It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Marg c'mon, i have seen people take comments out of context in here pretty much every day, and you have been one of them.


Yes you are right but you have done it too and many if all people in these boards, it is a conspiracy site after all.



I know a lot of people wish these things to be true, but we need to think with a clear mind instead of jumping to conclusions.


In this I agree with a certain degree, perhaps foreigners may have that inclination specially some that disagree with how the present administration is handling foreign affairs.

And perhaps Americans that would feel more happy under a dictatorship, but most Americans are Worry and unhappy with the present administration.

Bush term is riddle with bigger government, bigger spending a patriot act that leave to many loop holes for abuse of power, to many scandals here in and abroad and now it seems that Bush is getting himself a nice littler personal office that he can command anyway he wants under the name of Homeland Security or may I said in my opinion that you and JS are not very fond of The new American Gestapo.

Remember this Is a conspiracy site after all.



If those statements really came from her, which I am starting to doubt since for some reason this appeared only in an unknown website and didn't make into the headlines which every newsmedia would have picked since day one if it was true,


I have seen anything yet of the contrary and I Imaging that you will be the first to find the link to the contrary.

But so far none has been provided leaving the article standing as true.



she thinks we should stop the first steps which could lead to a dictatorship from ever taking place,


See I agree that any conscious citizen in a democracy should ever be vigilant of the doings of the elected officials including the president.

Perhaps you see not wrong and that is your opinion but is plenty of reason to be worry about what is going on it seems that now a days freedom of speech is becoming our worst enemy and is becoming very hard for people that spot a wrong doing by our administration to come forward and tell the American public.



Now, the other part which makes me think this is BS, is the purpoted statement in which it is claimed she said that Republicans are pretty much agreeing with allowing judges to be killed..... I am sorry, but that tells me this story is total BS. IMO this is just another made up story to be used as a political tool.


I interpret this in a different way that you do my friend, I don't see it as a physical killing but rather than been opposed or influence in their rulings by personal and party loyalties.

Judges are not to be influence by anything but they are to interpret the law as it stands and to make sure that the constitution stands as the primary issue with the law so far this something that is becoming questionable because Bush seems to be working under his own view of what the constitution is to be and how it extend while he gives himself absolute powers.

Occurs under the tag that is he is Fighting a war on terror and he is doing what he does because he has to protect American.

But who is going to Protect American from him



I agree with jsobecky completly.


Occurs you do

I see a dictatorship shaping in our nation not by the self impose powers of one person, president or man.

Neither is going to be impose immediately or overnight, but rather gradually until one day you wake up and notice that you not longer are you own person but you are bind by powers beyond you.

Because our country still is a capitalism and free inter prised and free markets are so profitable by the elite a dictatorship or totalitarian government per say will not be obvious.

Under the Fighting on terror our government has been tightening our freedoms, yes we still have them or we are lure to believe that they are still there, but the truth is that is all about Control.

More and more laws are popping out to control everything we do and to have a different interpretation of what our constitutional rights are.

But Ask your self a question who has ask any of We the people if that is what we want.

No Muabddib everything that is done in our nation is the sole way of thinking and doings of the ones in power not for our own benefit but to benefit themselves.

And another elections and another president is not going to change a thing, but for the contrary its just adding more to what the last one has done.

The time of dictators like Saddam, Castro and other totalitarian governments is obsolete now is another type of dictatorship.

You may disagree with me but that is what I believe.




posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Sorry to say it BH, but the screws are tightening. This just in - and virtually ignored on ATS:


Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office Seizes Hard Drives From News Organization


Once, Freedom of the Press was a foundation of American liberty. Not any more.

Soficrow, can you elaborate on that headline? Because, based upon your post, it sounds like you are saying that the First Amendment was arbitrarily abridged in that case.

Is that really what you want to imply?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Wow...
well, we can see the depths of defensivness regarding ANY negative comment on this administration...
and the lengths to which some will go...

This is SDO here folks... and she DID say it... there is more than enough proof on the various websites and news agencies...

