What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
1132 Comments
- theNazz, on 10/11/2007, -74/+1540***** YOU GEORGE BUSH.
- CloakandSwagger, on 10/11/2007, -27/+639Why worry about Bush taking material possessions when he's already taken your freedom?
- kmg365, on 10/11/2007, -36/+573Little by little, step by step, our rights are being eroded in the name of security. Why don't stories like this get dugg? Am I a left-wing, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist for thinking this is all leading up to the day when this Administration will declare Martial Law for our security and safety?
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -16/+454No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It's called the 5th Amendment GEORGE, read it. - ajkxxx, on 10/11/2007, -21/+383I'm worried that no newspapers have picked up on this story. This is the White House Website.
This is getting scary. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -15/+350"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- GW Bush 12/18/2000
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html - growlzor, on 10/11/2007, -20/+278Its sad, every couple days on Digg we read another story similar to this. The way I see it now, Bush has the power to imprison us without due process, put us all in camps, and basically turn this country into a dictatorship. I used to get goosebumps singing the national anthem. Now I shed a tear for Democracy.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -24/+191hitler was elected at first.
hitler card!
3 remaining. - kmoed, on 10/11/2007, -19/+170America is living under a dictatorship, and seems to be doing nothing about it. Sad..
- Acewrap, on 10/11/2007, -14/+147but...but... but... CLINTON!!!!!
- EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -11/+133Wow, dude, seriously did you not pay attention to how RIDICULOUSLY vague the wording in that EO is? It's a very politically motivated order. It's almost magnificent in how non-specific it is. While the Digg title seems inflammatory (indeed that was my first reaction) a thorough read through shows that you could infect have your possessions taken for speaking out against the war by saying something like "Don't buy gas tomorrow, stick it to Haliburton." Not buying gas would hurt the stability in Iraq. Bam! your megaphone is gone. Start telling about killing innocent Iraqis, pretty sure you're going to jail.
It's Bushtasticly un-Constitutional and probably would be overturned in a reasonably fair court... assuming it doesn't make it to Bush's Supreme Court, - uninvolved, on 10/11/2007, -7/+115Yeah, well, i dunno about you pal. But the rest of us are living in the here and now...
- Iriel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+98The dangerously vague wording of this was even cited in your own quote : "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing".
To pose a significant risk of committing?
Read up on the history of blacklisting suspected communists in the USA and you'll get an idea of what this really means. - jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -78/+168Quick read through the article, shows:
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq;
The title was inaccurate and inflamatory, you can't lose your stuff for protesting the war unless by protest you mean throwing bombs and shooting cops. Digg me down if you must, I'm glad you're all mad, I wish you were mad enough to do something other than rant, but keep your eye on the details. Get mad about the right things. - tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -16/+97There's really only a few more possible paths for the USofA:
1) Total descent into a fascist regime that tries to take over the world
2) A well-placed pretzel.
3) The Europeans grow a spine and crush Nazi America before it gets even more powerful.
I'm not suggesting or encouraging option 2 by any means. It's a horrible thing to commit a felony in the defense of a nation. Please, don't go kill the President. *cough* - nattybohman, on 10/11/2007, -40/+120Am I missing something? I didn't see any mention in the article about protest leading to taking away your stuff.
As I read it, if they believe you provide financial or other support to terrorists, your assets can be confiscated.
Which, as I learned from the movie Veronica Guerin, they already do in Ireland for anyone suspected (not even convicted) of drug dealing.
Not that it's right to take someone's property without due process, but it's not a new thing. It's just new to the U.S.
I just don't see anything about taking property for protesting the war. - joper90, on 10/11/2007, -13/+931984
- janthes, on 10/11/2007, -12/+92Oh our founding fathers are rolling over in there graves at what a state the democracy they set up has turned into...
- arTech, on 10/11/2007, -7/+86wtf does clinton have to do with this?
- 2sjh1, on 10/11/2007, -8/+86This applies INISIDE the USA?! I'm sure GWB didn't write it either.. . but he sure signed it!
- EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -15/+92Bye Nazz. You're so totally screwed now.
- MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+77"Those who learned 'history' from AM talk radio are doomed to misrepresent the truth."
- tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -5/+67arTech,
absolutely nothing.
But the only remotely rational attack the brown shirt bastards have is to claim that Clinton was even worse than this turd. I wish they were right, but anybody worse than this turd would've been killed at birth. - zebbie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+63The constitution isnt worth anything unless you have people willing to enforce it. Your government doesnt so unless people stop thinking "omg tin foil hatter" every time anyone mentions America turning into nazi germany II you guys are hooped.
- terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -2/+60I don't think it's a given, but I'm worried about it. I'd rather not live in a country where one figure has so much power. Wasn't that the whole point of the USA? Who are these people who support this man? Where did they come from?
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+57"to pose a significant risk of committing"
Any decent prosecutor can hang anyone over the age of 3 with that phrase. All it takes is a judge to bend over. I hear they're not particularly difficult to find. - kmadigan, on 10/11/2007, -25/+80Who cares about politics! It's boring!
Look! David Beckham! Harry Potter! - greendalek, on 10/11/2007, -10/+63Expect no repeat NO Democrats in Congress to do a damned thing about this either. Hell, Pelosi and Hoyer are probably reading it and exclaiming, "Wow...now THAT'S power. Wish we'd thought of that! Oh well, back to tougher CFC regulations."
