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.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
For an administration that is following all the rules legally, they sure are afraid and using every trick in the book to keep white house staffers from being subpoenaed. VP not part of the executive branch? Laugh... I wonder what other investigations would cause them to use executive privilege. Probably more than you can shake a stick at.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,849
21,633
1,743
you're right. if the white house says they aren't abusing power, then they must not be.
I never said that.....

I never said the white house hasn't abused power, if you look at your history closely most all administrations have in some way or another.....but I have also never made simply false statements such as "Bush abolishes the 5th amendment".....or that the government can look at anything anytime.

You are doing the classic I don’t' like Bush, I don't know the facts move by saying I blindly follow any Presidential lead which is not what I do nor am advocating. I said dissent is at the essence of patriotism. I acknowledge that it is the duty of the citizens to question the government at all levels. I just simply don't feel that making blanket false acquisitions based on a lack of understanding of the complexity of given issue is dissent....its ignorance.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
donny, i understand what you're saying. i was once a bush supporter but they have lost all credibility to me during this second term. The white house really expects us to just believe anything they say; a good example would be how all of a sudden Al-qaeda is now running the opposition in Iraq and everyone we kill is in al-queda.
my comment earlier about privacy was just a response to you, and everyone else that makes the arguement, "which of your freedoms have been taken away?" (a bad arguement on principle as kaje has pointed out, or just from a constitutional standpoint). Maybe i overstated but that doesn't change the fact that americans have given up certain privacy rights. maybe its not a big deal to some of them, but to some of us it is.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,849
21,633
1,743
That's just it stallone.....

I don't think you understand the difference between a "right" or "freedom" under current laws and what you expect or believe should be right. I posed the question to Kaje (not trying to pick on you Kaje) a few weeks back of freedoms lost and the examples he gave for rights and freedoms lost were never rights or freedoms and he could still do all of them. I feel that many think because they have to take their shoes off at the airport the constitution is toilet paper when they truely never understood their rights in the first place. There is some scary language in the Patriot Act.....the very name was marketing.....but the system of checks and balances is in place. The senate is still voting on matters and the courts are still in tact. People are ranting and raving about changes to life and saying they have lost rights they never had!

When I posed the question several of the Bush haters struggled for the better part of an afternoon and many posts to try to scramble to come up with something....so I think it is still Charmin used in the WH and not the constitution. I don't mind anyone not liking the current administration, I enjoy opposing views on politics......I just get tired of the "there goes our freedoms" talk by those who can't back it up. I also get tired of those who simply don't like the pres. making completely misguided comments just because they don't like whats going on. Again dissent is at our essence.....don't mess that up with ignorance.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
42
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
Maybe one day you idiots will be able to think for yourselves and try and make a rational, objective, unbiased decision. For now, I see you as loyal to a fault Bush supporters who will defend anything regarding him without question. And that's exactly what you are doing.

If you are speaking of attacks on US soil, not too many. What we don't know is how many have been foiled prior to getting underway. Your argument is extremely weak.
WEAK? Really? Then tell me how we were stopping them before?

Since there have been no attacks, we must be stopping them! These laws must work! But wait, they aren't even a year old. What happened before them that allowed us to stop them?

The funny thing is, when another one happens, none of you will stop and say, maybe we don't need those laws after all, they didn't work.

What will happen is the government will say we need MORE laws so we can keep stopping them.

You'll go right along with them because you are mindless idiots, and we'll continue the trend of passing needless laws.

Link to it Aaron...I'm fairly certain it specifies that the military commission are not used on citizens of the United States.

Nevermind, I'll do it. The Constitution applies to US citizens the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not.

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c1091H27jX:e8389:
It's up to interpretation. THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT but none of you want to hear that!

If it was specific, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. But it's not!

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.

i guess many of you still don't feel that privacy is a right. since the gov can look at pretty much any of your records anytime they feel, that does mean your right to privacy is gone. but just keep ignoring this.
I don't give a shit about my privacy. The government can find out everything they want to know about me or you or anyone else by any of a number of means legally or illegally. Hell I can find out quite about about someone if I do enough research, hire a private detective, etc.

I love threads like this......

The opening line of it is..."since Bush appointed himself a dictator"....which would truthfully read since he "was given additional authority in war time by an overwhelming majority of senate in which few if any dems lost their seats since the vote"

Then it turns to wiping a$$es with the constitution from the crowd who constantly avoids the question of what freedom they lost because the last time I asked it the answer I recieved we wearing arabic T-shirts to airports?????

The very title is false.

I love the posts with stuff like "I don't understand executive orders and the exact authority when compared with due process and checks and balances......but this is unconstitutional"...... "What if" "What if". Bush isn't going to go down in history as George Washington or Lincoln......but at least keep your hatred factual.
There's no hatred. Is that all you people can do? Anytime your sacred UNTOUCHABLE leader is questioned you immediately use this PATHETIC defense.

I voted for the dude twice. I'm a registered Republican. I'm politically conservative. Isn't it POSSIBLE, that someone could be unbiased and objective and rational and look at things based on their legitimacy rather than their intent?

I'm all about stopping terrorism. I just don't want to do it with a law that I believe is unconstitutional.


Obviously the President thinks we need it.
So what! He also was in favor of the last immigration policy but IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

That's why we have checks and balances.

I think we should keep them!

Abraham Lincon took away Consitutional rights during the Civil War, does that make him a bad man?

Look at the reason he's doing it. He's trying to make it more effective to catch and punish those who are hindering our efforts in Iraq, and once it serves it's purpose, it will go away, just like all the others. No US citizen who isn't in bed with the terrorists needs to worry about this order.
No, I don't think Abraham Lincoln was a bad man. I don't think President Bush is a bad man either.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. Stop trying to make it about that.

Good men sometimes do bad things with GOOD INTENTIONS.

Kaje said it accurately above. You're giving the administration the right to decide guilt vs. innocence without a fair trial.

You want to do that to illegals, or citizens from other countries that is fine with me. While you're at it, torture the heck out of them, I don't care. But NOT to U.S. citizens.

And what is freezing their assets REALLY going to do to a terrorist?
If we find out they are terrorists they are in custody and their assets aren't doing them any good.

But if you want to freeze the assets of someone who IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN then by all means. Take them away. I don't care.

But there is no reason, NONE, to include U.S. citizens.

Can you guys not see where this violates the constitution?

And please stop trying to justify pissing on the constitution because someone else did it with positive results. A lot of people make it home safely every night after drinking enough alchohol to kill themselves, that doesn't make it right. Tell that to the guy who pulls you over next time you drink and drive and see if he agrees with your logic.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
Maybe one day you idiots will be able to think for yourselves and try and make a rational, objective, unbiased decision. For now, I see you as loyal to a fault Bush supporters who will defend anything regarding him without question. And that's exactly what you are doing.



WEAK? Really? Then tell me how we were stopping them before?

Since there have been no attacks, we must be stopping them! These laws must work! But wait, they aren't even a year old. What happened before them that allowed us to stop them?

The funny thing is, when another one happens, none of you will stop and say, maybe we don't need those laws after all, they didn't work.

What will happen is the government will say we need MORE laws so we can keep stopping them.

You'll go right along with them because you are mindless idiots, and we'll continue the trend of passing needless laws.



It's up to interpretation. THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT but none of you want to hear that!

If it was specific, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. But it's not!

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.



I don't give a shit about my privacy. The government can find out everything they want to know about me or you or anyone else by any of a number of means legally or illegally. Hell I can find out quite about about someone if I do enough research, hire a private detective, etc.



There's no hatred. Is that all you people can do? Anytime your sacred UNTOUCHABLE leader is questioned you immediately use this PATHETIC defense.

I voted for the dude twice. I'm a registered Republican. I'm politically conservative. Isn't it POSSIBLE, that someone could be unbiased and objective and rational and look at things based on their legitimacy rather than their intent?

I'm all about stopping terrorism. I just don't want to do it with a law that I believe is unconstitutional.




So what! He also was in favor of the last immigration policy but IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

That's why we have checks and balances.

I think we should keep them!



No, I don't think Abraham Lincoln was a bad man. I don't think President Bush is a bad man either.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. Stop trying to make it about that.

Good men sometimes do bad things with GOOD INTENTIONS.

Kaje said it accurately above. You're giving the administration the right to decide guilt vs. innocence without a fair trial.

