What is Digg?565 Comments
- matador3, on 10/19/2007, -41/+616Gee, another 9/11 sure would be coincidental wouldn't it.
- HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -17/+439So basically, it just gives him a promotion from "The Commander Guy" to "The Dictator Dude."
- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -20/+325This is a sad state of affairs, but honestly, what power hungry politician wouldn't do this? Our political system is ***** up, I can't believe the people are standing by and watching their country descend into totalitarianism.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+303So guys. Where's that revolution I keep hearing about?
- oskite, on 10/11/2007, -18/+291Welcome to Rome.
- aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -19/+260The problem is that everyone is so involved in their personal problems - their debt, paying for health insurance, worrying about public schools - to take notice of 'little' things like this. It may seem reasonable on the surface, but it has some deep ramifications should the situation arise. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but perhaps the declining social welfare state is a way to detract attention from the ever expanding powers of the ecexutive branch?
- MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -31/+207I am quite sure that by the time Bush is ready to leave office, we are going to see another manufactured disaster. This time, all your rights will disappear completely.
- esotericguy, on 10/11/2007, -26/+131oh my god, look what you have done!
http://www.tcert.info/pix/stupidchart.jpg - kevrose, on 10/11/2007, -10/+105is that a bit like the emergency powers granted to the emperor by the senate in star wars?
do you think bush is really a sith lord? - ISIfunded911, on 10/11/2007, -36/+116If you were 100% sure 9/11 was not an inside job, are you still 100% sure now, or a little less? If it was an inside job, wouldn't the people who did it try to get more and more power, to be able to do everything they want (like invading countries) without any democratic approval?
If a new 9/11 happens, a nuclear one this time, it will probably be too late to change your mind about who really did 9/11, and to think and debate freely about who really did the new one, who lost something, and who really gained something big: you would suddenly live in a dictatorship, and would not be allowed to talk freely. New nuclear 9/11 truthers would be jailed. Bush once publicly said that conspiracy theories must not be tolerated; with dictatorial powers, he really would not tolerate them. - firepowered, on 10/11/2007, -5/+67http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............ - epicstruggle, on 10/11/2007, -26/+87@ISIfunded911: Answer me this question, why didn't Bush plant some concrete WMD evidence in Iraq once the invasion started? I mean if they are evil enough to plan/execute 911, it doesn't seem like they would have any problem planting evidence against Saddam.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/11/2007, -22/+801. As much as they are always stupid, sedition acts like this have been normal for all presidents since forever. Bush has been a bit more extreme than usually with them, but they have always been there.
2. Its at times like these that I think we can all be reminded why our founders tried to steer as far away from our current form of government when our country was first founded when they set up the Articles of Confederation. That didn't work so well, so in response they set up a system with a stronger federal government. This was still experimental, but worked well enough where it has been tolerated up until now. Its still important to note that there is nothing magical about our current system: its not sacred truth any more than the original ideas were. Perhaps its time to scale back centralized power in the United States, as it seems this is what all opposing sides in our government right now want anyway. To expect our government to not be overhauled every so many hundred years just seems a bit lazy, after all. - FortyCaliber, on 10/11/2007, -9/+67The government is fine... it's the government officials put in place by the voters, specifically the legislative officials. The biggest problem is that most people (and by most, I mean, by-in-large a majority) believe in the status quo because they feel that they, themselves, are driven by fear, religion, ineptitude, lack of quality education, , or a combination of many, and these officials fill voids that assuage their requirements. Most voters are concerned about the "here and now" aspect of their situation, rather than the long haul.
A good example would be my wife: I'm Libertarian, she's Democrat. I know that a Libertarian will NEVER win within the next 20 years on a Libertarian ticket... but we all know they have a great chance on a Republican ticket. I tell her that I am voting for Ron Paul... she says, "why do you vote for Republicans. They don't do anything to help you. You need to vote Democrat because they can help you... they help people who work for the educational systems." By "help" she means "get more money."
Awesome. More money is good. However, her contention is that money is it. Money does help... but it really helps the here and now situation... it spells nothing for the future of our country. The Democrats and Republicans have all been saying the same thing over and over again: "I'm going to get out of Iraq." Great. That fixes the "here and now."
