I'm itching to reply, but I am going to wait until the Republicans, neo-cons and their friends do so first. I want to see the denial, backed by some solid information.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

I think I missed something in this story here. I don't deny each point that was made, and I have equal resentment towards those points outlined. However, not one of those points made seemingly fits this headline very well:

quote:

US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

Where exactly does this explicitly state this in any way in the story? Otherwise it would appear almost as a non sequitur argument made - the conclusion of jailing civilian protestors doesn't seem to fit any premises made in the article. The closest I seem to see any possible fit is here:

quote:

Furthering the complete destruction of the rights of the American people to 'due process' and 'fair trials', the American War Leaders have passed a new law subjecting their citizens to Military, instead of Civilian trials. According to reports from the United States, this little known law was 'slipped into' a large spending bill unbeknownst to US Congressional Leaders, and though 'seemingly' applying to American contractors in fact subjects all American citizens to Military Arrest and Trials.

However, that's not necessarily jailing any dissenters, per se. Rather, that's treating the contractors in the same manner as those in the military. While this is good on the one hand considering that a healthy handful of contractors have gotten off scotch free for their role in torture for detainees at Gitmo, Iraq, and elsewhere, the consequences are also easy to spell out. However, that's hardly stating those contractors were "dissenters" of any sort.

HOWEVER, this bill could also wrap around an unknown group of citizens that this Administration may deem as "dissenters" - namely, reporters:

quote:

But legal observers say it could be interpreted broadly to include employees with other government agencies, as well as reporters. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4472421.html

That's pretty significant, but again I think that should be mentioned in the article posted more clearly if that was the inherent point they were attempting to make.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Russian Intelligence saying the president orders the US military to arrest people at home?

These Russians should learn a little more about how the military works in this country, and that there would have to be radical LEGISLATIVE changes made to allow the military to arrest anyone inside the USA. Policing by the military is expressly prohibited by law.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

I saw one of the Alex Jones' videos where peaceful protesters were arrested on streets and sent in to detention camps for 24 hours with no access to lawyers and no cause. The cameraman ended up with these people. All you see is people around sitting downn on the ground, and agents walking around ... Yeah, very freaky.

I have all his videos, I think that one is called Gulag USA.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Sounded like crap to me.

___________________

source first story second

This is the most relevant thing I could find:

quote:

Congress to Send Critics to Jail, Says Richard Viguerie Congress Wants to Blame the Grassroots for Its Own Corruption MANASSAS, Va., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate grassroots communications: "In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress. "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself. "The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers. "On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.' "That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy. "I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a petition to sign opposing Section 220. "Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into silence. "The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report. "Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems." CONTACT: Mark Fitzgibbons, +1-703-392-7676 or +1-703-408-3775, for GrassrootsFreedom.com.The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate grassroots communications: "In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress. "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself. "The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers. "On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.' "That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy. "I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a petition to sign opposing Section 220. "Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into silence. "The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report. "Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems." CONTACT: Mark Fitzgibbons, +1-703-392-7676 or +1-703-408-3775, for GrassrootsFreedom.com. SOURCE GrassrootsFreedom.com

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...+2007,+06:34+PM

http://www.drudge.com/news/89278/se...report-congress

http://www.google.com/search? q=req...%20itself&hl=en

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

US terror trials to allow hearsay The US defence department has released new rules allowing terror suspects to be convicted and possibly executed on the basis of hearsay evidence and some coerced testimony. The rules, which the department says are "fair", are contained in a manual to be used for upcoming trials of terrorism suspects. At a Pentagon briefing, Dan Dell'Orto, the deputy to the defence department's top counsel, said the new rules will "afford all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised people". But the 238-page manual could spark a fresh confrontation between the Bush administration and the Democratic-led Congress over the treatment of terror suspects. Classified information The manual states that the defence must notify the judge if it expects to disclose classified information, allowing the government to object to any questioning of witnesses. But the suspect would not be allowed to see any classified material used against them, and receive only an unclassified summary. "When you're in the middle of a war against this enemy, you need to be particularly concerned about the disclosure of that evidence", Dell'Orto said of classified materials. The manual prohibits the use of statements obtained through torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the US Constitution. But it allows some evidence obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before December 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge. Congress and the White House also agreed last year that hearsay - evidence based on what is reported to a witness by others rather than on what they have observed for themselves - can be allowed as evidence if a judge rules the testimony reliable. Death penalty The manual states: "As a general matter, hearsay shall be admitted on the same terms as any evidence." Dell'Orto said that since both sides of the case can admit hearsay evidence, that "levels the playing field". In outlining the maximum punishment for various acts, the new manual includes the death penalty for people convicted of spying or taking part in a "conspiracy or joint enterprise" that kills someone. The maximum penalty for aiding the enemy - such as providing ammunition or money - is life imprisonment. There are almost 400 people being held at the military's prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the Pentagon's office on commissions, said US officials think that with the evidence they have now, they could eventually charge 60 to 80 detainees. The defence department is currently planning trials for at least 10.

US terror trials to allow hearsay

And after that, they call it Democracy. I simply outraged!

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller And after that, they call it Democracy. I simply outraged!

It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions.
To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda.

I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days? How to use a TV guide and a remote control for education?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions. To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda. I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days?

star-traveller apparently follows the word of the almighty Putin above all else, where Democracy is a loosely defined concept (at best).

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions. To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda. I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days?

Have you ever read the American Constitution? That to me sounds like a democracy, while the "backroom laws" are doing otherwise.

Republic is something like the Roman Republic, the first of the Republic kind it was. French Republic. But that's not quote democracy. Don't fall for the silly name, my friend. Remember Eastern German Democratic Republic or whatever it was called of East Germany - it was neither a republic nor a democracy. "The Democratic Republic Of Congo" is another example.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture