What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "How To Meet Women" Quiz view!
doubleyourdating.com - Three attractive women are standing a few feet away from you at a bar. What do you do? Find out...
111 Comments
- motivator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+54http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3b23c27944ff9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43Al Qaeda is celebrating, they get more material for propaganda they get more recruits and they will always be able to torture American soldiers pointing a finger to Washington saying the enemy does the same.
A sad day for democracy. - Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39The Terrorists are taking away our freedoms. The Terrorists are winning over here. President Bush has succeeding in gaining unprecedented powers of torture and indefinite detention. This is a sad day for America.
- AHIGHERGOD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28***** wont change until people fill the streets. Are we the only country that doesn't?
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Maybe in the future when people will look back will say that 9./28/2006 was the day when the democracy died in US.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25We used to be known for rebelling.. now we're ***** lazy.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25You really have no idea what you're talking about, cmog. A Republican pointedly asked a Democrat if the bill could apply to American citizens because the Democrat had a revision that would prevent this. The Democrat repeated 4 times the exact wording of the law that made it apply even to American citizens.
Do you know what that Republican did? He shrugged, made his closing statement, and sat down. Just like you, he assumed that since he supported it, since he wanted the bill to pass that it must pass muster.
Does that make any sense? Sanity is not statistical! - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22I'll say it before someone brings it up just because it needs to be said:
Whether or not you think Bush will or will not abuse these powers, what makes you think that a politician ten, fifteen, even twenty years from now won't abuse these powers and create a police/military-state? Think about that for a while before anyone decides that this kind of thing isn't a big deal. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19And the worst part of it -- you're more likely to die from being shot by a police officer than to die by a terrorist attack. Hell, you're more likely to die of appendix complications than you are to a terrorist.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/17/flu_hernia_or_police.html
I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists any day compared to the threat of tyranny. - consonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20The terrorists have won.
Now, before you get all up in arms about it, let me tell you why they've won. It certainly wasn't because of September 11, 2001. After that day Americans came together in a way unmatched even by the duration of President Monroe's administration. No, the terrorists didn't win on September 11, not even by a long shot.
The terrorists won because of everything after September 11. Our senators passed a law no one had read and few had pondered. It was unanimous - impulsive, even. The American spirit imbued us. We resolved that we would not let the terrorists win. We passed The PATRIOT Act because it would protect us. Our president signed it.
Ah, our president.
Our president led the way in a brilliant, majestic halo. He showed courage and resolve, and he let us know that we had not truly lost. He would be a father to us, and guide us through these dreadful times, just like a father would his young son. and we rallied behind our father and drove him onward.
And then the terrorists won.
Now, before you get all up in arms about it, let me tell you why they've won. It certainly wasn't because of the PATRIOT Act. No, that's not it. Looking back, it's easy to say that anyone would have done it. We did what anyone would have done. Of course, few considered the time when the PATRIOT Act's effects would close - at least not until the closure was in plain sight.
We never saw it coming.
Not when we supported our president when he threw the grenade into Afghanistan. Not when we routed the Taliban and hit hard against the terrorist training camps that littered the desert mountains. Not when we formed a close alliance with Pakistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden.
Once again the terrorists won.
Now, before you get all up in arms about it, let me tell you why they've won. Perhaps it was the Iraq War. We supported our president when he told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Or, many of us did. Some of us did. I did. After Afghanistan, I trusted the president. He was our father. The Iraqis didn't want a nuclear dictator, we said.
But we were wrong. Our president lied to us. He lied to us. Our father lied to us. We dragged us into a long, drawn out, expensive, gory, depressing war that has neither clear end nor aim.
And then the terrorists won.
Now, before you get all up in arms about it, let me tell you why they've won. After the war was underway, we began to learn of the events in Abu Ghraib - prisoner abuse and torture. The media jumped all over it, and rightfully so. It was an outrage that anyone could be treated in that way. Those events constituted a moral black hole that no weasel words could mend. And then we learn about Guantanamo Bay. Torture is prevalent. Human rights organizations slam the Bush administration for the treatment of prisoners. Prisoners had no rights. The American Constitution became null, moot, a dull point.
