up to thirty years in prison. Appeals are expected to consume years. In the meantime, Stewart will lose her right to practice law and face hard prison time.

The eavesdropping on attorney-client communications that led to this prosecution would have been unimaginable before September 11. I will argue that this eavesdropping has a serious cost in inhibiting defense attorney's ability to zealously represent their clients. This cost is of a constitutional dimension: The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel cannot be served while the government is a third party present at attorney-client meetings.

Another problematic aspect of the Stewart prosecution is how far the definition of support for terrorism was stretched. Stewart never provided any financial support, weaponry -- or any other concrete aid -- for any act of terrorism. No act of terrorism is alleged to have resulted from her actions.
www.counterpunch.org...

It's interesting.. so many of my views (hardline stances) on issues have changed post- 9-11 and after the introduction of the ridiculously named Patriot Act. I once denounced organisations like the ACLU, for being bastions of Godless liberalism (think: cold war mindset LIBERAL=Commie). Now, I see how valuable an organisation like that truly is. (Even stalwart conservative Republican Bob Barr agrees w/me here.) It is so valuable that, as the above article demonstrates, these Defense lawyers are literally placing themselves in danger to defend those being accused (in matters of terrorism).

This administration has done more to side-step and ignore the constitution, not to mention the Geneva Conventions, than any other administration in US history. This power grab would probably cause our founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to urge US citizens to throw this George out on his a$$. At whatever cost.


The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

The 51st State
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags

France\'s Socialist President Hollande owns three homes on the Riviera
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags

Wisconsin, United States - Governor Scott Walker Releases Census Labor Numbers Early
  Posted 7 days ago with 2 member flags

America before the republican takeover
  Posted 14 days ago with 1 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: