AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » SideTopics   » Did we really need the fifth amendment anyway?

   
Author Topic: Did we really need the fifth amendment anyway?
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ApeLad   Email ApeLad         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh yeah, we did.
The president seems to think otherwise:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html?1

IP: Logged
Charles
Administrator
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Charles           Edit/Delete Post 
This executive order gives the administration the right to seize the property of anyone in the US suspected of keeping Iraq from becoming stable.

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

IP: Logged
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ApeLad   Email ApeLad         Edit/Delete Post 
The fifth amendment:
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.

IP: Logged
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ApeLad   Email ApeLad         Edit/Delete Post 
Charles, I wonder if this means we can seize the president's property? [Big Grin]
IP: Logged
Charles
Administrator
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Charles           Edit/Delete Post 
It's very ironic because that's one of the reasons why the 13 colonies rebelled against Britain. The seizure of property without due process.

Under the wording of this executive order fellow Americans, anything that the government construes to be detrimental to establishing stability in Iraq will be reason enough for them to step in and take absolutely everything you've got.

That means, if they feel that what you say may be causing instability in Iraq, such as disagreeing with the war, under the wording of this executive order, at the discretion of the government, they can wipe you out. They can do this to any American citizen.

I tell ya, whoever George Bush campaigns for next year they can pretty much kiss their changes of getting elected goodbye.

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

IP: Logged
-FP-
IE # 13
Member # 914

Icon 2 posted      Profile for -FP-   Author's Homepage   Email -FP-         Edit/Delete Post 
Hillary better hold on to her knickers!

Pentagon Rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

IP: Logged
Animagus
IE # 49
Member # 279

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Animagus   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
But, opposition to the war is at, like 80%, right? And only 80% of Americans even approve of the Bush administration, right? So who's going to enforce all these Draconian laws?
Even the people in the military are opposed to the war. Who's going to sieze the property? Does the Bush administration have some secret army of stormtroopers hidden away somewhere that they're not sending to Iraq who are going to start patrolling the streets? Or is my local "Barney Fife" now going to be able to confiscate my beat up old Nissan?
I know the law doen'st say "anyone who opposes the war will have their property siezed" it just says that they CAN sieze it. So will they just choose to make an example of a few people?
I'm just wondering what their plan is for implementing these "scary" new laws.

--------------------
www.robertgold.blogspot.com

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, George W. Bush did not grant this new power to himself. He granted them to the executive branch. G.W. Bush leaves in 2009, but the power will remain attached to the executive branch. This means future presidents and their administrations get to use this new power as they see fit.

Right now the polls favor a Democratic president in 2008, so all of GW's current executive power will likely go to a Democratic president in 2008. However, as Bruce Fein pointed out on PBS last Friday, no presidential candidate of any political party has promised to reverse the vast expansion of executive power that Bush accomplished during his administration. So this Executive Order will not go away even after Bush leaves office.

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

IP: Logged
-FP-
IE # 13
Member # 914

Icon 2 posted      Profile for -FP-   Author's Homepage   Email -FP-         Edit/Delete Post 
Ready for more? Now the White House says it can never be held in contempt of court:

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases


Excerpt:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

...administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Animagus, great post!

Jennifer, althought the polls say they favor a Democrat as president, it ain't gonna happen. Our fellow citizens are far too smart and far too stupid.

We'll go Republican again because we're greedy and bigotted and we'll be right back in the soup again.

If the American people were that tired of Bush he wouldn't be there. You don't see people en masse going through the streets protesting him. They're too afraid to speak up publicly and don't know what to do overall.

They voted him in twice, they got what they deserved. Lots of death and misery and mayhem but the economy is roaring, the Dow hit an all time high.

In this world that's all that matters.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
If I remember correctly, Bush won the 2004 election with 55% of the voters who DID vote. 55% of a 64% turnout means Bush won with 35.2% of the potential vote. Of the potential vote, 35.2% supported Bush, and 28.8% supported Kerry. The 36% of voters who stayed home supported no one.

It's possible that in a 100% turnout in 2004 the percentage of folks voting for Bush would have remained the same, but I suspect the 36% of voters who stayed home had "No Opinion" about who would win the election in 2004. Otherwise, they would have made an effort to vote.