NPR does it for me though... they truly are the middle line of reporting now (contrary to popular beleif)
THAT particular link made no mention of JSObeckys statement regarding republicans allowing judges to be killed (paraphrase)...
but only that the fear of judges not being defended, or allowed to be attacked as reprisal for not agreeing with a certain legal question, is a POSSIBLE issue.
which was a dinsinfo type statement... tried to make the whole issue laughable... (hey, can't blame really... it almost worked)

but it isn't laughable... and it isn't extreme... it is becoming a middle America perspective on both sides of the political lines...

Everyone out here is at least starting to see the things that SDO talked about... she isn't saying that the republicans are pushing for a dictatorship... what she is saying is: (again paraphrased in laymens terms)

"that republicans are initiating steps that are putting us on an easy slope to dictatorship, and we the people should stand up to stop any of those actions that COULD lead to it"

Or in okie terms "aint it best we close the barn door, BEFORE that cow gets out... because that is one mean cow"

[edit on 15-3-2006 by LazarusTheLong]


df1

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by soficrow
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office Seizes Hard Drives From News Organization

Soficrow, can you elaborate on that headline? Because, based upon your post, it sounds like you are saying that the First Amendment was arbitrarily abridged in that case.

Is that really what you want to imply?

I will state my opinion directly so as to leave no doubt in your mind. The Pennsylvania AG with malice has violated the intent of the first ammendment by seizing the computer data. In seizing the data which may contain reporter sources for all stories it serves to intimidate press sources by effectively putting the press sources on notice that their anonymity is at risk when informing the press.

How can you doubt that this does not infringe on the first ammendment?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Untill 2008 I think SDO needs to shut her mouth.......Untill an Election is not held These words she says about a Dictatorship are completely CRAZY......Senility why she is no longer a Judge.....



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Truth_Hunter_1976:

You know NOTHING about her, then... She is one of the great legal intellectuals of our time.

Perhaps the system of government you would be more comfortable in can be found in China.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Yes you are right but you have done it too and many if all people in these boards, it is a conspiracy site after all.


Marg, please, let's not go there.


Originally posted by marg6043
In this I agree with a certain degree, perhaps foreigners may have that inclination specially some that disagree with how the present administration is handling foreign affairs.


Not really so Marg, we have been having some people already been saying "see i told you the U.S. is a dictatorship, etc, etc, etc". In fact some of the people that seem to be wishing this to be true, are Americans.


Originally posted by marg6043
And perhaps Americans that would feel more happy under a dictatorship, but most Americans are Worry and unhappy with the present administration.


Marg, there are people who get really happy when they think they are proven right, and we have had a few members express with joy that they were right and that this proves the U.S. is a dictatorship, when in fact there are only claims and nothing more.


Originally posted by marg6043
Bush term is riddle with bigger government, bigger spending a patriot act that leave to many loop holes for abuse of power, to many scandals here in and abroad and now it seems that Bush is getting himself a nice littler personal office that he can command anyway he wants under the name of Homeland Security or may I said in my opinion that you and JS are not very fond of The new American Gestapo.


Please Marg, inform yourself a little... Anyone attempting to claim that the U.S. is in any way similar to Nazi Germany is obviously delluded.

First of all the main premise of Nazi Germany was to rid the nation of minorities, not allow any minorities in government, and to keep the white race clean.... None of that is true in the U.S. and in fact the present administration is the first one in history which has more minorities in power than any other, so your claim on "The American Gestapo" is not even funny.



Originally posted by marg6043
Remember this Is a conspiracy site after all.


There are many conspiracy sites out there, and quite a few conspiracies are nothing but wild fantasies and ramblings. This forum is supposed to be different from other sites where anything and everything is accepted as the truth. Just because there is a conspiracy theory, it does not immediately makes it true.



Originally posted by marg6043
I have seen anything yet of the contrary and I Imaging that you will be the first to find the link to the contrary.


Take a look at my previous post, in there I explain why I said this.


Originally posted by marg6043
But so far none has been provided leaving the article standing as true.


On the contrary, the burden of proof lies on those who say this is true. There are comments in these "allegations" which shows that this is being used as a political tool and nothing more. Where is the proof that "Republicans are allowing judges to be killed"....



Originally posted by marg6043
See I agree that any conscious citizen in a democracy should ever be vigilant of the doings of the elected officials including the president.


Marg, there are people out there that would claim anything for political gain, and part of the allegation that this lady is supposed to have said is nothing more than an attempt at political bickering which should raise more doubt on the purported statements.