You want to do that to illegals, or citizens from other countries that is fine with me. While you're at it, torture the heck out of them, I don't care. But NOT to U.S. citizens.

And what is freezing their assets REALLY going to do to a terrorist?
If we find out they are terrorists they are in custody and their assets aren't doing them any good.

But if you want to freeze the assets of someone who IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN then by all means. Take them away. I don't care.

But there is no reason, NONE, to include U.S. citizens.

Can you guys not see where this violates the constitution?

And please stop trying to justify pissing on the constitution because someone else did it with positive results. A lot of people make it home safely every night after drinking enough alchohol to kill themselves, that doesn't make it right. Tell that to the guy who pulls you over next time you drink and drive and see if he agrees with your logic.
You should stop what you are doing and take a deep breath. Now, feel better? Now, please quit calling people idiots. Executive orders are a part of Presidential policy and have been in use for a long time.
If you feel like your rights and freedoms are being attacked, please call Senator Coburn's office and register your concerns. You are raising hell here with a bunch of people who can't do a damn thing about it. Now, be nice to people instead of being inflammatory.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
Maybe one day you idiots will be able to think for yourselves and try and make a rational, objective, unbiased decision. For now, I see you as loyal to a fault Bush supporters who will defend anything regarding him without question. And that's exactly what you are doing.



WEAK? Really? Then tell me how we were stopping them before?

Since there have been no attacks, we must be stopping them! These laws must work! But wait, they aren't even a year old. What happened before them that allowed us to stop them?

The funny thing is, when another one happens, none of you will stop and say, maybe we don't need those laws after all, they didn't work.

What will happen is the government will say we need MORE laws so we can keep stopping them.

You'll go right along with them because you are mindless idiots, and we'll continue the trend of passing needless laws.



It's up to interpretation. THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT but none of you want to hear that!

If it was specific, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. But it's not!

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.



I don't give a shit about my privacy. The government can find out everything they want to know about me or you or anyone else by any of a number of means legally or illegally. Hell I can find out quite about about someone if I do enough research, hire a private detective, etc.



There's no hatred. Is that all you people can do? Anytime your sacred UNTOUCHABLE leader is questioned you immediately use this PATHETIC defense.

I voted for the dude twice. I'm a registered Republican. I'm politically conservative. Isn't it POSSIBLE, that someone could be unbiased and objective and rational and look at things based on their legitimacy rather than their intent?

I'm all about stopping terrorism. I just don't want to do it with a law that I believe is unconstitutional.




So what! He also was in favor of the last immigration policy but IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

That's why we have checks and balances.

I think we should keep them!



No, I don't think Abraham Lincoln was a bad man. I don't think President Bush is a bad man either.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. Stop trying to make it about that.

Good men sometimes do bad things with GOOD INTENTIONS.

Kaje said it accurately above. You're giving the administration the right to decide guilt vs. innocence without a fair trial.

You want to do that to illegals, or citizens from other countries that is fine with me. While you're at it, torture the heck out of them, I don't care. But NOT to U.S. citizens.

And what is freezing their assets REALLY going to do to a terrorist?
If we find out they are terrorists they are in custody and their assets aren't doing them any good.

But if you want to freeze the assets of someone who IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN then by all means. Take them away. I don't care.

But there is no reason, NONE, to include U.S. citizens.

Can you guys not see where this violates the constitution?

And please stop trying to justify pissing on the constitution because someone else did it with positive results. A lot of people make it home safely every night after drinking enough alchohol to kill themselves, that doesn't make it right. Tell that to the guy who pulls you over next time you drink and drive and see if he agrees with your logic.
what a lovely post
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,849
21,633
1,743
There's no hatred. Is that all you people can do? Anytime your sacred UNTOUCHABLE leader is questioned you immediately use this PATHETIC defense.

I voted for the dude twice. I'm a registered Republican. I'm politically conservative. Isn't it POSSIBLE, that someone could be unbiased and objective and rational and look at things based on their legitimacy rather than their intent?

I'm all about stopping terrorism. I just don't want to do it with a law that I believe is unconstitutional.


What pathetic defense......you mean the defense that it is the duty of citizens to question the government....... but get your facts straight?

