digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

How to Perform a Citizen's Arrest of A Bush Admin Official

huffingtonpost.com — The news that 4 people had been arrested in Iowa while trying to perform a citizen's arrest on Karl Rove got me wondering: Can we arrest Bush administration officials ourselves? So I slogged through a slew of state statutes, and as it turns out, the answer is yes. But only if you live in certain particular states.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kemp34, on 07/27/2008, -22/+147The question is, why aren't our crime fighters doing their jobs?
    • rewinn, on 07/28/2008, -5/+52Well, the Attorney General swears to uphold the Constitution.

      But this president appoints AG's who are loyal to him, personally.
      • mcsenget, on 07/28/2008, -0/+13Senators, congressmen, presidents, and soldiers all swear to uphold the Constitution as well.
      • denizen42, on 07/28/2008, -2/+12Not unlike the Nazi SS were chosen for, sworn and loyal to Hitler above all else, in pure criminal brotherhood.
    • Hangly, on 07/28/2008, -3/+44Because we aren't doing ours.
      • kaelyiesta, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4I'd digg you twice if I could.

        Corruption and destruction of rule of law can only exist by permission of the governed. WE need to hold our government accountable before it will resume holding itself accountable.
    • FinThingSucks, on 07/28/2008, -6/+46Broken bat signal?
    • relic180, on 07/28/2008, -3/+17Our crime fighters are only there to enforce the unconstitutional laws imposed upon the public, not to waste their time protecting and serving. In that context, they appear to be doing a great job.
    • gropo, on 07/28/2008, -5/+60Too busy arresting non-violent cannabis offenders.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1Yes, because drugs and violence are like oil and water.
      • RobotCitizen, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3Yes, because all drugs are exactly the same and thus lend themselves to broad generalizations.
    • sirber, on 07/28/2008, -4/+22They are busy tazzing grandmas and dieing teenagers
      • PabloMac, on 07/28/2008, -0/+10Tazzing? Tasing.
      • TheMidnight, on 07/28/2008, -1/+10Taz hate taser! Taz hate taser!
      • Arguman, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Haha. Good one, TheMidnight. I was thinking the same thing. Tazzing could mean whirling around the grandmas and dieing(?) teenagers.
    • brstilson, on 07/28/2008, -11/+6Because when white people do it, and it involves a lot of money, then it isn't a crime.
    • Naieve, on 07/28/2008, -8/+4It's called Intent.

      Ask a Lawyer.

      Good luck.
      • kemp34, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4So what is the "intent" of Rove thumbing his nose at a Congressional subpoena, wise guy?
      • rearlgrant, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1With non-Bush criminals, intent is usually proved with a pattern of four questions:

        You were served a subpoena?
        -Yes

        You were ordered to appear at the designated time?
        -Yes

        You planned a trip after receiving the subpoena?
        -Yes

        You were on your trip at the time you were ordered to appear?
        -Yes


    • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/28/2008, -2/+10Because they're the criminals.


      "I suggest that we start a nationwide movement."
      Heck yes!
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 07/28/2008, -9/+7You guys are out of your ***** minds. Do we arrest everyone we politically disagree with?
      • siszam, on 07/28/2008, -5/+12If they commit mass murder and break law after law, YES.
      • oxymoron69, on 07/28/2008, -1/+9If they're in a different country, don't you just bomb the people you politically disagree with?
      • minorthreat, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6when will the masses stop sucking on the tit of mass media. Those who have the balls to stand up don't see red and blue flags. It's not about politics. It's about right vs wrong and upholding our laws and constitution.
      • kemp34, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6It's not about disagreements, clown. You are clearly uninformed or misinformed. Either way, it is sad you are apologizing for the internal sabotage of our Republic.
      • randyzaia, on 07/28/2008, -5/+4I must have missed this whole "mass murder" thing.
      • floorman56, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Then why doesn't Nathan Robinson do it? His post seems to say ..Go ahead do it... I'll watch

        Why doesn't the huffington post ask Karl for a interview .. then arrest him? or NBC? ...Because they don't want to be sued out of existence ...that's why.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I'm sure dfs was saying that about Whitewater... even after the Special Prosecutor found no evidence to support the investigation.
    • sultanica, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Our crime fighters budgets come from those whole lead. Money talks.
    • joemommasfat, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1I thought the question was "Is our children learning?"
    • sportsstar67, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5Because there is no crime, stupid.
    • Syntaxis, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2By the power of the internet: YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!

      /sigh

      If a group of 5 police officers were to arrest Bush for war crimes against, well, everyone. Then it might work out somehow. But mere civilians? No chance whatsoever. Not unless they come in a large force.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1The question is why are Lefty Loony Digg Moonbats believing what an 18-year-old propagandist blogger is saying?

      When this 18-year-old gets into a US Government class - he will learn things about the division of power, a constitutional crises, and the meaning of the word coup d’état
  • MorganMghee, on 07/28/2008, -17/+6does anyone have the source article link if there is one?
  • Stevanoski, on 07/28/2008, -43/+23Hey, I think I'll do a citizens arrest of John Edwards to get a DNA test for his love child. Thanks for the info.
    • swrostmore, on 07/28/2008, -5/+36Because having a child out of wedlock is illegal?
      • ssn697, on 07/28/2008, -5/+9depends on where you live...
      • swrostmore, on 07/28/2008, -5/+7lol, really? I guess it's not that surprising.
      • gquaglia, on 07/28/2008, -2/+5No, but your voters don't look kindly to adulterous scum bags, while his cancer ridden wife sits at home.
      • mdmanic, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Edwards isn't running for anything...
      • rearlgrant, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1And gquaglia shows the true Republican party's values of Personal Responsibility -- use law enforcement to politically smear an individual's (lawful) private behavior to distract from the unlawful implementation of the Permanent Republican Majority.
      • Stevanoski, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1"...Edwards isn't running for anything..." Not now he isn't. Unless you count child support.
    • PeppermintPig, on 07/28/2008, -8/+17If the mother of this child wants to file charges let her. Otherwise it's rather nosy to get into the affairs of other people that do not concern you.
      • Brownds, on 07/28/2008, -4/+7Unless it's a Republican of course!
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1Says the person commenting constantly about other peoples lives on digg. If thats really how you feel, you should cancel your digg account (and any others) then cancel you internet, newspaper television, magazine and any other news and entertainment subscriptions. You don't want to look like more of a hypocrit do you?
      • PeppermintPig, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1No, I don't post about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. You must have me confused with a tabloid obsessed freak, or some kind of conspiracy nutter.

        I typically post about things that effect my life, such as bureaucrats and politicians imposing more regulations and tyrannical law upon me, or people being harmed by the state which is setting a precedent in law that could effect me.

        Or I post about technology, hobbies, science, or other things that entertain without having to be critical of what other people are doing with their lives.

        I hardly watch TV. When I do, I like to be educated or entertained, so that excludes much of the rubbish that passes as news. I don't have a newspaper or magazine subscription either. :)

        There's a difference and I hope you appreciate it.
    • Rotzooi, on 07/28/2008, -7/+5Typical Republican response. War crimes and high treason != hanky panky
      • ender7074, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Typical liberal response... What we do is ok no matter what.
      • jlfb, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5What we do is ok unless it involves killing and destroying entire countries, tanking the economy, destroying the environment, and commiting treason. This reply is for republicans only. The rest of us already know.
      • PeppermintPig, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1jlfb, I think that qualifies for virtually all politicians who seek to rule others through law, and through lawless unaccountable claims of authority.

        It is the greatest hypocrisy what many Republicans have done, though by obsessing over the personal foibles of others while overlooking the mass death and destruction caused by authoritarian activity.

        That said, Democratic destruction and death is less apparent because people don't often connect the dots in policy. All forms of wealth redistribution...
    • Lomstradamus, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1you can swallow my love-child
  • ImperialRome, on 07/28/2008, -39/+34Sorry, no dice.
    Attempting such an arrest is "involuntary restraint" which is kidnapping. Citizens do not have the legal right nor authority to arrest and hold someone, simply because you believe that a crime has been committed.
    In the case of Karl Rove, since the crimes you believe he violated are Federal statutes, not state laws, and that you believe he committed those crimes while on Federal property, you do NOT have the right to arrest him.
    If you have evidence of a crime, refer that evidence to the FBI or a DOJ attorney in your state.

    But just for sake of argument, lets say you succeed in arresting him, even for a few minutes. Are you going to put him on trial? How can you bind him over for trial? Unless you can show cause to a magistrate or judge that he must be held without bail you are violating HIS constitutional rights, including his right to freely travel within the USA. So, you are now justifying your actions by denying another citizen their rights because you think it legal and moral to do so?

    Twisted. And stupid.
    • ConAmoreEFuoco, on 07/28/2008, -15/+27Citizens do have the legal right in every state but North Carolina to arrest anyone whom they witness committing a felony. As the article states, there are some other murkier conditions under which a citizen's arrest can be performed. Kidnapping charges and the like only come into play if the suspect is innocent.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#Un ...

      It's twisted and stupid you couldn't google "citizen's arrest", or even RTFA.
      • ImperialRome, on 07/28/2008, -12/+20I did read the article, and I know how to apply the law.
        Since the law describes felonies as actual crimes against people and property that YOU must be there to witness, and since Federal offenses are not the same as those felonies, you cannot enforce the law yourself.
        But, you would rather believe a Huffpo article than to believe the law as it is written, by all means, knock yourself out.
        I look forward to seeing your booking photos.

        This is a fantasy, you haven't really thought this through.
        What do you do when you arrest him? Do you jail him? What jail is going to accept your arrest? What court or magistrate is going to authorize his incarceration? How are you going to hold him?
        How are you going to arraign him? How will you get a local court to hear his arraignment? How will you obtain the schedule and put him on the docket?
        You havent thought it through beyond the fantasy of being the one to arrest him.

        What you are advocating is little more than vigilantism, and will be severely punished.
        I stand by my earlier statement. Twisted and stupid.
      • relic180, on 07/28/2008, -10/+2@Imperial

        You should probably Google "vigilanteism" as you apparently don't understand what that is either.. since the intent of the attempted citizen's arrests are to bring law breakers into the custody of the proper authorities using non-violence.

        From Dictionary.com
        Vigilante:
        -noun
        1. a member of a vigilance committee.
        2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
        –adjective
        3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
        —Related forms
        vig·i·lan·te·ism
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -4/+4Relic....notice how there are three different meanings for the word. 1 and 2 say nothing about violence. Some words have multiple meaning. But just so you don't try and whine about semantics I'll give you the Merriam-Webster definition (a much more reliable source than dictionary.com)

        vigilante

        Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
        Pronunciation: ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē
        Function: noun
        Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
        Date: 1856
        : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
        — vig·i·lan·tism -ˈlan-ˌti-zəm noun

        Hmmm....nothing about violence there gee well maybe Oxford will back ya up

        vigilante
        /vijilanti/

        • noun a member of a self-appointed group of people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority.

        — DERIVATIVES vigilantism noun.

        — ORIGIN from Spanish, ‘vigilant’.

        Golly whiz you're just not getting a break are you? Next time think before you open you're mouth....it'll save everyone a hassle.
      • relic180, on 07/28/2008, -5/+3That is a VERY long post that can be very simply summed up as "I totally didn't read the part about bringing them into the custody of the proper authorities".