Originally posted by marg6043
Perhaps you see not wrong and that is your opinion but is plenty of reason to be worry about what is going on it seems that now a days freedom of speech is becoming our worst enemy and is becoming very hard for people that spot a wrong doing by our administration to come forward and tell the American public.


And i ask you what freedom of speech is it being infringed upon because the administration does not want the press, or anyone else telling suspected terrorists that they are being investigated?

Do you think that it is fine and dandy that the press would, for example, something which did happen not too long ago, tell a Muslim mosque that they are being investigated by the U.S. government and how they are being investigated because there is evidence that they have terrorist ties, meanwhile the investigation is being done and it's still classified?....

Why don't we give the keys to the U.S. to terrorists if doing what I said above is fine and dandy?.....

People are preocupied with selling control of U.S. ports to UAE, yet these same people think it is ok and dandy for the press to tell mosques, which have had some terrorist ties or are preaching violence in the U.S., that they are being investigated and how they are being investigated by the U.S. government meanwhile the investigation is still in process and is still classified?.......




Originally posted by marg6043
I interpret this in a different way that you do my friend, I don't see it as a physical killing but rather than been opposed or influence in their rulings by personal and party loyalties.


Whether you want to interpret it differently the fact remains that we can find in that article that Republicans are being blamed for the deaths of judges, and since this is not true the only reason why these alleged statement exists is just for political bickering.


Originally posted by marg6043
Judges are not to be influence by anything but they are to interpret the law as it stands and to make sure that the constitution stands as the primary issue with the law so far this something that is becoming questionable because Bush seems to be working under his own view of what the constitution is to be and how it extend while he gives himself absolute powers.


Marg....let me excerpt the part i was talking about and then tell me what you said above has anything to do with that statement.


These are peculiar times, and when Republican politicians appear to endorse the killing of judges who make rulings of which they disapprove, it's maybe understandable that a distinguished judge like Sandra Day O'Connor, expressing views calculated to enrage Republican politicians, might sensibly look to a small podium with a weak sound system for fear of being heard too clearly by the likes of Cornyn and DeLay.


Excerpted from.
www.guardian.co.uk...




Originally posted by marg6043
Under the Fighting on terror our government has been tightening our freedoms, yes we still have them or we are lure to believe that they are still there, but the truth is that is all about Control.


Really?.... what was the first thing you said, and pretty much everyone who is claiming the U.S. is becoming a dictatorship, when 9/11 happened?...

Weren't some of the same people that are now claiming that the U.S. is turning into a dictatorship that the U.S. allowed 9/11 to happen or there wasn't enough "control and security" and that terrorists were running around freely?....

Some people want to claim that the U.S. government allowed 9/11 to happen because "according to them the U.S. looked the other way" when in fact our intelligence agencies were suffering from the actions of the past president, yet when more measures are taken to at least try to stop any other 9/11 it is suddenly "the U.S. is turning into a dictatorship"?.....


Originally posted by marg6043
More and more laws are popping out to control everything we do and to have a different interpretation of what our constitutional rights are.


Tell me, who is trying to control you when what the government is going after is people who want to tell anyone and everyone, including terrorists, that they are being investigated because of their terrorist ties?.....

Where does it say in the Constitution that the press should be allowed to warn terrorists that they are being investigated and how they are being investigated?..... If to you that's what "freedom of the press" should mean, that's your opinon, and a wrong opinion at that.


Originally posted by marg6043
But Ask your self a question who has ask any of We the people if that is what we want.


So do you want the press, or anyone else for that matter, to tell those who are being investigated for their ties to terrorism, how they are being investigated, who is investigating them and when the investigation started or is going to start?.....



Originally posted by marg6043
You may disagree with me but that is what I believe.


We can all agree to disagree.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
................
THAT particular link made no mention of JSObeckys statement regarding republicans allowing judges to be killed (paraphrase)...



These are peculiar times, and when Republican politicians appear to endorse the killing of judges who make rulings of which they disapprove, it's maybe understandable that a distinguished judge like Sandra Day O'Connor, expressing views calculated to enrage Republican politicians, might sensibly look to a small podium with a weak sound system for fear of being heard too clearly by the likes of Cornyn and DeLay.


