What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.120 Comments
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -14/+67It seems that the platform for the next election is that the terrorists will come only if you elect Democrats, they could easily rationalize eliminating all political opposition using this insane logic. They are willing to do anything to stay in power, they have already subverted the constitiution and the electoral process. Imprisoning citizens because they oppose party politics is not too far up the slope of probability.
- cybersoldier, on 10/12/2007, -10/+54Since when are my rights as a citizen of the US no longer important. I'm beginning to wonder if all of our rights are being so conveniently tossed aside for some one who wants to stay in power. Next thing you know, the government will declare that because it's war time, that the president can serve more than two years. Don't let this happen. Make sure that your voice is heard in all upcoming elections.
- Splizxer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Bush's new stragety, only terrorists won't vote for him, ingenious!
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26hmm....me thinks Artifez is a witch...err...I mean enemy combatant
- miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27People that don't learn history are bound to repeat it and this totally reminds me of pre-ww2 germany.
The real question is how long before this one is buried as inaccurate? - unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23So, let's recap what powers the government has accumulated recently:
Warrantless wiretapping on US citizens. The ability to designate US citizens as enemy combatants in a war that has no defined enemy, nor end. The right to use borderline torture methods in extracting information.
I wonder how long it will take for the first American citizen to get tortured? - iskatebad914, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28"they" being republicans I suppose... What they're doing seems very shortsighted and expedient. Scare people now to win the election, push real agendas once in office.
- Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Anyone ever think that the idea of American rights is just a ploy nowadays? I'm really under the impression that it's just an idea used as the platform to deceive citizens into defending a country that, on a realistic level, is restictive and demeaning. I'm embarrassed of America right now. We don't have rights. We're falsely lead to believe we do only so we'll remain "proud". I'm certainly not proud right now. I want to leave.
Soon we won't even be aloud to argue our political beliefs. We'll get thrown into jail, or even worse, dugg down! Oh wait, that last one already happens. :) - pencilboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19@Cybersoldier
If you meant serve more than two terms, they're already working on that, too.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
22nd Amendment
Source: Cornell Law
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20"I'm beginning to wonder if all of our rights are being so conveniently tossed aside for some one who wants to stay in power. Next thing you know, the government will declare that because it's war time, that the president can serve more than two years..."
Beginniing to wonder? Well, it's about time!
Bush has already signed executive orders claiming that he can, at any time, declare martial law, and declare a state of emergency...and that there can't be any congressional enquiry as to the reason for it, for 6 months.
Also, other orders claim that if he declares a state of emergency, he can seize any personal property, and take people out of their homes and place them into work camps. Tgese and other recent executive orders are referred to in the movie America: from Freedom to Fascism. freedomtofascism.com
...and if you are really clever, you will find a place to actually download it (the screener)...while still hoping it gets into a theater near you sometime soon. - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18The Republicans haven't pushed any real agendas. They've only introduced insanity.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15When will the powers that be on DIGG.com give us an alternative ACCURATE button, to counteract the obvious 'gaming' of all the digg political articles that is happening of late, as you refer to?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Wait... This is from 2003... I'm confused.
- Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Bush wants to put the American voters in a stress position until the elections. Then they can go after their enemies in earnest.
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Next thing you know, the government will declare that because it's war time, that the president can serve more than two years. Don't let this happen. Make sure that your voice is heard in all upcoming elections."
If that happens, I'm casting my vote with a sniper rifle. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I'm sorry, but perhaps nobody read the actual article. This article is from 2003 discussing Hamdi's Court of Appeals case, which we all know has long since gone to the Supreme Court and been overruled, much to the chagrin of the Bush Administration.
Marked as inaccurate. - modiggs1976, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Fact check: one of them was on the watch list already.
Fact check: Condi got a memo regarding 9/11 before it happened
Fact check: You are parroting GOP talking points as we lose our INALIEANABLE rights - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Bush has the authority to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and detain them in military custody if they are deemed a threat to national security."
It seems odd that a federal court has now ruled the Executive branch of government can now arrest and detain anybody for any reason they choose, without appeal. They can strip you of your rights and even torture and interrogate you.
This same 'Executive branch' of government is the one who DEFINES what a threat to national security is or is not.
So now anyone who protests the government, writes negatively about the current administration in a blog or anywhere or advocates something as simple as non-violent civil disobedience can be locked up. Isn't this the same thing we complain about other countries doing to political dissidents?
I have even found myself holding my tongue lately online, as I surely do not support or approve of the president or his actions. If I suggest others shouldn't approve of him or his actions, in whatever way, will I be locked up and stripped of my rights, maybe even my citizenship? - NecoDivad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It also reminds me of the Sedition act of 1918 passed by President Woodrow Wilson-(D), or the Japanese Internment law passed by President Roosevelt-(D). Both these acts went far beyond what was just passed. I'm not saying that I support the law, but cause I frankly do not. I simply find it interesting that so many people overlook the plethora of instances in American history that similar acts were passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Executive_Order_9066 - grr74, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Next will be reinstating the draft. (I know I am on thin ice here, but looking at the current state of affairs...).
- Patented, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Stop playing the liberal/conservative game dude... the concept of "Why does it matter if you have nothing to hide?" is an excellent way of setting yourself up for more intrusions on your rights. Democrats and Republicans both are swiping at them as fast as they can, either through your wallet or your liberties.
- Bluebuilder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Anybody else notice this article comes from 2003?