        I'm sure you're copy and pasting WAY too much into your post to try and make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about, but you missed the main part and tried to attack the extra added bit on the end. That's qualifies as a big FAIL, buddy. Golly whiz.. (insert misc. smug ***** remarks here).
    • Bushlied, on 07/28/2008, -15/+5Twisted and Stupid? Such as your remarks.
  • Hangly, on 07/28/2008, -22/+85I want to express my enthusiastic support for this idea. It's about time we took back the authority that is rightfully ours.
    • gquaglia, on 07/28/2008, -6/+18Let us know how that work out for you.
    • mike17032, on 07/28/2008, -8/+4Yes, me too!

      In fact I would buy a ticket to watch one of you diggiots give this a try. The entertainment value of watching you get curb stomped would be worth quite a bit to me.

      So if one of your ***** retards gives this a try, please make sure the video makes it onto youtube after you get out of guantanamo bay (or your coma).
      • Hangly, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Yes haha. People who post on the internet never go outside, have no jobs, don't vote, have never touched a girl, and are not active politically.

        Except that's not true. Sounds like you're projecting your own inadequacies on everyone else.
      • kahunaburger, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2mike17032 - joined January 27th, 2006 with over 5000 comments. How many comments are required to get into your "diggiots" category? I understand why you would need the video - you must barely have time to leave the house.
    • Nok1, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2This isn't the first article on Digg suggesting a citizen's arrest of Rove and Bush.

      O' hail the blogosphere and internets.
  • britt48, on 07/28/2008, -23/+18I agree it is an excellent idea for public officials who you see committing a feloney-that would include Karl Rove and George Bush. I would follow the advice laid out in Huffington Post article as opposed to anything ImperialRome had to say. Doesn't sound like he has any experience speaking truth to power. It would be wise to look state by state, sounds like Kentucky would be a good place to take another action.
    • evo8ftw, on 07/28/2008, -8/+10What felony has Bush committed?
      • Altotus, on 07/28/2008, -4/+6Among other things, there's sufficient evidence for a grand jury to indict him, personally, for directly violating or being accessory to: 5 USC 2302 (whistleblower protection), 5 USC 7211 (Lloyd-LaFollette act), 18 USC 371 (fraud), 18 USC 1001 (making a false statement to congress), 18 USC 1505 (obstruction of congress), 18 USC 1513 (retaliating against a witness), 18 USC 2702 (stored communications act violation), 18 USC 2340 (anti-torture statute), 18 USC 2441 (war crimes act), 18 USC 3121 (pen register/trap/trace device), 18 USC 3144 (material witness), 31 USC 1301 (misuse of public funds), 47 USC 222 (communications act violations), 50 USC 15 (national security act violations), 50 USC 1801 (foreign intelligence surveillance act violations), and possibly even 18 USC 1111 (based on past precedent).

        Of course, he's immune to prosecution while in office. There's certainly grounds for impeaching him for a "high crimes or misdemeanors" and removing him from office, but we all know that will never happen.

        For some of those, he's already received retroactive immunity from prosecution. At least one, maybe two, will have the statute of limitations run out before he leaves office. A couple carry the death penalty and you'll never see the US DOJ prosecute a US president for a capital crime unless he did it live on TV and in front of a million viewers.

        A few of those he's already invoked state secrets privilege or claimed executive privilege as affirmative defenses for, and lots of documentation has been destroyed (actually, the obstruction charge is probably the easiest to prove -- if one subpoenaed document is accidentally destroyed you can claim it's a mistake, but hundreds or thousands and suddenly it looks intentional).

        Frankly, it doesn't matter. He'll walk. The fact that people still ask "what felony has he committed?" just goes to show how apathetic (or clueless people are). Certainly congress seems to think that whatever he's done he's done because he though it was in the best interests of the country and they're fine with letting most of it slide because of it.
      • evo8ftw, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2wow how's that case of BDS treating you?
    • XxDeathxxStarxX, on 07/28/2008, -7/+7If you haven't been paying attention, get yourself a library card.
    • h0m3styl3, on 07/28/2008, -3/+6the wiretap act? I mean, that's just the most recent felony that I've heard he's committed since the supreme court ruled against it or whatnot. I really haven't been keeping up on it all as much as I should be.
    • jbmcb, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Buried for the phrase "speaking truth to power." What a tedious bit of prose that is.
  • nontoxyc, on 07/28/2008, -19/+18While I support seeing the Bush Reich tried and then punished, the Democrats certainly don't have the pair to do it.
    • mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -5/+8That's sort-of the point here. Since the US Attorneys at the DOJ have been hand-picked for their Political Reliability, and are disobedient to their sacred oaths, and congress isn't going to do it ( for *whatever* reason -- they're soft-on-crime ) the process must skip impeachment and federal indictment and go to criminal indictment on the State level.

      I would suspect that having the state charges *already* prepared at the time of citizen's arrest would make the process a little easier, as you could hold up the Felony Complaint and state loudly for the cameras, "You are UNDER ARREST for violating section blah-blah-blah. ( Direct uniformed officer to take alleged felon from your custody to his own, deliver copy of felony complaint to uniformed officer. File felony complaint with clerk of court in the morning. )

      Then it's up to the D.A. to refuse to prosecute ( which is within their purview, of course ) and the matter would drop right there. But it would confuse the hell out of everyone involved.

      The problem I see with this strategy, is that it relies on State Law, and the 2 most likely charges are federal code ( 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 371 ). I don't think many states have parallel statutes to those.
  • JCS007, on 07/28/2008, -12/+19Um. While performing a routine citizen's arrest, a gunfight ensued. I "accidentally" shot 27 people and broke my suspect's knees. Am I protected against any charges brought against me?
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/28/2008, -8/+18Sure thing - as long as you are in Iraq and a member in blackwater. In fact, there are already forms made up for just that thing it happens so often....

      Here in the west, you would be fine until you started shooting people like a vice president.
      • PeppermintPig, on 07/28/2008, -3/+9Was it self defense?