Excerpted from.
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hunter_1976
Untill 2008 I think SDO needs to shut her mouth.......Untill an Election is not held These words she says about a Dictatorship are completely CRAZY......Senility why she is no longer a Judge.....


why, are you saying that in 2008, it will be appropriate for her to say this because we will be in a dictatorship, thus no elections??

she is no longer a judge bacuse the responsibility of caring for her husband took precedence in her opinion. she hasn't been out of the supreme court for that long, and well, wasn't she one of the few that spoke out against the idea of extending the right to eminent domain, if she was being senile, ummm.......maybe she's wrong, and we have nothing to worry about as big business and big government scoops up title to all the land in the US? and, well, let's face it, she IS an american citizen, she can say what she wants when she wants. if some want to just chalk what she says off to senility, fine, they have that freedom. but well, to those who repect the lady, and see her as just re-enforcing what they are already reading in the tea leaves so to speek, well, they are free to take this as just another warning sign.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by Truth_Hunter_1976
Untill 2008 I think SDO needs to shut her mouth.......Untill an Election is not held These words she says about a Dictatorship are completely CRAZY......Senility why she is no longer a Judge.....


why, are you saying that in 2008, it will be appropriate for her to say this because we will be in a dictatorship, thus no elections??

she is no longer a judge bacuse the responsibility of caring for her husband took precedence in her opinion. she hasn't been out of the supreme court for that long, and well, wasn't she one of the few that spoke out against the idea of extending the right to eminent domain, if she was being senile, ummm.......maybe she's wrong, and we have nothing to worry about as big business and big government scoops up title to all the land in the US? and, well, let's face it, she IS an american citizen, she can say what she wants when she wants. if some want to just chalk what she says off to senility, fine, they have that freedom. but well, to those who repect the lady, and see her as just re-enforcing what they are already reading in the tea leaves so to speek, well, they are free to take this as just another warning sign.


Well Maybe she needs to take care of her Husband insted of makeing speeches that make me even MORE happy she is nolonger a SCJ.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by Truth_Hunter_1976
Untill 2008 I think SDO needs to shut her mouth.......Untill an Election is not held These words she says about a Dictatorship are completely CRAZY......Senility why she is no longer a Judge.....


why, are you saying that in 2008, it will be appropriate for her to say this because we will be in a dictatorship, thus no elections??


I think if it comes to the point where there are no elections, then we can be sure that we have a full-fledged dictatorship and then maybe people will believe it. But by then it will be too late to do something about it!

What was it that Sandra Day O'Conner once said about that? Oh, yeah!

"We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Too bad people didn't listen...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Truth_Hunter_1976:

You know NOTHING about her, then... She is one of the great legal intellectuals of our time.

Perhaps the system of government you would be more comfortable in can be found in China.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by loam]

You say Intellectual I say Trash Goodbye Good Riddence.......If she thought Bush was such a Dictator maybe should have stayed on as a justice and not retired.....Die on Bench like it seems like all the other Fossils on this court are going to...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think if it comes to the point where there are no elections, then we can be sure that we have a full-fledged dictatorship and then maybe people will believe it. But by then it will be too late to do something about it!

What was it that Sandra Day O'Conner once said about that? Oh, yeah!

"We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Too bad people didn't listen...



First of all what she is supposed to have said is well after the elections came to fruition.

Second of all, you are talking as if we didn't have a vote anymore, but we do. Just because a majority of Americans decided to vote differently than you does not mean that "we don't have a right to vote anymore".



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of all what she is supposed to have said is well after the elections came to fruition.


You totally misunderstood the conversation.
Truth_Hunter said:



Untill 2008 I think SDO needs to shut her mouth.......Untill an Election is not held These words she says about a Dictatorship are completely CRAZY......Senility why she is no longer a Judge.....


In other words, if we don't have elections in 2008, THEN she can say these things about dictatorship.

And I said (talking about the future):


I think if it comes to the point where there are no elections [in 2008], then we can be sure that we have a full-fledged dictatorship and then maybe people will believe it. But by then it will be too late to do something about it!

What was it that Sandra Day O'Conner once said about that? Oh, yeah!

"We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.”

Too bad people didn't listen...


I'm talking in the future tense, as if the elections of 2008 didn't happen, as Truth_Hunter has speculated.