- rogueman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+55I haven't logged in for a long time, but I have to digg/comment this.
First, to answer your question:
"(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. "
And if it's not english enough, let's take an example. Lets' take one person who one way or another was hit by this. Maybe he made a donation to the wrong fund, maybe CIA screwed up and mistook him for somebody else or maybe he actually helped terrorists. Don't matter. Now let's say you think it's the first two, and say so publicly on your well-read blog. Now you're helping him indirectly. And god forbid that you donate for his defense fund, even if you're pretty sure it was a mistake and just want to help an innocent guy. And guess who'll then donate for your defense fund?
But enough of drawing pictures. The really scary thing about this document is that it's has absolutely no limiting features. Usually when you write something like this, you want to say: "It's going to be used only for drug dealers caught with at least 700g of cocaine, or 1.5kg of marihuana". Or smth like this. But this has only language like "any", "not limited to" or "undermining efforts". This stuff is VERY dangerous.
And to recap, now what is legal in US? Torture, dissapearing people, and confiscating one's properties. Yes, the average Joe doesn't feel threatened by this, but it's not average Joe who's targeted, it's influential people/entities with opinions different from the party(ies) line. - KOSmurfy, on 10/11/2007, -14/+64Do you just stop reading everything after the first few lines, or is this a one time thing?
- EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+54Bush wasn't. He was appointed by the Supreme Court. More people voted for the other guy. Since that election day, our government has done nothing but fail us.
Impeaching Bush is useless, he needs to be removed from power. - EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+52From Amendment Number Two:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
From Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
...just saying... - Hostile17, on 10/11/2007, -6/+49Option 3 sounds cool. You guys need hella liberating at this point.
- jessebs, on 10/11/2007, -11/+54I'm not a lawyer but I think the big thing is that this is open to interpretation. No where does it define what threatening the peace and stability of Iraq is.
If you protest, you could be seen as threatening peace/stability because your protesting could lead to someone not joining the military who otherwise would.
This is the problem with being vague . - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+44But you'll never take my freeeeedommm! Oh wait you will? Damn.
- nytewalker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+42Except that little fact that the war in Iraq is doing NOTHING to protect our freedoms.
- Thefatheroftime, on 10/11/2007, -7/+48(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
Look at it, now. Does it say 'violently' anywhere in there? Protesting Bush's funding of the reconstruction and political reform by an American citizen by way of, say, a protest, falls EXACTLY within this statement. Are...you...blind? Any lawyer out there will attest to the importance to detail within a law.
They even added the humanitarian bit at the end to soften the statement. 'in Iraq or to'...or. These two statements aren't even really related. - Endemoniada, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44Why digg him down? Bush did say that, as proven by the source he provided.
And don't go all "it was taken out of context" on me. A president of a nation like the USA should never, EVER say anything like that. I don't care if it's a joke or not. He is the leader of an entire country, and stuff like that is NOT what I'ld like to hear coming from his mouth.
It's relevant, it's true and it's worthy to be read by everyone. And after all... If it isn't true, Bush and all you republican fear mongers have nothing to fear yourself, right? - Hostile17, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40Um, *****. Your government is doing everything it can to stifle freedom of speech, as this Digg article demonstrates. I don't know what your fight is (I presume you're military) but unless you're out in the streets protesting in support of civil rights, you are NOT fighting for freedom.
- Bluedice0003, on 10/11/2007, -80/+118I read that and no where in there did it say "if you protest the war we will take your stuff"
I hate GWB as much as the next guy but for an idiot you guys read way to deep in to stuff he does - sharpfork, on 10/11/2007, -10/+47***** YOU DOCTECHNICAL. :P
- pgoetz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37Your comments are ridiculously naive. Of course you won't find language explicitly spelling out violations of civil liberties - the whole point is to create a police state WITHOUT setting off any alarms. A cursory examination of history (as previous replies have suggested) should show you that such is the language of fascists and dictators.
- jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37That's the problem, you're all just saying... and you're all finishing your self righteous rants about home grown militias and presidential assassinations and then going back to reruns of Lost that you stole using your XP box, downloaded onto your iPod and took over to starbucks with you.
Everytime I read a post about forming militias or pointing out the original purpose of the National Guard I picture a guy who hasn't seen daylight in 2 weeks, that couldn't run 3 miles if he was being chased and is scared to death of both soap and vegetables but he's tough mother ***** on the internet. Don't ***** with him or he'll crash all your webs when he points his Hax0r tools at 127.0.0.1 and fires away - Stormflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+34As long as he says it from a barbed-wire "Free Speech Zone" at least five miles away from the nearest reporter, that is...
- m0nk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35Yeah, it'll happen the day before the elections, so elections won't happen. Then they'll find that the president has the power to stay in office while something something something, and then we're truly screwed. :(
- nils, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37" any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; "
It is trivial to include protests as "undermining efforts". - joshshu, on 10/11/2007, -26/+60That's the END.
- kmadigan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+41"To pose a significant risk of violence"
That tells me they can apprehend anyone they want, so long as they claim he poses a significant risk of violence. - gibler, on 10/11/2007, -11/+43When the hell are you going to march on the White House and force this dictator to resign. The rest of the world is waiting .. and in some place dying..
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is