As predicted, the terrorists won. They won when we stopped looking for Osama. Osama bin Laden - remember him? A writer named Sparrow once wrote for The Sun about how his daily life changed after that fateful September, because he happened to look like Osama bin Laden. In no uncertain terms did every American wish to see Osama dead or alive. Our president told us that he would eat and would not sleep until Osama bin Laden was found. But we have eaten and we have slept, and Osama is nowhere to be found. The CIA closed the file on Osama, and the War on Terror continued.
The war continued at home, and that's when the terrorists won. We turned into the terrorists. The PATRIOT Act came to close, but then we pulled it back. It almost escaped us. But suddenly those who felt strongly for their civil liberties became terrorists and terrorist lovers. And then we learned that our president was spying on us. Our step-dad was peeping where his business did not belong. Again, those who thought our Constitution was important were called terrorists. How could anyone possible conceive of protecting both Americans and the Constitution? our leaders asked.
And then, without pomp and circumstance, the terrorists finally won.
Because we won.
We are winning the war on terror. And, by golly, if we need to torture people to protect America, we'll do it! We must do everything we can to beat those dirty Islamofascists. If they're gonna torture our citizens to beat us, we might as well torture them!
Doesn't that defeat everything September 11 should have taught us. Doesn't that negate everything we learned in five years? If we sink to the level of the terrorists, what's the difference between us and them? Why are we not attempting to maintain a moral high ground? Isn't that one of the points of the War on Terror? That we have been wrongfully attacked and must defeat this terrible evil? Does anyone see the ultimate irony? How can we really defeat the terrorists if we become the terrorists ourselves?
The terrorists have won. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17These are not all people caught fighting us in the field. Some are found in the streets, some are stopped for taking photographs, one of them making the circuits right now was tortured in Syria after being sent there by the United States until he confessed. When he was released, it was revealed that nothing he admitted was true.
The only thing true? The fact that this innocent man was tortured in a secret prison. This has been on CNN, MSNBC, in the New York Times, on Yahoo. This is the reality you're trying to hide behind the velvet curtain.
Currently a photographer for the Associated Press is being held without charge in a prison. Where? No one knows. Go to AP.com and you'll see for yourself. The associated press!
You need to get your head out of your ass and think. Stop assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent because you know what? Our government will just stop holding trials to fit your standards.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! - cwestpha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Basically this law says in writing the president has the power to say what is torture and to bring them to trial as he sees fit. Ok so it does change something, now it is illegal for them to appeal to the US courts... so now it is against the law for the US Supreme Court to hear a case about the constitutionality of this law.
Well guess they found a way to legislate away the Judiciary. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17You know this isn't just for Al Qaeda, they will be able to imprison American citizens too. All they have to do is claim they suspect you're a "terrorist."
Ah, we're back to medieval politics. Or Communism. Americans are throwing away their supposedly precious freedom. You know, the one we were told we were fighting this war to protect?
Bush isn't protecting *****. He's using the war to cover up his crimes. And he's passing laws to make sure he and everyone involved can never be prosecuted for them.
Sorry, but that information is classified. Only a terrorist would ask a question like that. Are you a terrorist?
Just wait until your neighbors turn you in for "unpatriotic" activities. - chrishavel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Dude, read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5390658.stm
Then ask yourself ... why on Earth would you make it legal to make a horrible mistake like this? And ask yourself a second one: is it OK to kidnap and torture an innocent person just for the chance to get what will likely be useless information?
If a person like you answers "yes" to questions like that, I figure we're getting the government we deserve, because people like you will rationalize it away until the pain goes away.
You may want to make this seem like we can either pass laws like this, or not fight terrorism, but you're dead wrong. We _can_ fight and not become monsters. It's just harder. - Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19There's one problem i have with all of this...it's gonna be one hell of a confused time when america invades america to liberate itself.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14If you are against this Law, you are unpatriotic.
Wait, that's so 2003/4.
If you are against this Law, you are .... soft on terror. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"oh because the ny times is a fair source for information."
Yeah.. pretty much. - graizur, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I have been saying it for months. Bush and his ilk are not taing part in a comspiracy. They are taking part in the infan stages of a tyranny.