Does that make more sense?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
well, truth hunter started it, he was the one who seemed to implly that there wouldn't be any election in 08....

read what he said.

and if she should stay home and tend to her husband instead if making speeches, just so some can be less happy in this world then Bush should definately stop destroying our country and making some of us regret ever having voted for the man!

by the way. they had elections in Iraq while Saddam was in power. and they had them in the Soviet Union also. They were still pretty much dictatorships simply because systems were set up to kill any opposing viewpoints before they ever gained ground amoung the masses.

sound familiar??



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
BH If the 2008 Elections Dont happen I will be the first one to call it a Dictatorship.....And the first to take up arms and fight it..........



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
well, truth hunter started it, he was the one who seemed to implly that there wouldn't be any election in 08....

read what he said.

and if she should stay home and tend to her husband instead if making speeches, just so some can be less happy in this world then Bush should definately stop destroying our country and making some of us regret ever having voted for the man!

by the way. they had elections in Iraq while Saddam was in power. and they had them in the Soviet Union also. They were still pretty much dictatorships simply because systems were set up to kill any opposing viewpoints before they ever gained ground amoung the masses.

sound familiar??


Dawn I said that IF there was no election in 08 Then she could make this NOW uncalled for Speech she was OUT OF BOUNDS PERIOD.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The controvertial killing of judges came after her speach Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave at Georgetown University.

She was making references


she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn’t name him, but it was Texas Sen. John Cornyn who made that statement after a Georgia judge was murdered in court and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge's home.
.

rawstory.com...

Yes perhaps the story does has change since then.




[edit on 15-3-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
what good is it to make the speech after the dictatorship has taken form enough that there are no elections? seems to me, if one was to speak up about such concernes now would be the time, before it got so much momentum that speaking out would be equal to a death sentence.

she was far less out of bounds than some of those posting on this board are when they rant and rave about how the liberals are.......well, just go through some of the post and see what some post about them....I'll just sum it up as "the enemy"!!!

it's becoming more and more evident that some really wish they could end any and all discussions that voice a veiwpoint contrary to their own. and like I said, both Iraq and the Soviet Union had elections, they still managed to hold tight control to one particular viewpoint. they did this by not allowing contrary views to be expressed.



[edit on 15-3-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
I will state my opinion directly so as to leave no doubt in your mind. The Pennsylvania AG with malice has violated the intent of the first ammendment by seizing the computer data. In seizing the data which may contain reporter sources for all stories it serves to intimidate press sources by effectively putting the press sources on notice that their anonymity is at risk when informing the press.

How can you doubt that this does not infringe on the first ammendment?

I originally posted this question to soficrow, but will gladly address your points.

The Pennsylvania AG with malice has violated the intent of the first ammendment by seizing the computer data.

The relevant part of your statement: The PA AG has seized the computers of a local newspaper. Anything else you say there is opinion only.


]In seizing the data which may contain reporter sources for all stories it serves to intimidate press sources by effectively putting the press sources on notice that their anonymity is at risk when informing the press.

True, but tough. It makes no difference whether sources now feel threatened.

Now the facts of the situation:
A newspaper published non-public details of local crimes that were stored in a restricted law enforcement Web site.

The AG contends that the newspaper unlawfully hacked the site to obtain and publish the details. This is a felony.

The AG obtained proper search warrants to seize the drives. The newspaper challenged the warrant, and appealed to the state superior court, where the warrant was upheld.

The judge who issued the warrant set guidelines and restrictions on what the AG was allowed to view on the drives. He also commanded that the agent that extracted the data show it to him before giving it to the AG, to ensure that the journalists' other confidential files were not compromised.

That's the case in a nutshell. As for your question of "How can you doubt that this does not infringe on the first ammendment?", I support the opinion of the Senior Deputy AG that

this was not a case of a journalist's right to protect a source but an attempt to use the First Amendment to shield a crime.


The media is not above the law; they cannot ignore laws in their zeal to sell newspapers.

What about criminal cases that may now be jeopardized because the newspapers published non-public details of local crimes?

How would you like it if a couple of reporters brokeinto your home and rifled through your personal papers, and then published details on what they found, all in the name of the First Amendment? Same thinking applies here.

So, imo, this is a case of investigating a felony. The fact that the alleged perpetrator was a newspaper is irrelevant. This is not a case of violating the First Amendment.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join