        Were you having a blackwater moment?
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/28/2008, -2/+15You have to yell "they're headed straight for us!" first.
  • ImperialRome, on 07/28/2008, -21/+15JCS, they don't want to consider such outcomes, they would rather live in their own little fantasy world where they arrest someone and it all goes according to plan. The real world ain't like that, people resist arrests, even lawful ones. I think they would justify killing Rove because he's committed "crimes" , but when it really comes down to it, they would not consider his murder while in their custody to be a crime, they would call it justifiable homicide. Twisted and stupid.
    • Bushlied, on 07/28/2008, -12/+5You sound like a ***** traitor there Nazi.
      • senseinobaka, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2LOL, I laugh every time Liberals use "Nazi" as a perjorative. Liberals calling political opponents Liberal really ilustrates how stupid they are.
    • mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -6/+4[SARCASM] It's his own fault for Resisting Arrest, isn't it? [/SARCASM]
  • britt48, on 07/28/2008, -20/+15You just created a fantasy purely of your own making ImperialRome-are you projecting? you have overused the term twisted and stupid-I will wait to see you come up with another.
  • britt48, on 07/28/2008, -16/+17by the way, some people believe there are things worth dying for or going to jail for...as you are an apologist for the powerful Rove and Bush and co.-are there things you would consider going to jail for?
    • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3At what time has he apologized for them? C...can you show us so we know where you get your unfounded accusations? Where did he even say he is a supporter? Golly I can't find it....it seems he's just speaking about legality issues and how stupid anyone would be to even try to do the arrest. If a police officer messes up the case can and often will get thrown out, and thats someone who has been trained to uphold and enforce the law. Now take an idiot that doesn't know what the hell they are doing and see if the arrest will even stick (let alone be a legal and proper arrest)....What chance does he have?
      Stop trying to find a way to twist someones words so you can stand on your little moral soapbox and show everyone just how left you are.
      No one cares
      • scojac, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2I don't want to get into left-right *****.

        But I think you're missing the point.

        It's not that the trial is supposed to actually GO THROUGH; rather, it's supposed to raise awareness & convince others that not every american is an ignorant, uncaring wretch. As in civil disobedience, going to jail for trying a citizens' arrest is just part of the consequences people are willing to pay.

        The point is, Rove shouldn't be allowed to walk around in public with no repercussions when he has been subpoenaed by a Congressional hearing board. Risking being arrested to stand up for public accountability should be applauded, not derided as "twisted and stupid".
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0yes because its so responsible to arrest someone with the intent to not have them stand trial. The point is these four Rovers were and are idiots, raising awarness??.....thousands of people do it with different causes every day, without making asses of themselves. This is a stupid way to "raise awareness" (its more like attention garnering, but you can call it what you want)
        Imperial and I nor any others on this thread that think this is stupid have ever said we don't think Rove should be held accountable...in fact I'd bet we all want him to be punished for his crap, but making an ass out of yourself doesn't get anything done but.....well making you an ass
      • rearlgrant, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3There is a reason he picked the moniker "ImperialRome" rather than "RomanRepublic..."
    • LastVisibleDog, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah - you think the 18-year-old chump that wrote this is willing to try it? Guess you buy everything your party handlers feed you.
  • Ryan166, on 07/28/2008, -18/+25I can't wait till some digger tries this, and then has to convince the police what did must be legal because he read it on an internet blog.
    • relic180, on 07/28/2008, -13/+10So, I take it you didn't RTFA, since the blog explicitly states the steps to take to look up your state's laws and the federal statues to site when attempting this?

      No. I didn't think so.
      • tripledjr, on 07/28/2008, -2/+9LOL @ Federal statues.
      • relic180, on 07/28/2008, -4/+3err.. .meant statutes. Now I feel dumb.
      • mike17032, on 07/28/2008, -4/+6So you gonna give it a try Rambo? You sound so sure its legit. How about getting mommy to make you one last hot pocket, leave your parents basement, brave the light of the Day Ball and give it a shot for us.

        Oh, so you know its full of ***** too.
      • randyzaia, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5"err.. .meant statutes. Now I feel dumb."

        NOW you feel dumb? I would have thought it was when you were talking about the logistics of performing a citizen's arrest on the president.
      • relic180, on 07/28/2008, -4/+4Seriously, does every single ***** on digg just read whatever they want and respond as if that's what was said?

        Ryan166 said a blog told "generic digger" to do it, and I corrected him saying the blog told "generic digger" to look up the laws.

        ***** christ people.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1The propagandist blogger that wrote this is an 18-year-old student! With credentials like that, how could he be wrong!?!
  • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -15/+46Right, try to make "citizens arrest" and see if you get cooperation form the Secret Service and Local Police.Then see if you get any sympathy from the Judge, the Prosecuter and the Jury during your trial. Then if you really believe you have a "constitutional right" to take the law into your own hands when the authorities are clearly present when you make your "citizens arrest" you can appeal it - at a initial cost of $10,000, while you are in jail and without a job.
    A little bit of knowledge on the mind of diggtars is a dangerous thing.
    • bgrah449, on 07/28/2008, -1/+16Did you mean "diggtard"?
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -8/+5Yes - spell check does not know the new name diggtards and my d key is weak from use.
      • Suzilla, on 07/28/2008, -2/+11At least it's not D-pressed.
    • kra1813, on 07/28/2008, -2/+5Did you mean "diggtard"?

      There seems to be quite a few those. I am willing to bet some mental defective will try it, too.
    • laserdog, on 07/28/2008, -10/+5@use2bacanadian "A little bit of knowledge on the mind of diggtars is a dangerous thing."

      Which explains why you didn't bother to RTFA:

      "3. Detain the person, without using physical force of any sort. Announce that you are performing a citizen's arrest, and cite the crime they are suspected of.

