What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
60 Comments
- CongressCritter, on 11/27/2007, -0/+57There's only one way to deal with thugs like we have in the White House.
Try em, convict em then hang em high! - Terr01, on 11/27/2007, -1/+37Maybe there's something I'm missing---but I'd think the most direct and already-exposed impeachable offense isn't one most people are talking about. (Maybe because it's legally strong rather than popular?)
I'm referring to the abduction and imprisonment of people in a manner in violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. Jailed for years at a time. Depending on what case you want to look at, it can even be US citizens from US soil, although the amendments in question apply to non-citizens as well.
Instead it's all about FISA and the war. Not that they aren't good topics, but I think the focus is because people care, not because it's as legally strong with the evidence we already have. - wd52, on 11/27/2007, -1/+19.
Dirty Rotten Scumbags - Cheney and Bush TRAITORS
Lying to America to send it to War: TREASON.
Impeach, convict, imprison them for LIFE.
And get their henchmen as well.
. - AshamedAmerican, on 11/27/2007, -1/+18This ***** is the Nixon of our time, and I'm just waiting for the tapes...
- zeromancer, on 11/27/2007, -2/+17Not now. American Idol is on.
- mOdQuArK, on 11/27/2007, -1/+15You are incorrect. The main body of the Constitution has more to do with what the government is and isn't allowed to do, but with the exception of voting rights & criteria for holding office, the rest of the Constitution (including Amendments) refers to ANYONE inside the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens.
- Bologner, on 11/27/2007, -2/+15Insert stupid comment from p0s3r here.
- spawnfree, on 11/27/2007, -0/+13Bush's club is the one that does the assassinating.
Good people find it hard to kill others, that's why good people only win in the movies. - mrurc, on 11/27/2007, -1/+13Actually, yes it does apply to foreign nationals living in this country illegally. It also directs the federal government to not do certain things that it does.
- Bologner, on 11/27/2007, -1/+13Wow, that sounded like a Mastercard commercial.
Finally getting justice in the courts: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy.
For everything else, there's the U.S. Constitution. - danth, on 11/27/2007, -0/+10"I don't think that the simple assertion of state secrets ought to be the end of the matter."
It's sad that this even has to be said. - AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/27/2007, -0/+10"Mr. President. You do not have to tell us what these state secrets are. We can simply consider it treasonous or terrorist actions under the PATRIOT 2 ACT. Would you please step into this orange jumpsuit so that our interrogations can begin? Great... Now lie face up/head down on that plank of wood."
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9This is just disingenuous noise from those that knowingly helped destroy the constitution and even deny the right of habeas corpus to US citizens.
The excuses for extreme state secrecy are all transparently flawed and only hint at the real intentions of this grotesque power grab. - PeppermintPig, on 11/27/2007, -1/+10Really! Does Congress need to hear Bush actually say he's a dictator before they act on what he's doing?
- Delphium226, on 11/27/2007, -1/+9Kings don't have to answer to things like courts.
- AriaStar, on 11/27/2007, -6/+14How has this ***** not yet been assassinated? I just don't get it.
- mOdQuArK, on 11/27/2007, -0/+8There are established protected procedures for security-cleared judges to examine evidence & decide if it's important enough to national security to keep hidden. The only reason the government refuses to to allow such procedures to be carried out is because they know that the stuff they're trying to hide won't meet that standard (and IMO, will probably incriminate themselves).
- krawkula, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7Bush was quoted saying:
"heh, im not tellin you, thats why they call it a secret, dummy. heh." - AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6There could be tapes of him pissing on the Constitution while simultaneously water boarding the head of FISA and it would not matter. Somebody on Fox News would say that he deserves a medal for doing it.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6Instead of tapes theres e-mails this time, but they mysteriously got deleted.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7@Aria 1) fear of Cheney becoming President 2) the only ones who get assassinated are those who hamper large monied interests and interfere with large power blocs 3) Israel doesn't want him dead 4) Bush controls all the wiretaps, email intercepts, and other data sources. 5) because Bush is the son of Satan, and Dad is protecting him :) 6) because good dreams never come true
- joper90, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8yawn.. nothing will happen that bush doesn't want to happen.. like they will never be able to ever impeach him..
shame really - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6Those pesky liberals, always demanding their "rights" and trying to follow that old "constitution." Commies.
- Archer007, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6This is interesting because Bush could have gone to FISA - and they would have handed him exactly what he wanted. Instead, he tries to circumvent the system.
- mrurc, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7So they would communicate with other countries while avoiding the entire internet and all phones if they only knew exactly how were were datamining the entire backbone. Gotcha. So what, you're concerned that they might figure out how to get carrier pigeons across the Atlantic? Which they can't do if they don't know that their phones are being datamined? Funding datamining like this is illegal and the details are unconstitutional. What's not to get?
I am not opposed to having a closed hearing to determine if the wiretapping system should be evaluated for constitutional and other legal issues. That is how "state secrets" is being used. I'm really unclear as to why you support checks and balances but only in theory.
Oh, and next time, don't use hate speech against "the other side." You had an argument that while inaccurate and misleading was at least believable-- until you got to the part where you state that all liberals want to bring down your government. - defconoi, on 11/27/2007, -5/+10vote for Ron Paul, he'll gladly make things better by following the constitution like he always has, lets get the brush the dirt off in washington! btw he will make sure bush is put to justice, he isnt like these other congressional pawns running for office
www.teaparty07.com
www.RonPaul2008.com - AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6Weak with the force are you. The Constitution is not about rights for the people. It is limitations of the government. Citizens vs non citizens are not relevant. The government is out of the bounds of its own power.
