[Winstonm]

I guess we all better be careful what we say these days - better not be in opposition to the official White House version of events. Consider these offerings:

From: http://www.whitehous...6/sectionV.html

Quote

Strategy for Winning the War on Terror.

To wage the battle of ideas effectively, we must recognize what does and does not give rise to terrorism:The terrorism we confront today springs from:

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

(emphasis added)

Quote

Defeating terrorism in the long run requires that each of these factors be addressed. Effective democracy provides a counter to each, diminishing the underlying conditions terrorists seek to exploit.

In place of a culture of conspiracy and misinformation, democracy offers freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas, which can expose and discredit falsehoods, prejudices, and dishonest propaganda.

(emphasis added).

O.K. Let me try to graps this. Terrorists recrcuit more effectively if there are expressed doubts as to White House version of events. This could be construed to mean that anyone who challenges the White House version could be "aiding the enemy."

But we can stop terrorism by a free and open debate, as long as the free speech, the media, and the marketplace of ideas supports the White House version of events? I guess it's considered "free" because we don't have to "buy" it?

Now take the above and compare it to this:

Quote

Subsection 4( (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

Along with this:

Quote

By Bruce Ackerman, BRUCE ACKERMAN is a professor of law and political science at Yale: The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, 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

So if you add 2+2, you get the idea that if you don't support the official White House version but instead question there offerings, you are in fact aiding terrorism, which then makes you an "enemy combattant" and subject to punishement by a military tribunal where you cannot expect a trial by peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights. And the President makes the determination of who and who is not an enemy combattant.

The last bastion left is The U.S. Supreme Court. If that fails....

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another....

[DrTodd13]

Sorry Winston, Abraham Lincoln decided that declarations of independence are not American.

Nevertheless, I don't think we are quite as far along this path as you seem to think that we are. What does worry me is the construction of FEMA detention centers. They must anticipate the need for them but who are they planning on detaining?

[mike777]

DrTodd13, on Oct 8 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

Sorry Winston, Abraham Lincoln decided that declarations of independence are not American.

Nevertheless, I don't think we are quite as far along this path as you seem to think that we are.  What does worry me is the construction of FEMA detention centers.  They must anticipate the need for them but who are they planning on detaining?

I hope usa citizens.

As I mentioned before in just in my small city we have need for 300-400% increase in detention centers. From what I read the need is even greater in most larger cities.

Our population is expected to grow another 100 million or more in the next 50 years. Does anyone really think we have a need for fewer detention centers? It takes decades to build these things not months. Even if you just want to replace crumbling old ones it takes a decade or longer.

[Winstonm]

DrTodd13, on Oct 8 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

Sorry Winston, Abraham Lincoln decided that declarations of independence are not American.

Nevertheless, I don't think we are quite as far along this path as you seem to think that we are.  What does worry me is the construction of FEMA detention centers.  They must anticipate the need for them but who are they planning on detaining?

A guess would be: "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

[Winstonm]

Quote

Nevertheless, I don't think we are quite as far along this path as you seem to think that we are.

I am in agreement; however, isn't it best to stop this executive branch power grab now, before it gets a foothold? This President's disdain for constitutional division of powers is so great that now even the Boston Globe is starting to watch for his "signing statements", which are basically written executive opinions that state that when he signs a bill the provisions of that bill do not apply to him or the executive branch.

It is also a concern (yet a comfort - strange paradox) that this President's approval rating is now between 36-39%, depending on whom you read. Desparate people do deparate things, and Congress has given him powers to legally orchestrate his manner of deparate reactions.

It is my opinion that this administration did not receive bad intelligence which led to the invasion of Iraq; it is my belief that this administration went to war in full knowledge of its baselessness. - I do not believe we can trust any administration, but particularly this one, with more secretive powers of which there is no oversight, no checks and balances.

It appears that Congress had abdigated its rights to oversee the executive branch - that leaves only the Supreme Court to end this blind march into usurption of non-constitutionally-granted powers by the Presidency.

Once powers are granted, they are not freely returned. We have set ourselves up already for another Watergate/Nixon-level constitutional crisis - the unknown is when it will occur.

[DrTodd13]

It will have to become truely terrible before people will revolt. As long as people accept the duopoly, government power will expand indefinitely. It doesn't matter whether the executive wields it or the legislative or if they collude with one another. Given time, the supreme court will always follow the mindset of pres/congress with perhaps a bit of a time lag. No one can force them to interpret the constitution correctly. Fighting the duopoly now is impossible. People are too fat and happy and willingly surrender their rights.