      4. Call the police. Make sure you know the relevant citizen's arrest statute number and the U.S. Code number. You don't want to be the one being arrested.

      5. This is risky, and all depends on your state. Make sure you're on solid legal ground first. It is best to consult a lawyer. WikiHow has an informative article on citizen's arrests in general."

      If they do it in a non-physical and polite manner, they won't be touched. (having a friend document it for posterity would probably help as well).
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2You didn't read my response! Try to make a citizens arrest of John McCain and see what happens. You will get a good education in the laws of this country and difference between Federal and State and Local ordinances.
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3God forbid they should just do something like.....walk away from the tard trying to arrest them.
        I still agree with use2bacanadian...good luck getting any politican a citizens arrest....you'll get oh so much cooperation from the police that you HAVE to call and tell them "I'm performing a citizens arrest on the President of the United States of America, no I haven't touched him, I told him to stay where he was, if you could pick him up, he sitting on a chair at the front landing of the White House....at least I think thats him....this gate is pretty far from the building"
        After they laugh so hard they ***** their pants I'm sure that they will be right on it.
  • Vindicoth, on 07/28/2008, -25/+16***** you. 2 of my friends died performing a citizens arrest.
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5***** you. 3 of my friends died swearing on the Internet.
      • Akunaeru, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1***** you. I died performing a citizens arrest of someone for swearing on the internet.
    • tuh2, on 07/28/2008, -6/+1Its old now
      • tripledjr, on 07/28/2008, -5/+14***** you 2 of my friends died from being old.
      • laserdog, on 07/28/2008, -5/+2***** you. 2 of my friends died taking a joke too far.
      • Akunaeru, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1***** you. Ruining this joke is my job :D
    • MillionsLivio, on 07/28/2008, -3/+3Does Karl Rove run Crysis?
  • Riggo, on 07/28/2008, -18/+14So very misguided.... What a waste of time and effort. It's truly incredible to me the naivety of this type of posting. Citizens arrest. OK......
  • mashiba, on 07/28/2008, -9/+1really????how come like that??
  • rrife, on 07/28/2008, -4/+21I'm pretty sure you have to be a witness to an obvious crime. You have not, you heard about it on the news and digg.com and made some assumuptions...neither would qualify.
    • rrife, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5I remember reading about somebody who attempted a citizen's arrest and the person doing the arrest was charged with unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping....not sure what the specific details were but it sounded like the citizen detained the "criminal" in his car and drove him to the local police station.
    • JekJob, on 07/28/2008, -4/+2Read the article before commenting. If someone has committed a felony (or suspects someone has committed a felony), which many believe Karl Rove has, then it is legal in some states to perform a citizen's arrest without having witnessed the crime.
      • mdmanic, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Which felony is that, then? Care to throw an actual law out there that would apply? And if you say treason, you better get damn more specific.
      • Aliendude, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1I'm pretty sure you missed Jek's first line: "Read the article before commenting."
      • mdmanic, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2I'm pretty sure you missed the part where you need to have evidence of someone committing a felony before you can arrest them...
      • Nosferotu, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2And I'm pretty sure that evidence is offered in the actual article, Manic. Read the goddamn article before trying to be snide.
      • mdmanic, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Well, the only evidence offered in the article is Title 1, Section 18, Chapter 73, S. 1505. Aside from the dubiousness of the claim that that even applies to Rove, much less anyone else, it's a federal crime, so state citizen arrest laws have no jurisdiction. Not to mention that Rove would have to be "corruptly" influencing a congressional investigation, which usually means things like bribes and intimidation.

        Of course, I'm a law student and the author admits he isn't an expert on the topic, so who knows. Maybe a legal expect can weigh in?
    • Nintendesert, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2I read it on Huffpo, that's close enough!
  • jbenson2, on 07/28/2008, -6/+21#1 Tip: Be sure to bring along your lawyers business card, so you can call him when your measly ass is thrown in jail.
    • squaredUP, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1Isn't the point here to stand up for what is right even if doing what is right may put you in a hell of a pickle? As long as you keep seeing yourself as just a measly one person then your powerless to even begin to become what you could be. Great movements and events all throughout history have always started with one person not accepting that they cannot and only accepting that they can and will.

      The issue here is not to be confused with some legal *****, it is to understand that the fundamental freedoms and basis of what is right transcends any current situation. Only through the actions of the few will the masses mobilize and become the unstoppable power that the elite are trying so hard to keep us from realizing that we can become.
    • Kikokun, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2thus spoke benson boy, the yellow-bellied, brown-nosed idiot.
  • natsfan, on 07/28/2008, -5/+32This should be titled how to get yourself tased
  • bentman78, on 07/28/2008, -26/+25More Bluffington Post spam...buried.
  • JK1150, on 07/28/2008, -26/+25buried for huffington post spam...
    • Delphium226, on 07/28/2008, -11/+4buried for poor personal hygiene
  • mweber02, on 07/28/2008, -1/+39Step 3. Detain the person, without using physical force of any sort.

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????
    • briguymaine, on 07/28/2008, -1/+18so basically the "detained" person just needs to keep walking unhampered. That will teach them.
    • denizen42, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4A rovecage would make such a nice picture.
    • funkyjunk3, on 07/28/2008, -7/+3When he enters a bathroom, somehow block the door from being opened. Make sure you've got authorization by the bathroom's owners to do this, though.

      It doesn't use any physical force against him, it simply traps the rat :)
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5Yeah dumbass....thats called unlawful imprisonment, good luck getting off of the kidnapping and imprisonment charge
        ass-clown
      • JointVenture, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2John Edwards? is that you?
    • alperea, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2you can effect an arrest verbally. merely saying "stay here" is effecting an arrest.
    • BobTheTaco, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Taser?
    • alpharaptor, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2superglue
    • mweber02, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1"Go-Go-Gadget Firm Request to Await Proper Authority!"
  • Kcaj, on 07/28/2008, -21/+10I don't see why people hate Bush so much. First off, he got our country out of trillions of dollars of debt. He brought Christ and freedom to both the towel heads. On top of that, he is the most articulate and intelligent president this great nation has ever (or may ever) seen.

