What is Digg?52 Comments
- whiplashgrin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30You don't have to be liberal to hate Bush, just paying attention to what's going on is usually all it takes.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"Whenever the courts push back against the administration's unsupportable constitutional ideas—ideas about "inherent powers" and a "unitary executive" or the silliness of the Geneva Conventions or the limitless sweep of presidential powers during wartime—the Bush response is to repeat the same chorus louder: Every detainee is the worst of the worst; every action taken is legal, necessary, and secret. No mistakes, no apologies. No nuance, no regrets. This legal and intellectual intractability can create the illusion that we are standing on the same constitutional ground we stood upon in 2001, even as that ground is sliding away under our feet."
I'm going to keep saying this:
The Military Commissions Act,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act ;
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003 ;
The "Patriot" Acts I and II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_Act ;
and Bush's "Signing Statements,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statements ;
are ALL giving Dictatorial powers to the Executive Branch of the US Government. Obviously this was never intended in the Constitution. Actually it is expressly forbidden.
This is all happening in the name of "The War on Terror."
There will always be "Terrorists" in the world. George Washington was a "Terrorist" to the crown.
Basing our lives around a "War on Terror" is insane. Such a war by its very reality and definition will NEVER end.
We need to deal with each “Terrorist” situation as it arises and move on. For example, the response to 911 should have been to get Bin Laden and his boys and move on. But NO, we had to go after a whole country that had nothing to do with 911 by the President’s own admission.
What gives?
All of Bushes unconstitutional transfers of power to the Executive Branch and away from Congress and the Courts need to be reversed! Pronto! - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Bush did what Osama could only dream of: chip away our rights and the constitution.
They missed Bush's signing statements, but that's dealing with checks and balances. I guess you could write another article about that one. I'm betting Osama is giggling right about now.
Fortunately, with the last election, we are changing things. That is a blow to Osama Bin Laden: more rights and the ability to change our government if we don't like it. - consonance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@strabes
Stupid liberals, getting all angry over something so silly as the groundwork for the basic institutions of our government. So what if Bush is the president? Just snip a few rules here, a few rues there, and nobody will tell the difference. - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Clearly of the year 20, most likely AD(CE), probably relates to the subversion of Jesus of Nazereth's right to practice his religion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Sum up of the article: We hate Bush.
- twister6284, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Amen.
If this country becomes totalitarian, the terrorists win. ***** them. Long live democracy! - rgov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9strabes: Civil liberties are now related to emotions?
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Those countries are dictatorships that don't pretend to care about freedom, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Or at least, I hope we do.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm a Libertarian, so I get to make fun of both sides. Hah.
But the Liberals win this one. - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And what would you rather do hackwrench? Many of these people *can't* get better any more than an amputee can regrow a lost limb. Nobody wants to take care of these people, they are unable to take care of themselves, and they are a danger to themselves and others.
- vspazv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I can't help but think about how many sets of body armor that would buy for the military.
- candre23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sillyboy: Civil liberties in the US may be more secure than in China or Iran or any number of repressive countries, but that doesn't mean they're invincible. All 10 violations listed here are real and none of them should have happened. Sure, it could be worse, but it could also be a hell of a lot better.
Your argument is analogous to Alabama bragging that their public schools are great because they were ranked higher than New Mexico's. Just because you're better than the worst, doesn't mean you're good. - joshross4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The snippet at the end of #9 (Guantanamo Bay) is good. Does the government need to spend over a hundred million tax payers dollars for a venue to talk about doing something about something that may be resolved by the time they finish building the thing?
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7And the biggest silent atrocity is the warehousing and babysitting of people committed by the mental heath companies. There's probably one in your town. Here's two:
http://www.nordcenter.org/
http://www.meridiansc.org/
They don't actually help people get better. As I said, their main goal is to warehouse and babysit. The Nord center is the worse of the two, though. - thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A couple of these aren't new to 2006. I think number five and six are older; maybe a couple more.
- deadlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3we can hold ourselves accountable all we want, but the politicians who have created this mess by being greedy, ignorant, or both, will never hold themselves accountable. in fact, they have laws in place to ensure that we cannot hold them accountable either.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@SuperSloth I agree. I'm not familiar with those facilities but I'm pretty sure they're better than a penitentiary, and I know how many of the mentally ill end up there.
- jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can you honestly say that if Hillary Clinton were elected president and did exactly the same thing you would still be so quick to dismiss the things that have been done?
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bush is not America. You should have learned that after the last election - we want more freedom, not less freedom.
- kuejon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It always amazes me when i read comments from people who are content to watch their freedoms stripped away by a select few in power who are now garnering more power and wealth by undermining the very principles that made this country such a beacon to the world. Those elected are suppose to be representatives of a free people and their powers are suppose to be held in check by a system designed to maintain a just and democratic government to protect all of our civil liberties that make this country so great and strong.
Many of us have been so open to giving up their rights by a fear of their own safety and security and each day the world shows them even more news and proposed possibilities to build on those concerns... But we must be very cautious and vigilant of our rights and the balance of power. The use of terror to further the agenda of an organization or group has worked very well for a certain administration as well. Much wealth and global influence has also been secured and protected by a select few and they're doing a fabulous job protecting it and eliminating many of the threats.
It's not my wish to attack anyone here by submitting this but to enforce that we always keep our minds open and alert. - sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Well you could argue that one mans freedom/prosperity/security will generally come at the expense of another.... idealistic quotes are easily repeated, but they're rarely the reality. - vspazv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Military bases and embassies in foreign countries are considered US territory and are governed by the same laws. All constitutional rights apply.
- wheel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I love banning ignorant people. I also love being buried to infinity.
- yacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Technically it is the United States on lease from Cuba.. but for the most part it does not involve U.S. Citizens.. It's more of a human rights debate or Geneva Convention for that matter as well... It''s one big grey area, but you are right though about it not being a u.s. civil liberty case.. the cross on a hill in San Diego, ca is more of one of those :)
- sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But, you see, Iraq did not care about America, but now it is forced to.
The same will probably happen to the Western World if China becomes (more) militant, or if a dominant Islamic State gets serious in the middle east.
Anyway, no doubt this will get digged down. - clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lol...I love how people still are desperatly trying to find logical reasons for expanding the exeutive branch of the government. Checks and balances people, seriously what happened to you in school?
I'm not so much anti-Bush as I am anti-stupid president...and frankly reaching for this much power with a lame duck congress is grounds for impeachment. Good news though, come Jan 3rd the congress will actually be in session, and not like sleeping or anything like before...congress will actually be doing *****. Anyone remember that article about how this past congress has only worked like 150 days or something? I work over 250 days and get paid *****...while these guys run around town with ***** tons of money. Please, working more days is only going to improve america...somehow - Mescaline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Yes, technically. But unfortunately some people, probably a minority, who believe God wants them to torture and fly planes into things. And they wont stop (ever, no matter what, no matter how hard you try to reason with them) until certain other communities are burned to the ground and spat on. Difficult to work with that."
These people have been around since the start of civilization. We've learnt to live with them. They got lucky once, just once on US soil, and suddenly the US are running for the hills. - sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok but just for one minute compare western politicians to the corresponding leaders in hostile nations, and ask yourself how the world would look if or when, say, Iran or China, has more controlling power. Where are your human rights then? Nowhere.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+611. Digg truncating titles.
The 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of when now? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How do any of these civil liberty violations affect an average american? Why is this liberal rag sticking up for the rights of terrorists?
- yacks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[quote]ask yourself how the world would look if or when, say, Iran or China, has more controlling power. Where are your human rights then? Nowhere.[/quote]
and to think my mom wanted me to eat my food because there were starving children in China.. that would most likely become soldiers.. ;)
but the best quote that I remember in terms of rights came from a $100 bill one night.. it told me...."The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. " - joshross4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Add cell-phone snooping to 5. Government Snooping.
- jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This list should be added to the list: Best Title - Dumb and Dumber
- Mescaline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Freedom and Security aren't a give and take situation unlike prosperity. When someone is freed, no one is necessarily enslaved.
Everyone can technically be freed and have security. - ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@inf4my
"Guantanamo Bay is neither enemy-occupied territory nor under martial law" Hamdan v. Rumsfeld explaining why detainees are allowed to have minimum forms of due process.
"Today President Bush affirms our enduring commitment to the important principles of the Geneva Convention. Consistent with American values and the principles of the Geneva Convention, the United States has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html
I guess you have no clue what you are talking about inf4my.... - phineous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come on, it's not like they plan on shutting it down after 75 or so trials. They'll just expand the scope of who can be tried there. How handy to have a federal court outside the US and beyond the oversight of anyone other than parties authorized by the feds!
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Many of these people *can't* get better
But these places undermine attempts to get better under the assumption that they can't, as well as give these people the false belief that they are getting better. If they think they are getting better, but aren't, but can get better, they won't look for another way to get better because they've been played into believing this is already working. - sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Exactly, and that's why it's important to constructively support America. Too many people centre their fear and hatred around America, when at least it is (or tries to be) accountable.
- inf4my, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ubuwalker31
my comment was that it is not in the unitedstates and therefore the people detained there dont have the same civil liberties that are given to us by the united states constitution and you pretty much just agreed with me...the rest of the article deals with only things in the United States and the title is obviously making fun of the Bill of Rights so i thought it is necessary to point out that Guantanamo Bay is not protected by the bill of rights. The article isnt about going against the geneva convention...your quote doesnt say that they are offering these detainees the same rights as US citizens. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't understand why black people think it is in there civil rights to listen to Ipods at work. When I go to the supermarket I have to kick the clerk to get checked out.
- Jammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great ... another "We hate Bush" article published by one of the worst and most irrelevant webzines on the Internet. If someone were to cite a respected and non-biased reference I might be inclined to view them with some consideration, but not this load of tripe.
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Who knew Guantanamo Bay was built before Jesus's Death. That place is a Historic Monument
- jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But the point is that the majority of Slate readers don't live in China or Sudan. They live in America. "See things are worse in other countries" doesn't really help me feel better about the things that are being done in my country. It is a lot easier for Americans to do something about what is happening in American than it is to do something about some other country.
Also, as bad as things are in some other countries at least the people living there know what will get them taken away in the middle of the night. Our government keeps changing the rules without telling its citizens. Who knows what the next American citizen who gets thrown in a military jail for years without being charged with a crime and repeatedly denied access to a lawyer will be said to have done that was deserving of such treatment. - sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Everyone can technically be freed and have security."
Yes, technically. But unfortunately some people, probably a minority, who believe God wants them to torture and fly planes into things. And they wont stop (ever, no matter what, no matter how hard you try to reason with them) until certain other communities are burned to the ground and spat on. Difficult to work with that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"vile human rights abuses committed by China, the Islamic states and places such as Sudan"
But you see, I don't give a ***** about any of those places. - SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Ha! That's nothing. Some of the human rights violations I've been carrying out on my wife and children would make you sick to your stomach.
- sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5They should have opened this list up to the prolific and vile human rights abuses committed by China, the Islamic states and places such as Sudan.
Oh, wait... they only wanted 10... and we don't digg this stuff unless we are being critical of America - kazumaSHELL, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1the article is obviously anti-bush. good point though.
- inf4my, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0if you are going to talk about going against united states civil liberties than you cant mention Guantanamo Bay as one because it is not in the united states (reasons for that are pretty obvious) and therefore is not protected by the united states constitution.
Also I hate liberal idiots who say they dont think we need military bases in different countries while they want the government to stop the latest genocides. -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is