Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#21
A few days ago, Bush signed a new executive order in which he uses broad language to claim that he has the power to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The language in the executive order is broadly defined and does not specifically identify a specific group of individuals that the order applies to. It opens up the possibility of anti-war protesters and other political dissidents having their property confiscated for simply speaking out against the war.
Why the hell would anybody besides Iran want to oppose this? You can't tell me that President's during the past didn't assumed broader executive powers during war.

And you really do seem paranoid. Can you please name at least one Right that you have lost or that you miss having?

efforts to promote economic reconstruction as cited above is broadly defined and could mean anybody that speaks out against the Iraq war
Just a scare tactic. It COULD MEAN?, come on. How can people in the US, even the anti-war crowd, "undermine efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq", WITHOUT specifically and directly aiding the terrorists? If someone in the US is directly aiding the terrorists, I sure as hell want them arrested! It's treasonous!
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#22
Why the hell would anybody besides Iran want to oppose this? You can't tell me that President's during the past didn't assumed broader executive powers during war.

And you really do seem paranoid. Can you please name at least one Right that you have lost or that you miss having?
does that mean that you don't think privacy is a right?
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#23
and the reason why americans oppose this is because the section you highlighted is open to interpretation. the bill is also unconstitutional. i'd love to see the president sign a bill that gave harsh penalties for violating the constitution.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#24
does that mean that you don't think privacy is a right?
UH, what? The government is not spying on me, because I am not aiding or suspected of aiding the terrorists. I'm not sure why you would be afraid of that unless you were aiding the terroists. I want the government to do what it needs to do to take care of the situation. And if you can find one incident where the government has used the information it gathers about people in order to abuse them, then please enlighten me.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#25
and the reason why americans oppose this is because the section you highlighted is open to interpretation. the bill is also unconstitutional. i'd love to see the president sign a bill that gave harsh penalties for violating the constitution.
"Americans" don't oppose it, the anti-Bush crowd opposes it, as evidenced on this thread.

There were plenty of times in the past where the President cancelled certain rights of the people during times of war, in order that the war be fought more effectively.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#27
i don't know if the government spies on me or not. but i know they can obtain any personal info of mine that they want: medical records, bank records, etc. So just the fact that they can do whatever they want in that regard means that my right to privacy is gone.

enlightenment complete. so are there any civil liberties you would stand up for?
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#28
Didn't take long.
Seriously, I can't understand why you are afraid of the government spying on you. Do you seriously think they have teams in Stillwater monitoring all of your calls and cameras situated to capture your every movement, and all recorded for future reference in case you aid terrorists? Sounds like you took 1984 to heart, in a religious way.

You accuse this government of using scare tactics, when you and the liberals are simply using paranoia and fear to cause people to become scared of the government.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#30
i don't know if the government spies on me or not. but i know they can obtain any personal info of mine that they want: medical records, bank records, etc. So just the fact that they can do whatever they want in that regard means that my right to privacy is gone.

enlightenment complete. so are there any civil liberties you would stand up for?
If they found that you were aiding terrorists, then I hope that they would monitor you.

Don't you want the government to neutralize any threat present in America? How else do you do that without monitoring people suspected of aiding terrorism?

So you would gladly give up your right to privacy, which has yet to be infringed upon and most likely won't be, for the risk of terrorism in the US?

I stand up for civil liberties. And once I find out that one of my liberties has been infringed upon, I'll take action. Nobody has invaded my privacy, so I couldn't care less that the government is monitoring people who are actually suspected of terrorism.
 
Dec 29, 2004
155
0
566
40
Dallas, TX
#31
http://www.unity08.com

I'll try not to get annoying and toss this out there in every political thread, but there is an alternative to the current system and options. We need a major political shakeup in this country.

I don't quite understand why everyone thinks our system is so flawed. It's designed to be inefficient but that doesn't make it flawed. If everything is tanking right now as most on here seem to think then the correction will be made next election, simple as that.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#32
If they found that you were aiding terrorists, then I hope that they would monitor you.

Don't you want the government to neutralize any threat present in America? How else do you do that without monitoring people suspected of aiding terrorism?

So you would gladly give up your right to privacy, which has yet to be infringed upon and most likely won't be, for the risk of terrorism in the US?

I stand up for civil liberties. And once I find out that one of my liberties has been infringed upon, I'll take action. Nobody has invaded my privacy, so I couldn't care less that the government is monitoring people who are actually suspected of terrorism.
so do you wait until you get robbed before you lock your door?
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
42
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#33
where you are missing out is THE WHOLE ENTIRE POINT OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

It's there to protect us from INTERPRETATION!

That's the whole damn point of it.

BEFORE THIS and the MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT...

Our Constitution provided absolute protection to ALL AMERICANS.