    Bush has literally cut terrorism in the world in HALF... TWICE. He has improved our relations with all the foreign countries that matter, and face it... his approval rating right now is nearly 80%. So you 20% of ***** that want gay sex and the the ability to KILL YOUR UNBORN gay sex fetus in the womb while worshipping Satan and getting blown up by suicide bombers can go right on ahead and keep posting crap like this to Digg and other places trying to tarnish HIS LEGACY. At the end of the day though, all other countries on the planet wish THEY could elect Bush and see the great prosperity and success the United States has... too bad they don't even have democracy in all of those third world ***** holes like Japan and the UK where you can't even get running water or the internet (so I don't have to worry about offending anybody from there because -- SURPRISE, they don't have online).
    • kingmanic, on 07/28/2008, -1/+10/sarcasm

    • Vindicoth, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4I like sarcasm as much as the next guy, but that was just not funneh.
    • djrhettmc, on 07/28/2008, -4/+1This may be the most racist/homophobic/imbecilic thing I have ever read on Digg or the entire internet. May all the Gods have mercy on your soul. You can die now.
      • fourty_two, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4You haven't been on the internet long enough. ;)
        Or maybe I've been on too long?
      • tetsuo29, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3sarcasm - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt

        irony - the expression of one's meaning by using language that usually means the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect
    • XiberKernel, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5I thought a transporter glitch was required to cross over from the mirror universe...
    • bakstuh, on 07/28/2008, -2/+0So have you ever ventured outside of Alabama?
    • ChayD, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Obviously a troll, now to make coherent sense, just invert everything in this posting, I shall attempt to do that here:

      I don't see why people like Bush so much. First off, he got our country in to trillions of dollars of debt. He took away Christ and freedom from both the towel heads. On top of that, he is the least articulate and dumbest president this great nation has ever (or may ever) seen [sic] (Ed: I'll leave the 'great nation' part in as that is
      the one thing that this douche actually got right)

      Bush has literally DOUBLED [incidences of] terrorism... TWICE. He has wrecked our relations with all the foreign countries that matter, and face it... his disapproval rating right now is nearly 80%. [fevered rant removed - no idea what to put in there]. At the end of the day though, all other countries on the planet thank God THEY don't have Bush as a leader and avoid the financial ruin and loss the United States has... too bad they don't even have fascism in all of those first world utopias like Japan and the UK where you can even get running water or the internet (so I have to worry about offending anybody from there because -- SURPRISE, they have online). (Oh, we do have online here, wow! We are also literate, too, unlike Mr Lame-o, here)
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -2/+0Ohhh thanks ChayD....I don't think it was obvious enough what the ***** he was doing up there for every person to already know what he meant before you (in a glorious moment of wit and charm) decided to educate everyone.

        You just made yourself look like an ass
    • tetsuo29, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4Thank you Kcaj! I laughed so hard reading that. I'm guessing people are burying you because those damn pinko commie libs don't understand SARCASM! Or, maybe the damn conserv-o-bot ditto heads do understand SARCASM and the truth hurts.
  • truthproduct, on 07/28/2008, -2/+28The real question is how to do you get close without being shot dead by the Secret Service.
    • notalemming, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3No details on how they managed that unsurprisingly. I bet it's hilarious.
    • JointVenture, on 07/28/2008, -4/+3You taze him, oh wait I forgot you ***** hate tazzers.
      • sysop073, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Unbelievable, all of your comments are exactly the same
        .....*****
  • Shivetya, on 07/28/2008, -3/+10I can think of many more Congressmen more guilty of real crimes than Karl Rove. Yet I understand the completely irrational feelings people have towards George Bush and some of this cohorts. Still it doesn't excuse you to be stupid or grandstand... which is what this is all about - grandstanding for ad-sense words.

    We have Congressmen found with money in their freezers, former heads of the KKK, not to mention all the pork barrel earmark thieves we can count, and you guys want to get someone who simply got Bush past two very lousy competitors? Damn, if anyone citizen arrest Howard Dean for foisting Kerry on us
  • trenchcoat, on 07/28/2008, -4/+15If someone tries this don't forget to post the video on YouTube so we can all get a chuckle out of your dumb ass.
  • Delphium226, on 07/28/2008, -5/+11Citizens arrest or kick the ***** out of him? Tough call.
    • malman4, on 07/28/2008, -6/+2Either will get you a stiff sentence..........and rightly so.
  • EnderMB, on 07/28/2008, -20/+16Buried for leftist Huffington Post spam.
  • Lax32, on 07/28/2008, -2/+8Citizens arrests are only so you can hold someone until a law enforcement official arrives.

    Seeing as most of them are always already accompanied by said officials, it would be useless. Not to mention if somehow they ever did get taken in there is no way they would ever get charges pressed against them.

    Naive thinking at best.
    • kinerry, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2*****, enough of these will wake some people up and make enough headlines to maybe get some real action one
    • Phearce, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Yes and no. If the end-game is having the police lock Rove up in the local jail, then this is just hopeless. But if the goal is to generate awareness - and just maybe national press coverage - then this is brilliant.

