WASHINGTON - President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

 

Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.

 

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.

 

Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.

 

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

 

President Bush is signing into law new standards expediting interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects. Click on an item in the left-hand column to see more specifics about that portion of the measure.

 

Bush signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

"We will answer brutal murder with patient justice," Bush said. "Those who kill the innocent will be held to account."

 

Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Bush's Cabinet.

 

He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.

 

The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."

 

"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."

 

Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence. Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.

 

"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

 

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

 

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

 

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.

 

The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.

 

Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.

 

The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.

 

The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Bush is expected also to try some or all the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.

 

The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

 

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation, but those documents are not usually made public and Snow did not reveal when it might be issued.

 

 

The key part of the document that shows how ambiguous the term 'enemy combatant is:

 

`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

 

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

 

 

Source: Official House Legislation of the Bill

 

This is absolutely disturbing.

 

I thought the Patriot Act was bad enough, but this says that the military commission can determine ANYONE to be an 'enemy combatant' as long as they approve. These officers are HAND PICKED by either the SecDef or the President himself.

 

The likelyhood of abuse of this system is far too much to take lightly.

 

I pray that the Supreme Court will strike this down as un-Constitutional, which it clearly is.

For argument's sake, even if this President and everyone in his administration were complete and utter angels and never abused this power, it gives far too much leeway to the government and the bill is rife with opportunities for abuse. Who knows what the future will bring, and how such 'freedoms' will be used?

 

In their wisdom, our forefathers gave powers to the government only under strictest necessity. This administration has used 9.11 as an excuse to consolidate and gobble up as much power as possible without a thought on the future ramifications of their actions. It's sickening.

Its a sickening power grab but since when do foreign nationals who are engaged in war with us have the right to habeas corpus?

I'm not so sure this doesn't indicate habeas corpus being stripped from American "enemy combatants" as well.

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

 

Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.

 

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.

 

Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.

 

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

 

President Bush is signing into law new standards expediting interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects. Click on an item in the left-hand column to see more specifics about that portion of the measure.

 

Bush signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

"We will answer brutal murder with patient justice," Bush said. "Those who kill the innocent will be held to account."

 

Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Bush's Cabinet.

 

He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.

 

The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."

 

"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."

 

Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence. Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.

 

"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

 

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

 

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

 

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.

 

The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.

 

Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.

 

The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.

 

The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Bush is expected also to try some or all the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.

 

The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

 

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation, but those documents are not usually made public and Snow did not reveal when it might be issued.

 

 

The key part of the document that shows how ambiguous the term 'enemy combatant is:

 

`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

 

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

 

 

Source: Official House Legislation of the Bill

 

This is absolutely disturbing.

 

I thought the Patriot Act was bad enough, but this says that the military commission can determine ANYONE to be an 'enemy combatant' as long as they approve. These officers are HAND PICKED by either the SecDef or the President himself.

 

The likelyhood of abuse of this system is far too much to take lightly.

 

I pray that the Supreme Court will strike this down as un-Constitutional, which it clearly is.

I didn't realize Al Qaeda terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed among others were entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Unless you're Al Qaeda, Taliban, or something similar, this bill has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, so what's with all the whining? This is a great bill which will do a lot of great things, it's just because it was President Bush who signed it into law all the democrats are against it.

 

The only thing "disturbing" is that there are people who oppose this. Why did you only put in bold the democrats and ACLU's negative statements, and all of the obvious very positive things that will come from this bill were ignored? Typical.

 

Opposing things like this are just one more reason why democrats cannot be trusted with national security in a post-9/11 world.

You obviously didn't read the most important part.

 

I'm not that concerned about the rights of people we captured, but the rights of American citizens are another story.

 

Isn't it also ironic how we prosecuted Nazi war criminals for using torture methods such as 'water-boarding', and now it's legal?

 

Where is this country going???

 

I hope the radicals in the Republican party realize that the more you take away American freedoms, the closer the terrorists are to victory. That's just the truth. They WANT us to do this, and we're playing right into their hands once again. It needs to stop.

lol olbermann

lol olbermann

 

I thought he hit the nail on the head.

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.

 

Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.

 

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.

 

Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.

 

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

 

President Bush is signing into law new standards expediting interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects. Click on an item in the left-hand column to see more specifics about that portion of the measure.

 

Bush signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

"We will answer brutal murder with patient justice," Bush said. "Those who kill the innocent will be held to account."

 

Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Bush's Cabinet.

 

He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.

 

The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."

 

"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."

 

Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence. Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.

 

"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

 

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

 

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

 

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.

 

The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.

 

Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.

 

The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.

 

The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Bush is expected also to try some or all the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.

 

The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

 

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation, but those documents are not usually made public and Snow did not reveal when it might be issued.

 

 

The key part of the document that shows how ambiguous the term 'enemy combatant is:

 

`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

 

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

 

 

Source: Official House Legislation of the Bill

 

This is absolutely disturbing.

 

I thought the Patriot Act was bad enough, but this says that the military commission can determine ANYONE to be an 'enemy combatant' as long as they approve. These officers are HAND PICKED by either the SecDef or the President himself.

 

The likelyhood of abuse of this system is far too much to take lightly.