I've never heard either side talk about the future. I care about the Iraq issue... but I care more about what's going to happen in 2010, 2012, 2016, etc.
I'm a patriot, through and through. I served the United States Marine Corps but most importantly, I took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Well, my friends, our domestic enemies are closer than you think, put in poower by us, and continue to be legitimized by us.
Too many of my "buddies" were excited to go to Iraq as the situation picked up speed. From the get go I knew that there was no real reason to go in. I'm not sure I'm confortable fighting for a country that goes looking for fights. War for any other reaosn than defense is a racket. War is a racket. Outside of defense, war supplies means for spending money and furthering business interests outside of the United States. These business interests, being a product of war, are supported by the government that sent them. A Government looking out for the interests of one or a few companies isn't considering the sons and daughters sent to secure those interests. A Government willing to do that has already lightened the line between corruption and legitimacy and corruption starts at home and a republic at war turns fear into profit. It's inevitable.
I don't want this rant to be a Ron Paul campaign speech, but Libertarians are the true saving grace for this country. Any situation that brings down the power of the National Government and ups the power of the States' is a good one. This country was founded on the basis of a separation of the powers with the states having the most influential place among them. This country is founded on the premise that the U.S. Government is governs at the leisure of the governed.
As I said, I'm a patriot, through and through, and that is not a title to be taken lightly. Anyone else who is a patriot needs to tke a deep look into themselves and the constitution they stand up for. I don't advocate violent overthrow ot treason by any means, but Myself and every patriot needs to know and understand that means defending homes and lands from the U.S. Government's influence and perpetrations; by force if necessary.
Too many Americans have forgotten that and most were never taught. It's an unfortunate state of affairs and I hope it doesn't lead to the inevitable end of the Republic here in the U.S.A. Rome was born a republic and fell as an empire. Britain fell as an empire. U.S.S.R. fell as an empire, and the United States WILL fall as an empire. It's up to us as a republic of citizens to ensure THAT doesn't happen. - icyhot, on 10/11/2007, -15/+68Uh...this doesn't sound good at all. Do we even have a government for by the people anymore? I don't think we do.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+55"With the National Guard and all the strong Soldier types gone who is left to fight the revolution?"
ummm .... the people who are supposed to have the right to keep and bear arms. - DarkDragon, on 10/11/2007, -9/+57Time to invoke godwin's law.
This is exactly what Hitler did before WWII (That is to say it was already written into the Weimar Constitution, but it is how he took power) - Rekutyn, on 10/11/2007, -12/+60And let's not forget: Hitler was democratically elected, as well.
- epicstruggle, on 10/11/2007, -23/+67From wiki on Abraham Lincoln:
"During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. Nearly all of his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts."
Note the last section: "were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts."
Does anyone here really think that Bush would get that type of support from either Congress or the Courts?
Anyways, if he hasn't used this power by now, I very much doubt that he will in the next 1.5 years. - xaviel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+50He is gone in 2008, right? Unless...
- Burento, on 10/22/2007, -4/+39Martial law can also be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct like "state of emergency".
In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.
Don't be too insulted by the high handedness of government. Abe Lincoln suspended the right of "Habeus Corpus" during the Civil War. Our soldiers have died in two major wars and countless actions without the congress declaring war. - bitcloud, on 10/11/2007, -11/+44by the people, for the elite
- skyzophrenyk, on 10/11/2007, -6/+37In Martial Law, all three branches of government have a say in what happens to America. This only gives the executive branch control, thereby making Bush a dictator.
- stephenwq, on 10/11/2007, -10/+39http://xkcd.com/c258.html
- KamikazeeDriver, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36"This effectively makes the President a dictator. The directive itself is unconstitutional and ensures constituational government wouldn't exist."
Just in case the people take up arms to take back their government, as allowed by the constitution.
How many amendments will they make to tell us that we can't take back our government?
And we wonder why so many countries that followed our 'democracy' when they formed a new order in their land, modeled by our constitution, now hate us. - abbott75, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35Weimar Article 48, anyone?
- psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Better source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html - alllie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Lincoln was a dictator. He suspended habeas corpus, had 13,000 Americans including newspaper editors and former members of Congress arrested for their beliefs, and had them imprisoned and tried before military courts for making "disloyal statements." When Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring a prisoner before him both Lincoln and the military ignored it and him.