      Also, the risks are fairly low. If BushCo press charges it will almost certainly get picked up nationally. That could result in more activists attempting citizen's arrests.
      • Nintendesert, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Awareness of what? Most people outside of Digg already realize the kool-aid drinkers are ***** up. Try it with the President, the headline is going to read "Secret Service shoots mouth breather in face in failed attack on President."
      • Jonascord, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Please don't tell them that the Secret Service is going to shoot them so much that it will take a fork lift to move the unidentifiable remains out of the street. I am all for these fools attempting to "make a statement".
  • greaseddeafguy, on 07/28/2008, -6/+8lol i hope they throw those asshats in jail
  • malchus842, on 07/28/2008, -3/+14If you try it, the Secret Service will be more than happy to arrange a free vacation in Cuba. And NOT the part controlled by Fidel and Raul Castro.
    • kinerry, on 07/28/2008, -5/+1That's when you arrest them for interfering with an arrest.

      You have more rights than they do, they work for you afterall.
      • Tweekster, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5...

        Your cunning plan involves you being shot
  • razorc03, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5The hard thing about doing this is presenting evidence at the time of arrest.
    In a situation with arresting govt officials, it becomes a "He said, she said" situation.
    Most likely won't happen they way you think.
  • thedogfatherx, on 07/28/2008, -30/+25I'm Voting Democrat

    I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq , I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

    I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

    I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

    I'm voting Democrat because I believe t hat business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the employees and to the government.

    I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

    I'm voting Democrat because I like it when planes fly into buildings full of civilians. I want to see more of that.

    I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.

    I'm voting Democrat because I don't want a stimulus check to spend. Let the government spend it for me.

    I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I'm going to marry my TV.

    I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4-6% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
    • kingmanic, on 07/28/2008, -8/+14So your voting democrat because you're a republican talking point?
    • phydeaux70, on 07/28/2008, -9/+13well...I liked the post and you know you'll get dug down. But it's nice to see that there is at least another person out there who doesn't believe all of the Democratic crap.

      I'm voting Democrat because I'm still waiting for Pelosi and Reid to deliver on their first 100 days promise that they made.

      I'm voting Democrat because the last President we had, had so much respect for the office we had the Monica Lewinsky fiasco.

      I'm voting for Democrat because we've only had two Presidents in the past 35 years and I think Carter deserves another chance.

      But in truth...as much as I despise liberals, I wouldn't mind if they get elected this time. It's about time they deal with some of the issues that are happening out there. We'll get one elected.....he'll do NOTHING, and try to play grab ass, hug games with the rest of the world. And I'll finally be able to tell the liberal idiots to be quiet. And finally I'll be able to say 'while I didn't agree with everything that Bush did, I thank him for making the tough decisions even if they were the unpopular ones.' Just like Reagan...give the man 20 years and we'll think differently.

      It's been longer than 20 and Carter is still a miserable failure as President, while still being a great humanitarian and person.
    • notalemming, on 07/28/2008, -5/+9You can make a list just like that for republican they're both a farce and have nothing to do with doing whats right. Your a fool for thinking it matters or that one is better than the other, its who is in them that matters and that changes all the time.
    • BDOUG, on 07/28/2008, -3/+9
      Just to prove how easy this is...

      I'm Voting Republican

      I'm voting Republican because I believe rich greedy corporations have my best interests at heart, and can manage my money far better than I.

      I'm voting Republican because I live in a fantasy world that says if I just work hard enough and screw enough honest people, I too can be a billionaire.

      I'm voting Republican because freedom of speech is fine as long as it is from the Word of God.

      I'm voting Republican because when we stay in Iraq for 100 years it will generate peace in the middle east the same way it would if Iraqi forces occupied say, Iowa for 100 years. WTF is in Iowa anyway?

      I'm voting Republican because I believe that people who think Iraqi's will greet us as liberators think not doing anything real on foreign oil dependence is good for the country.

      I'm voting Republican because even though we're "hard on crime" we give politicians who commit countless felonies a pass and we think spending billions incarcerating a huge percentage of the working adult male population is good for society.

      I'm voting Republican because I believe that we don't need a government AT ALL. Unless it's to enforce the teaching of bogus ideas about the history of the planet or where living creatures come from.

      I'm voting Republican because I believe the Constitution is WRITTEN IN STONE when it comes to the right to bear arms but is a "living document" when it comes to separation of church and states, civil liberties, privacy rights, etc.

      I'm voting Republican because I like it when planes fly into buildings... it's an excuse to set up an authoritarian regime of the "cool guys on our team"... never mind who might inherit all that unchecked executive power after the next election cycle.

      I'm voting Republican because I believe that when we don't have enough terrorists to shoot at so let's occupy foreign soil and generate an endless supply of them. Wait....WHICH guys are we supposed to shoot at again? It's so easy to get dem dar Shia's and Sunni's mixed up.

      I'm voting Republican because I think tax breaks for the rich actually trickle down on me at some point in the future. I'm still waiting, but I'm waiting with FAITH.

      I'm voting Republican because I love the fact that our small government ideals state that we can dictate the very definition of marriage, a formerly private religious function.

      I'm voting Republican because I think private profits for multi-nationals that offshore our jobs and sell us crap back at 100x markup is gooooood and public funds are baaaaad.





      • rearlgrant, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2lol - next time I get one of those false sophist emails about Obama from a Republican relative, I'm going to send this back in the thread.
      • thedogfatherx, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@ rearlgrant

        I know. I posted it after I received it from someone I know through e-mail. I agree with some and disagree with some. I just posted because I wanted to amuse myself with the replies and to see liberals try and silence replies they don't like with "thumbs down." It hasn't been as entertaining as I thought.
    • Nairebis, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Some of this I agree with, but other parts just embarrass me and long for a party that combines the strong defense and limited government of the Republicans, with the privacy and lack of religious nuts of the Democrats. Something like the Libertarians, except without the extreme crazyness (e.g., selling off the national parks, privatizing the fire department).

      *sigh* Why can't we have a party of common sense?
  • fourty_two, on 07/28/2008, -15/+17buried for huffingtonpost.com spam. When will digg implement the feature to filter a set of user defined URLs?
  • Ymeg, on 07/28/2008, -15/+10This is ***** stupid.

