informationliberation.com — The torture bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all Americans who breach their "allegiance" to Bush as terrorists and subject to arrest, torture and conviction by a military tribunal. Numerous passages make the bill appear almost as a mirror image of Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act.
Oct 2, 2006 View in Crawl 4
pyalotOct 2, 2006Submitter
<a class="user" href="http://duggmirror.com/politics/Torture_Bill_States_Non_Allegiance_To_Bush_Is_Terrorism_2/">http://duggmirror.com/politics/Torture_Bill_States_Non_Allegiance_To_Bush_Is_Terrorism_2/</a>
agentofchangeOct 2, 2006
I said it once and ill say it again:We're all f**ked.
gummihOct 3, 2006
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter." -- WTF??!
ddcrandallOct 3, 2006
@parker1105Your argument just goes around and around in circles. Sure, the legislative branch can pass a law saying that courts can't hear certain cases, but the Supreme Court can review that law and strike it down. The legislative branch can pass any law they want to, but it's subject to judicial review, which IS written into the Constitution. The Supreme Court only follows one law, and that's the Constitution. So, the only way to limit what the Supreme Court can and cannot hear is by amending that document. The court may decide not to hear certain cases, but that doesn't mean that they aren't able to hear them. The only limits on what the Supreme Court can hear are those limits that were written into the Constitution (i.e. original jurisdiction).
Closed AccountOct 3, 2006
According to wordnet.princeton.edu opinion is "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty." That's my problem with somebody like you...no proof, no certainty.
solaruxOct 3, 2006
Actually, I do things in exact opposite of yourself; I read the item then through research and investigation, I make up my own mind rather than going with what seems to be the popular choice. Sure, there are items that I agree and disagree with...but that's just opinion and I try to leave that out when actually evaluating something. You know, NOT jumping to conclusions.
lebaigeOct 3, 2006
That's not what it f**king says at all. People have already linked the actual paragraph repeatedly so I won't bother including it again. There is no text demanding alliegance to the President of the United States however, none at all.A real good tip .. any time you see a news article about a new bill passed or supreme court ruling or what not, find the actual text and read it. Never rely on a media filtered interpretation. They're almost always one sided or flat out wrong.
napoleongoldOct 3, 2006
Gos I hope this is innaccurate, but I have a sinking feeling that it is not.Here we go with facism in America.Damit, all to hell
arcticjklOct 3, 2006
A foreign agent, say a Pakistani could take an oath of allegiance to the US as a condition of employment. Then he could pass secrets to the enemy. Not a citizen still violating the oath.I think that section should still be removed though.
bigturnsOct 4, 2006
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate - what is such an assertion based on?Did your bible tell you so? WTF? Everything your President is involved in is un-American. Why not, every time Bush shows up on the television we label, ala Fux'd news, the man as such?What a bunch of fascist apologists - you'd let this man and his puppet government get away with murder! Oh wait, that's old news isn't it?