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16A sad, sad day for America.
- dbloodnok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14 Yeah, just wait for gun-toting Constitution-defenders to be declared Domestic Terrorists. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/FBIsuspect.html (FBI pamphlet describing what "terrorists" may look like. Not what you'd expect.)
- shaneholland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13if you take arms against those *****, then you are a terrorist and you will be detained and tortured without due process. so much for the 2nd amendment.
- bigtimepelham, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17This article scared the living ***** out of me, thank god im a believer in the 2nd amendment to protect myself from these aholes
- xdj4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13business as usual, "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS" so why not take them away Mr Bush?
does this surprise anyone? if it does you've been in a coma for 6 years, or a republican
the reason that DEMOCRATS would vote with the bush camp, BUSH and co have turned the AMERICAN right of being able to question its leaders into a treasonous crime, don't question the government, they are the only ones to protect you
DEMOCRATS are unable to help, only republicans can outsource your job, not defend the borders, invade helpless countries, spy on you, take away rights wrote by the founding fathers, torture people and call it a college prank, grow the debt by trillions, have the entire world hate America, I mean come on, DEMOCRATS cant do all that - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"its called a coup or revolt or rebellion or mutiny."
It's also a Constitutional right. It's about time Americans started taking the Constitution more seriously. - MakinBacon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I never believed that 9/11 was an "inside" job... but ***** like the "Patriot Act", Bush's wire tapping and now this new bill are starting to make me think...
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Seriously, why the hell would you mod down motivator ?
- Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Seriously, think the 2nd's gonna do any good if you actually try to use it to protect yourself from encroachments upon your civil liberties?
I love how some people (not aimed at you, bigtime) -still- support the Conservatives because they're so sure that rogue Liberals want to steal their guns away from them. Do you really think that a government which defends torture and circumvents the Constitution is going to let you protect yourself from them with armament? Even if you tried, the experience they're getting overseas with urban combat and the evolution of technology means that they would attack at the first sign of any real danger, break down communications between 'dissident' groups, and come in swingin'. Then they'd report on the news that they had captured/killed bona-fide American terrorists intent upon bringing down our glorious Republic.
Oddly enough, the same people so worried about gun control would applaud the government's response to this "close call." - fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8OMG, this reminds so much of V for Vendetta
- djtansey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I always found it interesting how many cherish the 2nd amendment but don't put two in two together. The 2nd amendment is our right to be insurgents.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Someone needs to create a Republican random word generator.. (though it might be useless because the same 4 words will cycle over and over again)
- zubi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10its called a coup or revolt or rebellion or mutiny.
- clokwise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When I see news like this I realize the terrorists are winning. They don't even need to blow up any more people, just hang out and wait for the USA to self destruct. The politicians are using the supposed "threat" to dismantle the constitution and install provisions that serve their best interests. If the threat level decreases they launch a new campaign to remind us just how scared we should all be. History will prove: The Washington politicians were A LOT more dangerous than ANY terrorists.
- ksadya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wait! I need to troll just so I can be counted in this online 20th century definition of a democracy -- Bush's government is the epitome of every ego-driven, self-righteous government that has ever existed in the history of civilization.
Slowly turn pre-existing laws into the enemy that allowed said event to happen -- too weak. Then provide new plan for future to prevent said event from occurring again -- we must protect ourselves. Then create laws that establish mechanisms for enforcement that appear to be in defense against said event, but actually allow for alternative interpretations of what the said event really was (terrorism? Al Qaida? Iraq? Saddam? Iran? North Korea? Islam? Jews? Sally's mom?). The World Trade Center was targeted because [one of the above] doesn't like what [former definition of democracy] stands for.
If enough laws are created, nobody will be allowed to form an opinion without the consent of the state.
Real quick: I read 2 days ago that lots of people were arrested in the US for [peaceful] protesting... they didn't obtain the necessary permits. 2 things: If you need a permit to protest, then someone has control of whether you're allowed to protest or not. Secondly, Isn't it our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to demonstrate peaceably? If it's a right, we don't need permits -- it's protected under the constitution already!!