    You are never going to do a citizens arrest on a president.




    This is worse than that 9/11 sit out.
    • sysop073, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1Yeah, you clearly read the article. Or the synopsis. Or the title.
  • test5477, on 07/28/2008, -14/+15I like the story but refuse to Digg anything on huffington, its spamming Digg nowadays.

    I shall now mark all HP stories as spam. More need to do this so people will quit.
    • thesonofdarwin, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2I concur. How DARE people put up submissions on this social network that other diggers find interesting.

      I know there are other sites that do this, but since you are not happy with the intent of this social network perhaps Digg should disable submissions and just randomly pick links off the net and we can digg based on that.

      It's on the front page because enough of Digg's user base enjoys such articles. That's how it works here.
  • MrFurious2k, on 07/28/2008, -20/+17Huffingspam post. Buried.
  • MikeFallopian, on 07/28/2008, -6/+7Citizens' arrests are only appropriate when it is not possible for legit law enforcement to make the arrest / detain the suspect. Examples of this would be a crime in progress that needs to be stopped, or a person who is already wanted by the police, who is spotted in a remote area. Physically detaining someone because you disagree with their politics is kidnapping and should be treated as such.
    • funkyjunk3, on 07/28/2008, -4/+4"a person who is already wanted by the police." -

      Karl Rove has committed a crime against the Congress by not showing up to hearings he was compelled to show up to. He IS a Federal criminal, they are just ***** lazy about enforcing their own laws.

      Sometimes it takes citizens to do our legislature's work for them.
      • Phearce, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Law enforcement isn't acting because the Attorney General is complicit.
      • PepeGSay, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Not showing up isn't a crime until he's found in contempt or something similar. Which he hasn't been. Until he has been charged with something, or found in contempt, he just didn't show up somewhere someone asked him to be.

        And, that isn't a *felony*. Read the article.
      • MikeFallopian, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2The fact that you think the legislature should be responsible for arresting Rove is very telling.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1You mean the legislature that has a 9% approval rating?

        Sure. Side with them. You'll be super popular.
  • OliveStreet, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5I keep hearing Goober from an old episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" shouting, "Citizens arrest, citizens arrest..."
  • notalemming, on 07/28/2008, -5/+9pure heroism.

    In fascist America police jail you.
    • dafunkmonster, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1***** Lame. There wasn't even any absurdness to that statement, no humor at all. No punchline on the third iteration, no sign of satirical misrepresentation.
  • flooz, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4The laws the post cites say, "A private citizen may arrest another..." I believe Rove is considered a public citizen under laws. I know with many first amendment hearings that politicians are considered public citizens rather than private. Does this extend to criminal law as well? Regardless, most of the above are correct, he'd be accompanied by a law enforcement officer so the laws probably wouldn't apply.
    • mdmanic, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0No. The private/public citizen thing is a concept when it comes to libel and slander. It means that someone considered a public figure feels he or she is libeled or slandered, there is a much higher standard to prove it and win a suit. It has nothing to do with this area of law.

      Ironically, the public/private distinction is what lets horrible journalism like huffpo and fox news avoid law suits, for the most part. If they reported on an ordinary citizen the way they do on public figures, they would be SOL.
  • drmangrum, on 07/28/2008, -14/+10And so begins the monday morning fluffingtonpost spam.
    • pnunn, on 07/28/2008, -4/+3and the endless whining about it! Don't forget that!
  • datastorageguy, on 07/28/2008, -15/+12Huffington Post. Buried.
  • mdmanic, on 07/28/2008, -8/+5What crime would one be arresting him for? Those of you who are all for this better figure out before you do it, or you're gonna look damn stupid in prison orange.
  • fadetoone, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6Good luck.
  • PeanutCheeseBar, on 07/28/2008, -8/+12I'd glad the folks at The Huffington Post are encouraging people to do this; after all, what better to do than encourage your readers to boldly do what nobody in your office would, and then write up a piece about what an "outrage" it is when a THP reader does something so blindly and stupidly in the name of liberty. It's no better than a psychotherapist giving a gun to a mentally-ill patient and saying "I want you to shoot this person."

    Flock to your shepherd, sheep; you're nothing but pawns in THP's little game, just a means to fuel the propaganda fire.
  • stealthc, on 07/28/2008, -10/+9President Bush is a menace. I fully endorse his arrest.

    I sometimes wonder if the controlled media is permitting all this negativity to be arrayed at GWB just to help the sheeple feel so relieved when the Messiah Obama finally takes office. Any questioning of the insane policies of Obama will bring accusations of sympathy for the evil Bush regime.

    Brilliantly designed thought control.
    • notalemming, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1Speaking out against the president will be seen as racism.
    • mike17032, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Its gonna be a great day when the freight train of real life runs you the ***** over, I only wish I could be there to see it.
      • stealthc, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1I'd love to know what you're referring to. Am I delusional because I called Obama's policy ideas insane? Am I delusional because I endorse the arrest of war criminals? Am I wrong that disliking Obama comes with an indirect accusation of racism, classism, greed or some "Republican" vice?

        Do you not see the narrative being written for us? Bush is worst-president-ever (only true because he's the most recent), and Obama is branded as his opposite. Columnists gush over how Obama is some kind of superior being. The next JFK, the next MLK, Gandhi, Christ. He's billed himself as "different" when the fundamental truth is that he'd be just another Repugnocrat.

        I feel the same thing for the Obama zealots as you apparently feel about me.
  • crackberri, on 07/28/2008, -10/+3Hey, just ask the four stupid Iowan Demotards for the procedure. I heard they conducted a perfect arrest……..
  • peoplerstoopid, on 07/28/2008, -8/+8Reading that article just took up time I could have spent taking a *****.
  • schapman43, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5We're going to need a lot of hand cuffs. There's assholes in both parties who have overstepped their authority.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.