THIS takes that way AND ALLOWS FOR ABUSE.

Before there was no room for abuse. Now there is.

Power corrupts and ABSOLUTE power corrupts absolutely.

Personally, I would rather it be the way it was before where there is no chance, absolutely ZERO, that my government could abuse its power (legally at least).

These "laws" make it okay.

How you can't see or understand that is beyond me.

And anyone who says it's just to protect us from terrorism is fooling themselves.

We've had ONE attack on our soil ONE. Just because their hasn't been one since 9/11 does not mean it was anything we've done to prevent it. It could just mean they haven't tried.

I'm not discounting previous WTC attacks or the Oklahoma City Bombing by any means, but we're talking about serious, major terrorist attacks here by "Al Queda" right? I mean that's what these laws are for are they not?

They'll keep passing laws taking away our freedoms saying it's protecting us and making us safe, SEE NO TERRORISM, and then a terrorist attack will happen and what will they say? WE NEED MORE LAWS and you'll lay down and bend over for them and give them some more of your freedoms in the name of protection from something it won't even protect against.

You think it's a Bush/Anti-Bush thing. That's what shows me you don't have any desire to look at the constitution and what it means and what it stands for. You just want to make it a political argument.

It's not about party politics. It's about the constitution, that's it. It involves President Bush because he's the one who created the executive order, and that's the the extent of it.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion. I'm simply asking that you EDUCATE YOURSELF on the principles of the constitution and the reasons our founding fathers established those principles. They knew that these protections were necessary to maintain the way of life they envisioned and that if they were removed or altered then it would fall apart.

I understand we have AMENDED the Constitution.

If the required support to Amend the Constitution exists, then I am okay with it. I don't believe it is there, and I don't believe the American people want it to be there.

Allowing the President to grant himself absolute power should not be tolerated, nor should ANY powers not currently granted him in the Constitution we are supposed to live by.

If you allow any one single piece of it to be altered without proper consent and procedure, then you may as well piss on it and start over.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
42
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#34
I stand up for civil liberties. And once I find out that one of my liberties has been infringed upon, I'll take action. Nobody has invaded my privacy, so I couldn't care less that the government is monitoring people who are actually suspected of terrorism.
THAT is what's wrong with our country.

People are too lazy to act until it AFFECTS THEM SPECIFICALLY.

If you don't stand up for others when it happens to them, then you have no right to complain or expect anyone else to stand up for you when it happens to you.
 
Jun 29, 2004
3,426
123
1,693
42
Northwest OK
#35
Question - Are executive orders subject to Judicial Review? If so, why haven't these orders that infringe on our civil rights being challenged in the court system? If not, why aren't they?
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#36
great post aaron. i love how if you stand up for the constitution it makes you a liberal. that is classic.

And bush is extremely concerned and efficient when it comes to our national security; just look at all the progress he's made securing our borders. I guess thats not as important as checking out people's bank account.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#37
okstateguy987, I'd sit here and continue debating with you like I have previously, but it's a waste of energy to discuss anything with someone who is so obsessed with someone that they will defend anything that they do. I haven't seen you criticize anything Bush has done. Criticizing Bush for something you don't agree with doesn't make you a Bush hater. No two people are alike so I highly doubt you have a completely identical set of beliefs and opinions. Either you're going to continually defend your pride and this president because you're too embarrassed to admit you were wrong at something or you're a zealot and have serious problems and will continue adopting and replacing every opinion Bush has as your own.

Your mentality is that it's OK for us to live in a police state, because hey, if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about right? Whatever. You can be THAT loyal to a politician who probably doesn't give a **** about you other than your vote if you want to but I will never support anyone that strongly. I will sit here and say there are quite a few things of Ron Paul that I disagree with. That wasn't so hard was it? It's obvious your head is so far up Bush's *** that you're probably the reason he's having a colonoscopy this weekend.
 
Sep 19, 2005
119
9
1,568
#40
Question - Are executive orders subject to Judicial Review? If so, why haven't these orders that infringe on our civil rights being challenged in the court system? If not, why aren't they?

I'll take a stab at this.

Yes, in a way.

An executive order is not a law per se, mearly a directive as to how to inforce (or execute) one.

It is very similar to a 'Signing Statement' in which the President signs a law (or bill) passed by Congress, but then adds a statement as to how he will execute it, or exactly which provisions of it he will execute.

For an executive order (or signing statement) to be challenged, it must first be used to violate one's rights.

i.e. Just because the President says We (the government) going to take your property without due process because you inhibit Iraq's ability to stabilize is not subject to challenge, but once the government takes it without due process, then it can be challenged.

So in a sense, the order must be followed through by some government agent against someone with proper standing before it can be challenged in a court.

Hope this helps and anyone else, feel free to correct me.