- SonOfHam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10No, your tail isn't between your legs; your head is up your ass. The point that you so gladly missed is that the bill allows for "enemy combatants" to be detained without the oversight of a court. "Enemy combatants" is not defined as "non-Americans", but as anyone the administration defines as such. Ergo, Bush or any future President, could theoretically have -any- American detained.
- adam.skinner, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10If the men with the guns decide to stay in power, what are you going to do? What are any of us going to do?
You fight, and die in concentration camps.
Our consolidated federal government is too stong militarily. This is evidenced by the fact that not only do we have troops in multiple places all over the world and are capable of waging 2 wars at once, but the states can in no way resist the federal government when it comes down to firepower. - dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9This article is not only old. But has no meaning what so ever when it comes to the recently passed detainee bill. The bill specifically says that it only applies to non-US citizens.
The rhetoric of those who oppose this bill is ridiculous. - dvord, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Yeah, this is old news. I suppose someone wants to underscore the importance of today's legislation, but if someone didn't understand it's impact, this article isn't going to illuminate anything further.
- Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think from this point on if you want to declare that a thread contains inaccurate information you must indicate you've done as much and explain your reasoning instead of expressing your displeasure in such a cowardly fashion. That goes for the left too.
- Myrddnn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It didn't take too long... Funny how a public decision by a federal court can be marked "Inaccurate". Amazing what the right wing will do to stifle anything that is actually negative.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Please, please, for the love of all things living, please tell us the republicans won't win again.
When you people look back, you will be ashamed at yourself for voting republican during these times. It's a vote against the rest of the world. - 256byteram, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6any law passed three years ago is still relevant today
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Just another example of conservatives caring much more for themselves than anyone else. You people would eat your own babies if it came to it.
- kazuhima, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5isnt this article 3 years old?
- DFrag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Another right winger powered "Inaccurate" story. Not agreeing with it, doesn't make it inaccurate. It makes you inaccurate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If Bush could do it, every ***** human, rock, animal and plant on earth except himself and his cronies would be deemed an "enemy combatant" and locked up in huge prisons forever.
And they said China was communist and Iraq was a dictatorship. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It will obviously be his fault. He started this mess.
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Come on, people.
1) This is old news. Check the article date. 2003.
2) This applies to enemies on the battlefield! If we happen to catch someone who is trying to harm my country or fellow citizens, he should be held, even if he happens to be a US citizen.
What's wrong with you people? It's like you all actually want to be killed by the radical group of people that mean not to stop until we're all dead. Grow up. I happen to live in the D.C. area, and sorry, but terrorism is something we would rather not see happen here again anytime soon. Seeing the smoke rising from the Pentagon was enough to make this very, very real. - jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4True, but they were entitled to certain rights. I can be arrested for treason, yes, but I should have the right to habeus corpus, speedy trial, trial by a jury of my peers, no cruel and unusual punishments; You know, the kinds of rights and freedoms that we revolted for, back in 1776 or so.
- Aerophire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Interesting how we chose to do it. I guess our path to 1984 is through the guise of "terrorism". Amazing how it just proceeds. One day we will look back and think, why didnt anyone stop this at this point??
- donbigmano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Damn. They will come looking for me soon.
- maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Looking closer at the article, I guess this isnt so bad ...
FTA: "We have no occasion, for example, to address the designation as an enemy combatant of an American citizen captured on American soil or the role that counsel might play in such a proceeding."
I take it that means that you can be deemed an enemy combatant as an American citizen only if you're performing treasonous acts on foreign soil.
I dont feel so sick after all. (unless my assumption is wrong) - mbierman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Don't get me wrong, I think we are in a lot of trouble...we have elections that can/are fixed we have a King who rules/lives outside the law, and he can imprison anyone, at anytime, for any reason without any checks or balances. Since 1679 this has been a right civilizations have cherished http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus.
RIP Habeas Corpus 1679 -2006
BUT...
Hello--"Wednesday, January 8, 2003 ???" "I applaud today's decision, which reaffirms the president's authority to capture and detain individuals such as Hamdi who join our enemies on the battlefield to fight against America and its allies," said Attorney General John Ashcroft. Who is currently the Attorney General? Come on guys! - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Retards? Illiteracy? Hype? Which value do you represent.
- MegaMark, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8For those of you who have read the comic or seen the movie.... Can anybody say "V for Vendetta"?
- SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Much sooner if we true Americans have anything to do with it. There is mention of a "reset" button in the Constitution and I think we've fallen asleep at the console. It's time to wake up and slam that damn button.
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I knew the bastards were heading in that direction, but damn that was fast.
- Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The US Government sinks lower and lower! How long till the fall of the US Goverment? It can't be long. I say within 10 years.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6pencilboy wrote:
> If you meant serve more than two terms, they're already working on that, too.
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
Personally, I'm not very worried about this. That it exists is definitely an eyebrow-raiser, but every time it's come up it's been shot down. - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And if you aren't a terrorist, but somebody 'feels' that you are.....you will be treated as a terrorist and denied the protection of the law.
That shouldn't offend you? - Patented, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No matter your politics, I wholeheartedly thank you for using your grey matter. That substance is in high demand around here.
- modiggs1976, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15Wait they are going after people in OTHER COUNTRIES not US
What's this? Oh...
Honey, what's this tail doing between my legs?
I don't know, but humble pie is ready! -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is