***** fascists... - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's not just laziness. People are afraid that if they protest they might wind up being the next victims you see paraded on CNN of the police or Homeland SS. And with this new law, you could even be locked up in a federal detention camp if you're unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Are you willing to fight back? Even with the possibility of being tasered, pepper sprayed and having the ***** beaten out of you by a bunch of coked-up, baby-eating, Planet of the Apes riot police? That may be what it's going to take. By the thousands.
At the recent anti-Bush protest at the UN, the protesters were herded onto the sidewalk and weren't allowed to "disrupt" traffic. The police were on standby to lockup anyone who stepped out of line.
Now what the ***** kind of protest is that? But can you really blame them? Would you have done more? - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It makes me sick... it makes me feel physically and violently ill
We sit back as a couple of soldiers fall on their swords for torturing people in Abu Ghraib because they "Acted alone". Then we find out that it was *indeed* requested from the VERY top, and we've all suddenly forgotten how enraged we were by those photos.
I no longer give a ***** what 'arguments' you have to suggest bush is a good man, or whether it's the right thing. I know its the polite thing to listen to, and engage in debate on issues, but I no longer give a *****. If you think bush is doing whats the best for USA, the economy, the world, peace, white people, black people, christians, jews whoever - YOU ARE WRONG.
It's no longer open to debate whether or not he is to be removed from power. HE MUST BE REMOVED one way or another. We knew this all along, and yesterday action could be taken, but today if you act, you WILL be labelled a terrorist, you WILL be sent to a secret prison by bush's SS, and you WILL be tortured. It's that ***** quick. I'm in Australia, so there's little I can do, so WHEN THE ***** ARE YOU GOING TO ACT!??
Just so you know, my posts are normally rational, calm and open minded, but this issue is closed. You live in a tyrrany, and not just any tyrrany, but one with 200,000 WMDs & unmatched military powers.
How can you act?
1. March on congress
2. Target companies in collusion with the government, lobbiests and others who own congressmen - Call spam, email spam, picket their offices, pies in the face - call news crews so it get's covered.
3. Make posters, stencils, grafitti (LOTS - EVERYWHERE - do it in broad daylight if you must)- make sure the world knows that enough is enough, and that they can come out.
4. Be creative.
I know he's wrong, you know he's wrong
This is NOT a debate. REMOVE BUSH NOW. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5don't vote djtansey down! He has it right!
The second amendment exists because it ensures 'We The People' the means to take back our government if the said government were to become tyrannous. Thats why the 2nd ammendment exists, not just so that we may posses a firearm, but so that if and when the time comes, we have the ability to take up arms against a rogue government. - Kiyomizu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for All.
Three major tenets of democracy, tossed aside to make room for personal vendettas and favors.
The United States has always led the world by example to continue the path of democracy but now, it has joined the league of the evil empires.
We can now teach our children and the forthcoming generations this tyrannical law.
Parents: If you have any enemies, you have the right to put them away in our secret cellar forever. You can torture them in any way you want. Nobody has to know about it, there will be no trial for your enemies, they're not worth the trouble.
Child: Great! I want to punish my english teacher for giving me a B- on my test, she's my new enemy. She's been giving me a hard time, even taking away my mobile phone. I know she hates me so I hate her too.
Limited Freedom, Limited Liberty, and Limited Justice For All. The United States of America Limited. - quilner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The New York Times editorial makes reference to "illegal enemy combatants" and the purported provision in the Senate bill to grant the President the authority to declare a U.S. citizen as an 'illegal enemy combatant" and detain them indefinitely without writ of habeus corpus.
The New York Times is incorrect.
The bill, S. 3930, does grant these powers to the President but only with regard to "alien unlawful enemy combatants". U.S. citizens are exempt from S. 3930. This is an important distinction. U.S. citizens will not have any fewer liberties after the President signs this bill than they did before.
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution prohibts Congress from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This has happened only twice during the past 217 years -- once by President Lincoln during the Civil War in the 1860's and once by President Grant during Reconstruction in the 1870's (in an attempt to quell the Klu-Klux-Klan) .
