The US were taking your rights long before Bush

Heres an interesting article. It seems Clinton wanted to what Bush said tp be doing now.
www.nationalreview.com.../york/york200512200946.asp

[edit on 29-5-2006 by steve99]

What's your deal?

Why do you constantly lick Bush's nuts? Do you like the taste? Maybe you don't understand this, but here is what's going down.

Bush and Clinton are owned by the SAME people. They just call themselves right and left, respectively. People don't deny that Clinton is a globalist; you probably didn't look at my sig like I asked you to.

The problem is YOU deny that Bush is a globalist. Oh well, whatever makes you feel better.

Originally posted by steve99
Heres an interesting article. It seems Clinton wanted to what Bush said tp be doing now.
www.nationalreview.com.../york/york200512200946.asp

[edit on 29-5-2006 by steve99]

Oh absolutely steve. Even without your link there are numerous accounts, Throughout MANY administrations that; at one time or another, have usurped the consitution(in one form or another.)

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln's Crackdown
Suspects jailed. No charges filed. Sound familiar?
By David Greenberg
Posted Friday, Nov. 30, 2001, at 11:58 AM ET

Civil libertarians are crying foul over the indefinite detention of hundreds of Sept. 11 suspects and plans to try accused terrorists in military tribunals. In defense, some Bush administration loyalists cite another wartime leader who locked up civilians and resorted to army courts, Abraham Lincoln—even though Lincoln faced a radically different situation, and, more important, his civil liberties record stands as a rare blot on his reputation.
In his authoritative Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (1991), Mark Neely has argued that during the Civil War these two policies—summary arrests and military justice—were of a piece. Both stemmed from the emergency of having an armed rebellion in the nation's midst, and they were viewed as two parts of a single policy. Yet today we think of the policies as separate, if related. So this week I'll consider Lincoln's more famous action, his suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Next week, I'll tackle what at the time was considered the more egregious violation, the use of military tribunals to prosecute civilians.
First a definition: The Latin phrase habeas corpus means "you have the body." The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus refers to a common-law tradition that establishes a person's right to appear before a judge before being imprisoned. When a judge issues the writ, he commands a government official to bring a prisoner before the court so he can assess the legality of the prisoner's detention. When the privilege of the writ is suspended, the prisoner is denied the right to secure such a writ and therefore can be held without trial indefinitely. Habeas corpus is the only common-law tradition enshrined in the Constitution, which also explicitly defines when it can be overridden. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I for one will not deny the existance of past usurpations. But to excuse it because it happened before, sets a dangerous trend.

You Must remember steve that we ARE in a war of IDEOLOGY as many of our political leaders from, both sides of the fence, have said. And in a war of ideology; if we sacrifice your IDEALS for even a moment in time then; we have already lost the war! And we did it for the terrorists. This is paramount to the entire reason for not letting the terrorists win. If you ever hear me say anything that seems dissenting to the govternment it is only because I care enough to make sure that those I have entrusted with the awsome power of defending freedom, do not mistakenly destroy it in the process.

I have read some of your posts and we see things vastly different. NOT right or wrong... just different. But we are both fellow countrymen who want the same thing in the end;peace and freedom for all.

BTW.. I can understand your frustration with the opposite political spectrum. And thanks for pointing this out. They, to you -and correct me if I'm wrong but- seem to be soo busy pointing their finger at BUSH and Company that they fail to see their own hypocrisies. Am I right?
Beleive me there is enough culpability on both sides to go around. Personally I'm more of an Independent Constitutionalist, so any party that threatens my beloved Document- of which three generations of my family have served for, two fought-I see as a threat to the American way of life. I do not want to trade my liberty for safety "Id rather be a free man in my grave, then alive and a slave."-Jimmy Cliff

Thank you steve for your time

No suprises there guys, Clinton was a Bush family lackey. I've said it over and over ad naseum here on ATS, but when you really dig into the whole BCCI and Mena Ak drug ring, you will begin to find the connections.
Hell look through some of these pictures and tell me they look like bitter political enemies to you...
images.google.com...
I am of the opinion that the Bush family has been in power since the 60's, and arguably since the 40's. We tend to think of American politics as one side against the other, but they all shake the same hands and they all eat out of the same trough.

Left wing, right wing, democrat, republican....

Just labels designed to confuse and give us the allusion of choice, when the whole time the agenda is the same...To do the bidding of the ultra rich.

The government is just a tool to keep the world in a state of confusion and fear, as the rich gain more and more world control of resources and land.

While we keep falling for this allusion nothing will change for the better for the common man. Unless we find our own path and stop chasing carrots we will never have true liberty.

Bush is just an extreme example of what's been going on forever. An examplar of problems with the US: militarism, hegemonic foreign policy, arrogance, corporate dominance, nepotism, ad nauseam. We can elect people less odious but its all the same thing. I hate how people of the so called "liberal" persuasion think that everything would be fine if we didn't have bush: BS.
Also might I add I am a left winger myself.

Originally posted by rotgeist
Bush is just an extreme example of what's been going on forever. An examplar of problems with the US: militarism, hegemonic foreign policy, arrogance, corporate dominance, nepotism, ad nauseam. We can elect people less odious but its all the same thing. I hate how people of the so called "liberal" persuasion think that everything would be fine if we didn't have bush: BS.
Also might I add I am a left winger myself.

heck yeah rot..... way to call it... it matters not WHO is in power.. if the system is corrupt then it only breeds corruption. We need to fix the problems in the system and close the doors of opportunity on usurpation.

I blame BOTH parties and equally the American people; for the cause and the perpetuation, respectively.