- mrurc, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6Insert whoosh.
- orxor, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Maybe because he know exactly what he's doing. If he didn't know the ***** he does is illegal he wouldn't try to hide it.
- brianary, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5You've missed the point of the Constitution. It's not a supermarket loyalty card, it's a doctrine of human rights philosophy.
- skellener, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4I can't believe we still have to put up with this guy for another year.
- ChaosMotor, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4No state secrets! No top secret, no secret documents, no secret evidence, no secret courts. NO STATE SECRETS! Complete and utter transparency. This is OUR government, we own IT, it doesn't own us. It does what WE tell it to do, and we need to realize that state secrets do NOT keep us safe, do NOT guard our liberties, do NOT ensure our freedoms. State secrets are to the detriment of every American, of every human, and cannot be tolerated.
- kreneskyp, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3It forbids searches domestically without a warrant. Go ahead and search me, but get a warrant first. And the technique isn't secret anymore. We know that they tapped into the telecoms backbones.
ps. two wrongs != right - MadN, on 11/27/2007, -4/+7Bush is President
President is government
Any impeachable offense = security risk
Any questions? - AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3more like:
Squandering the goodwill of the world.....$890 billion dollars.
Flags for widows and mothers.......$600,000 dollars.
Bankrupting a nation.....$..........All of our dollars
Finally getting justice?.....priceless
For everything else, We the People.... - warrenterr, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6Seems bush wants to pull a fascism on us, although it's so far fetched considering his remarkable genius. So, it's probably chenney (we can clearly see bush is chenney's padawan), and he should be impeached anyhow.
- skellener, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Probably because if he was Cheney would take over. You really have to take them both out at the same time.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3High ho high ho it's off to war we go!
This country is now on a need to know footing and the above is all you need to know! - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Yep, our weekly cadre of liberals met last night to plan out how we're going to take your right to a speedy public trial where you can confront the witnesses against you. Then we noticed how the ultra right wing Bush Administration already did that. Mission accomplished.
- GhostyBoy, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2The whole god-damned administration is corrupt to the core. They are clearly the enemies of the American people and will stop at nothing to destroy their civil liberties, destroy their economy, terrorize the public and please their ***** banker overlords.
The war on terror is conducted by terrorists in the White House against the citizens of America. Bush may be a retard, but his puppet masters are not, and they are waging a war of lies on the people of this nation everyday and it is obvious.
This is ***** ridiculous. The white house should be burned to the ***** ground. - Jowsley, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I like your thinking, but there's no way that cutting their pay would make them less likely to accept a bribe. Start banning the lobbyists and you might be on to something.
- x083, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Congress needs more transparency, and it needs to double in size, and take a 50 percent salary cut from the 6 figure incomes they currently make. That would prevent members of congress from being so easily able to bribe, manipulate and control.
After that, we need to restore the balance of power that congress once had over the president. - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2I wanna know what secrets the following governments have and why:
China Russia Iran Mexico Libya Syria Iraq France UK Saudi Arabia Jordan Israel Germany Spain Taiwan North AND South Korea Cuba New Jersey
- PeppermintPig, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Cheney's ticker is in questionable condition. The only question you have to ask yourself is this: What scares the bogeyman?
- Terr01, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Oswald, you're either knowingly lying...
...or you're too incredibly lazy to skim the SINGLE SENTENCE (albeit run-on) of the 4th or 5th amendments. I mean, I could buy that you didn't read the rest of the Constitution (most of it's pretty dry) but you're not even entering into an argument with the facts.
""nor shall ANY PERSON be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor [any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.""
Due process, y'know? Those tiny little things, like access to a lawyer or *EVEN HAVING CHARGES FILED AGAINST THEM*?
I bet you're one of those people who'll get all huffy and factlessly indignant the next time any makes the vaguest allusion towards Bush as a dictatorial figure. - andibarnes, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1That's not strictly true - here in England, we have tried two monarchs (OK, one of them wasn't ours,) and seen others imprisoned and exiled. In the words of Simon de Montfort (and there's a bust of him somewhere in Congress,) "If the King will not do justice, then the baronage ought." I'm sure you can make that apply somehow!
- buckrogers1965, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1The constitution is very careful in it's use of "people" and "citizen."
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
See where it says person and people? Those two articles from the bill of rights applies to everyone on earth. If the founding fathers had meant the bill of rights to only apply to citizens they would have used "citizen" there, instead of "people" or "person." - buckrogers1965, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I believe that under our constitution that every judge is each individually equal to the entire executive branch and should see the information and judge it to be a state secret or not. The standard for something being a state secret should also be very high and the judge should just reveal any information to the public that they believe does not meet the standard. If requested information is not given, then the judge should start putting people into prison for contempt until the information is given to him. Even if it is a secret, the judge should still be able to judge a case based on the information.
- buckrogers1965, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I stopped reading at "you liberals." I am a republican and feel the exact same way, so you entire argument is wrong at it's most basic form.
- mrurc, on 11/27/2007, -3/+2bushisterrorist, that you?
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is