By passing a bill which suspends Writ of Habeus Corpus, the Senate has opened themselves up to having the bill invalidated by the Supreme Court under grounds that it is unconstitutional. Since S. 3930 does not include a sunset provision, this should lend some peace of mind to those who have faith in the litigious merit of the ACLU.
Read the bill for yourself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930is.txt.pdf
Take a look at who voted for the bill: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259#position
The real motivation for this bill is to push house democrats in closely-contested midterm elections to vote against it on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and to thereby open themselves up to criticisim that they are coddling terrorists. The more draconian the bill, the better -- if democrats vote for it, they are spineless, if they vote against it they are weak on national security. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.... Brilliant, really. The point is to keep the republican majoirty -- who cares if the Supreme Court invalidates the bill 6 months from now? - CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Please excuse my ignorance. What is the name of this bill and has it been passed? The article (or my comprehension of it) wasn't clear on these points.
- a concerned neighbour to the North - AHIGHERGOD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Where to? Global Government is now.
- migla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know why there wont be a coup in the US? Because there's no US embassy there to orchestrate it. (Latin american joke)
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"those who think Bush could revoke democracy from our nation don't deserve to live in it"
You're telling me I don't deserve to live in America? ***** you and the whore that rode in on your face. - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not a tyranny, but an oligarchy. You don't seriously think that they'll use any of this or any future powers they might vote themselves on rich Republicans, do you?
With all the evidence of electoral fraud and the corruption of campaign financing, democratic change may not be an option any more. It's a sad thing to say, but US politics stopped resembling a democracy a long time ago. - humanaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Are you willing to fight back? Even with the possibility of being tasered, pepper sprayed and having the ***** beaten out of you by a bunch of coked-up, baby-eating, Planet of the Apes riot police? That may be what it's going to take. By the thousands."
And this is how totalitarian police states begin. Forget the 2nd amendment or "liberals gunna take our guns hurrrrrrr". It's already tipped way too far in favor of the government for the people to do a damn thing about it. Protest and "freedom of speech" and all that crap is a nice happy idea but the cold hard reality is, they are the wolves and we are the sheep.
The only way to fight back against this behemoth is not through peaceful protest or lameass civil disobedience. It's through modern methods of asymmetric warfare, 4th generation warfare, or as the western governments like to call it, terrorism.
But I'm a pacifist, so... - zubi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4your last point about the motivation of the bill is very interesting.
it seems like another twist in an already confusing bill. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@fallenone05:
That's because the movie was made by the Wakowski(sp) Bros. because it paralleled current events. Sure on the surface its just an action movie about a man fighting to stop a dictatorship, but beneath it was a political commentary on the fear that we may be turning into the dictatorship in the movie. - setrajonas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"By passing a bill which suspends Writ of Habeus Corpus, the Senate has opened themselves up to having the bill invalidated by the Supreme Court under grounds that it is unconstitutional."
This didn't really stop Pres. Lincoln from suspending it anyways.
Besides, IIRC Bush has the power to declare any American citizen an "enemy combatant" under the bill, so it doesn't matter if they are or not, they will be. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The period of time leading up to the Civil War was a low point for democracy and freedom, The Civil War itself was a proud moment for freedom.
- humanaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really think there are a large number of Bush supporters who cannot come to terms with the fact that they were wrong to back these warmongers. Now, they're forced into an ever-increasing state of willful denial and cognitive dissonance, whereby the talking points of the right-wing become mantra, words become reality, history is rewritten daily and vague ideology trumps reality. The train of thought must flow something like this:
I voted for Bush because I am a conservative religious person, my family is conservative and religious, and we always vote Republican. Whatever Bush does or says is inherently good and correct as he is the mascot of my team. My team is good and correct, by definition.
When some inconvenient fact in reality disturbs this line of thought, the brownshirt quickly rewires the neural pathways in his brain so that any kind of opposing thoughts or questions about reality are dulled. Any opposing mantras, ideologies, doctrines, thoughts, words or actions are dismissed as being THAT which is the opposite of what is, by definition, good and correct. In this case, THAT is "The Leftists".
IronDioPriest, you are what's wrong with America. Keep apologising, apologist. You'll be first against the wall. - AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2give up on the system. take hold of the human power within. its time to abandon these old ways
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is