It is possible that someone could be unbiased but someone who says that the 5th amendmant has been abolished and Bush appointed himself dictator is neither unbiased nor accurate.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
Your quote. "But there is no reason, NONE, to include U.S. citizens."

Do you realize that if some US citizens of Middle Eastern descent were to begin holding meeting for the express purpose of stirring up a jihad here in the US the government would not have the ability to do what is needed, if US citizens wre excluded from this order? Oh, by the way, I think this has already happened. Were there not some professors, doctors and others who were caught funneling money to aid the bad guys?
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
42
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
I don't need to take a deep breath. I'm not fired up at all.

I'm simply responding to the posts before.

And I only used idiots because it was used previously referring to those including me of dissenting opinion.

-----

You're telling me without this law we couldn't stop U.S. citizens from being terrorists?

Please tell me you are not serious.

If you're caught funnelling aid to bad guys YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON.

How about we allow them the right to a fair trial so that none of them are wrongfully convicted without ever going to trial.

Donnyboy,

I never said Bush appointed himself dictator, nor did I say he abolished the fifth amendment.

But hey, keep arguing when you have no idea what you're even arguing about.

Again, a perfect example of someone blindly defending someone without reading what was posted.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
Maybe one day you idiots will be able to think for yourselves and try and make a rational, objective, unbiased decision. For now, I see you as loyal to a fault Bush supporters who will defend anything regarding him without question. And that's exactly what you are doing.



WEAK? Really? Then tell me how we were stopping them before?

Since there have been no attacks, we must be stopping them! These laws must work! But wait, they aren't even a year old. What happened before them that allowed us to stop them?

The funny thing is, when another one happens, none of you will stop and say, maybe we don't need those laws after all, they didn't work.

What will happen is the government will say we need MORE laws so we can keep stopping them.

You'll go right along with them because you are mindless idiots, and we'll continue the trend of passing needless laws.



It's up to interpretation. THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT but none of you want to hear that!

If it was specific, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. But it's not!

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.



I don't give a shit about my privacy. The government can find out everything they want to know about me or you or anyone else by any of a number of means legally or illegally. Hell I can find out quite about about someone if I do enough research, hire a private detective, etc.



There's no hatred. Is that all you people can do? Anytime your sacred UNTOUCHABLE leader is questioned you immediately use this PATHETIC defense.

I voted for the dude twice. I'm a registered Republican. I'm politically conservative. Isn't it POSSIBLE, that someone could be unbiased and objective and rational and look at things based on their legitimacy rather than their intent?

I'm all about stopping terrorism. I just don't want to do it with a law that I believe is unconstitutional.




So what! He also was in favor of the last immigration policy but IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

That's why we have checks and balances.

I think we should keep them!



No, I don't think Abraham Lincoln was a bad man. I don't think President Bush is a bad man either.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. Stop trying to make it about that.

Good men sometimes do bad things with GOOD INTENTIONS.

Kaje said it accurately above. You're giving the administration the right to decide guilt vs. innocence without a fair trial.

You want to do that to illegals, or citizens from other countries that is fine with me. While you're at it, torture the heck out of them, I don't care. But NOT to U.S. citizens.

And what is freezing their assets REALLY going to do to a terrorist?
If we find out they are terrorists they are in custody and their assets aren't doing them any good.

But if you want to freeze the assets of someone who IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN then by all means. Take them away. I don't care.

But there is no reason, NONE, to include U.S. citizens.

Can you guys not see where this violates the constitution?

And please stop trying to justify pissing on the constitution because someone else did it with positive results. A lot of people make it home safely every night after drinking enough alchohol to kill themselves, that doesn't make it right. Tell that to the guy who pulls you over next time you drink and drive and see if he agrees with your logic.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,140
5,147
1,743
Katy, TX
earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.
What? Where?


S.3930
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

`Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS- The term `Geneva Conventions' means the international conventions signed at Geneva on August 12, 1949.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,849
21,633
1,743
Aaron you're not that slow.....are you?

I have not defended Bush in this thread.....I even implied history will not be kind.....my post was directed to once again the bashers don't have their facts straight, yourself included with your comments directed to me......bash him all you want but use facts.

You do need a deep breath, pulled from joint.