 

I pray that the Supreme Court will strike this down as un-Constitutional, which it clearly is.

I didn't realize Al Qaeda terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed among others were entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Unless you're Al Qaeda, Taliban, or something similar, this bill has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, so what's with all the whining? This is a great bill which will do a lot of great things, it's just because it was President Bush who signed it into law all the democrats are against it.

 

The only thing "disturbing" is that there are people who oppose this. Why did you only put in bold the democrats and ACLU's negative statements, and all of the obvious very positive things that will come from this bill were ignored? Typical.

 

Opposing things like this are just one more reason why democrats cannot be trusted with national security in a post-9/11 world.

Do you even know what habeas corpus is? Id like you to tell me what it is and why it protects terrorists.

Accord: Err, I don't listen to hip-hop.

I didn't realize Al Qaeda terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed among others were entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Unless you're Al Qaeda, Taliban, or something similar, this bill has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, so what's with all the whining? This is a great bill which will do a lot of great things, it's just because it was President Bush who signed it into law all the democrats are against it.

 

The only thing "disturbing" is that there are people who oppose this. Why did you only put in bold the democrats and ACLU's negative statements, and all of the obvious very positive things that will come from this bill were ignored? Typical.

 

Opposing things like this are just one more reason why democrats cannot be trusted with national security in a post-9/11 world.

 

 

I do not type this in spite of you, but in hope to convince you, so please read the following with an open mind.

 

The outcry against this bill is not because " it was President Bush who signed it into law ", nor is it an outcry against what power it gives him. The opposition is to what it takes from the people of this country, and from the people of the world.

 

I will expand as much as possible on this point if you will read what I have to say.

"all great things come to end...usually at the hands of a dumbass"

Clearly this government has never heard the Benjamin Franklin quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Clearly this government has never heard the Benjamin Franklin quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

 

The 2nd-Amendment ultra-literalists have, but funny how they've all gone silent.

Clearly this government has never heard the Benjamin Franklin quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

 

The 2nd-Amendment ultra-literalists have, but funny how they've all gone silent.

Shh, don't wake them up! :thumbup

Clearly this government has never heard the Benjamin Franklin quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

 

The 2nd-Amendment ultra-literalists have, but funny how they've all gone silent.

 

:lol :lol :lol

Ugh.

 

Just, ugh.

And I quote:

Amendment V

 

No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

 

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

 

Source: US Constitution

 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

I see this thread has turned into a liberal circle jerk.

 

 

 

 

lol olbermann

 

I thought he hit the nail on the head.

 

Which is exactly the problem with this country. People like you believe everything your liberal talking heads tell you. You have no idea what you're talking about and Keith Olbermann is an idiot. That graphic should read "HABEAS CORPUS 1215-1861" because Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1861 by Abraham Lincoln, and we all know just how big of a ruthless dictatory President Lincoln was! :|

 

What you libs fail to acknowledge is that Habeus Corpus was not even stripped from these terrorists at all, because they're all entitled to appeals in a US court to review the evidence and determine if they indeed are an enemy combatant or not.

 

The outcry against this bill is not because " it was President Bush who signed it into law ", nor is it an outcry against what power it gives him. The opposition is to what it takes from the people of this country, and from the people of the world.

 

That's just not true. Habeas Corpus was completely stripped from every American in 1861 by President Lincoln and there was absolutely no outcry whatsoever, on the other hand President Bush doesn't even fully take Habeas Corups away from OUR ENEMIES and every liberal has a gavel up their ass about it.

 

It doesn't matter how anyone tries to spin this because the facts are very clear.

 

"all great things come to end...usually at the hands of a dumbass"

 

I agree, President Abraham Lincoln was a huge dumbass.

The most shocking thing is that Olbermann still has enough viewers to keep him on the air. He must be in a night in and night out battle with that 24 hour weather radar channel we all get.

 

VS.

 

 

WHO YA GOT!?

Accord, you should stop trying to make this about Liberal vs. Conservative. This has absolutely nothing to do with the debate, at least where I stand. The content of the bill is what people are objecting to. I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, and I think anyone who is swayed by such categorization should have their brain confiscated for lack of use. On some issues I lean toward Democratic opinion, on others Republican, and on still others I disagree with both. The point is to be an independent-minded rational human being, not a shill of those who would deceive you to advance their own objectives.

I see this thread has turned into a liberal circle jerk.

First off, before you even begin your conservative pissing contest, both yankeefan and I are farther right than you. So F on the liberal comment.

 

Secondly, do you not properly comprehend slippery slope?

I knew you guys would get on me for throwing around the "L" word rather than discuss the actual content of my post and the good points I made about Lincoln outright stripping Habeas Corups from every single American.

 

Oh well.

President Lincoln stripped Habeas Corpus, and it was wrong. The Aliend and Sedition Act was wrong. Making the first amendment a crime (Adams again) was wrong. Jailing people criticizing the government during war (lots of different presidents, most notably Wilson) is wrong. Making tribunals where anyone outside of the judicial branch determines who gets put on trial is wrong.

 

Just because President Lincoln did it does not make it ok for President Bush to do it. They both suck.

 

And you don't comprehend slippery slope.