We really lucked up with Lincoln. We had him to end slavery and hold the country together and had Booth to end him. Without Lincoln we would probably have ended up a hundred tiny powerless countries, many of them with legal slavery. Without Booth we would have ended up a dictatorship because Lincoln would have never left office till he died and he had no more respect for the constitution than does Bush. So the best of both worlds. - KarthVader, on 10/11/2007, -7/+28So, if something catastrophic happens, Bush can say, "All your rights are belong to us?"
***** that. - GhostCow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22@pwill
In New Hampshire. Live Free or Die!
http://www.freestateproject.org - Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Did anyone notice (last paragraph) that there seem to be a bunch of secret annexes to this directive?
- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23They're already doing the gun confiscation thing during natural disasters. The culmination of the freedom for security tradeoff is naturally that of a police state.
- overlord11, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26@oskite: "Welcome to Rome."
Pity we have a Nero rather than a Julius Caesar. - psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -9/+28@ macintoshsauce: Nah. I'm pretty sure we won't have to court a British Soldier in our homes for a while.
- ISIfunded911, on 10/11/2007, -19/+38@epicstruggle
It would easily have been proved that the technology was not Iraqi. - LordLucless, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20I wonder if a Democratic win would be considered a catastrophic emergency ;p
- ctishman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+25While I respect your views on this, I have to say, I just don't trust any executive, regardless of party, with the power to suspend the rule of law indefinitely. I hope whoever's president next rescinds all this crap, foreswears signing statements and sponsors a great number of acts designed to curtail the power of the executive.
- Handcannons, on 10/11/2007, -10/+29>
Nice revisionist history there. Did you forget or are you just ignoring the fact that the House and Senate supported going to Iraq? Huh, sounds like democratic approval. The democrats are all changing their tune now to get votes but at the time they all believed in WMD as much as Bush, including Clinton and Kerry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution "Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.
As for the whole "Bush lied" crap, all of the politicians were saying the same thing at the time. Some of them have just changed their tune for political gain.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. - laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+29Are you denying that Halliburton has been paid richly to build and operate empty prisons and railroad-cars full of shackles?
You think they're for potheads? Think again. - robshoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17What this is basically saying is "in the time of emergency, there's no time for democracy."
- Novion76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16but this ain't sparta
- 3dom, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19I doubt this will ever see use whilst W is in power, it is more than likely that all of these dramatic changes to the American legal system are intended with his successor in mind. Bush can take the negative publicity hit because frankly nothing is bringing him back in the next 18 months, and prevent the next President from having to justify his or her actions to the electorate that just voted them in. You would hope if they ever tried to use these powers in a meaningful way the public would actually start wake the hell up.
- laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -15/+31I wonder how many of us are destined to die in one of Halliburton's many empty yet staffed internment camps.
Americans in general have no idea how hot the water is. - sathias, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20@mike17032
So are you aware that there was already legislation like this before? This law has changed who the body in charge is from the NSA to the White House. So its not like there was no plan in place in case something like that happened.
The question has to be asked of why this legislation is needed at this point in time, and why they think that a president with the second lowest approval ratings in history can manage this better than an agency that solely exists for the nations security. - eplawless, on 10/11/2007, -14/+28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystallnacht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law - ISIfunded911, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16About New Orleans: many people brought help, either with trucks or boats, but were stopped by homeland security and its dictatorial power! Dictatorial powers were not needed at all. Normal people, mayors from other towns, associations, immediately organized and went to NO to help, but homeland security could not allow that: it would have proven that they were not needed, that they were much slower to help than normal people, and it would have proven that dictatorial powers were not needed.
- fanclerks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14It's part of the American heritage. Distrust of the government is an integral part of what the US was founded on. Look at what the founding fathers said and how they attempted to construct the USA.
- laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+23The Bush administration's parallels to Nazi Germany are so heavily reinforced that Godwin's Law no longer applies.
- cookui, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14hmm... V for Vendetta anyone?
- Look4Truth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Yep. Anyone who hasn't seen V for Vendetta yet needs to. The NWO is going to attempt another 9/11-style attack on this country, the question is when not if. We must ALL work together to get Ron Paul elected because all the other candidates are bought and paid for. Time is very short guys, we have to take action NOW!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 546 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 