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

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
I can see how people don't vote.
First, the whole thing with votes not being counted or people being turned away.that sucks.

Second, the two party system is a joke and untill all parties can play on equal playing fields and be
heard equally so the people could make a fully educated decision then whats the point. really. big business runs our government and its totally clear during the elections. we only see people on tv being supported by big money. We don't see the other people
running for office and when we do it looks like a joke next to the multi million campaign ya yas.

I think the american media should be obligated to cover candidates equally. no more no less, and that big money should be outlawed to participate
in the elections.period.

Kinda like boxing(without the corporate sponsershIp). everyone goes in with shorts, gloves, mouth piece, jock strap and cup. thats it.
now lets get it on!

until that happens its all bullsht.

God Bless America...who ever you are, please.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
tstevens
IE # 234
Member # 801

Icon 1 posted      Profile for tstevens   Author's Homepage   Email tstevens         Edit/Delete Post 
"I think the american media should be obligated to cover candidates equally. no more no less, and that big money should be outlawed to participate
in the elections.period."

In general, people will try to get around whatever laws that are put in place. If you simplify the donation process to say that you can accept money from anyone in any amount, but you must fully disclose that information, you might see a more stable system. This means that if the media does its job then you would know who is donating what and to who.

--------------------
http://www.foogersnarts.blogspot.com

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Snakebite, that's a valiant idea but the reality is the two-party system is what people want or it wouldn't be here.

I've worked in the mainstream media my entire adult life. It's a criminal institution and has been that way since the days of Randolph Hearst. There was a brife time in the early 1970's when real journalism took hold and toppled a presidency and did damage to corruption all around the world. Guys like Woodward and Bernstein and even Geraldo Rivera took on the giants and won. However, the retaliation against them and other crusading journalists was brutal. Soon they found themselves up against the biggest money in the world and gradually by the time Reagan started running they had lost.

Then came Rupert Murdoch. Like Galactus from the Fantastic Four comic books he began to devour everything he could. Soon journalism turned into a sleazy platform of greed and libel and ickyness hitherto unparalleled to this day. Once in a while a 'topic' will be tackled like when Woodruff took on the veteran's rights at the hospitals.

Too often our news is focused on which blonde sex bimbo is in some new madcap adventure or which rich and famous black guy is on trial or arrested.

That should tell you who and what is running the news business right there and I for one will attest to it having seen it first hand. For a bunch of people sworn to uphold the first estate they're some of the most racist and hateful people you'ld ever want to meet.

Now we have the internet. Lo and behold the people appear to have a new savior! Everyday the web is outting criminals in politics and the mainstream news. Will wonders never cease? Even
with these lightspeed wonders, the mindset of Americans are well defined by those fully schooled in the functions of the mind and attacks are committed each day against the new alternative press.

Bro, it's all about money and power, money and power, money and power.

America's got only one domestic policy: What do we have to do to keep black people from moving in next door.

Plain and simple.

It's foreign policy is similar: How much of someone else's sh1t can we steal on a global basis and blame brown people for?

Just take a look at the entertainment industry. You said it best already.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
do you think that would keep big money out of the pockets of candidates?

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
thats last question was for tstevens.

greg
I don't want a two party system and Im an american so where does that leave me? (rhetorical I know the answer is "screwed")

Most of what I say is rhetoric since I know why things are the way they are...another reason why I say voting is bullsht. as long as I participate in this system Im feeding it and making it valid...and if I don't participate I am told I can't complain and Im part of the problem.

its a garsh darn paradox of bla bla bla. like you said, power and money, so how can any reform take place at all?

your blame the brown people theories I feel, but then I must be brown. nigga by association or something, cuz I can share my personal plight with the darkest of bruthas. I think its evolved into something much sicker than racism unfortunately.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
Charles
Administrator
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Charles           Edit/Delete Post 
Go figure. Other than the link that started this thread, there's virtually nothing I've seen or heard reported about the executive order authorizing the disposal of one's property if the administration deems that one is keeping Iraq from being stable, yet the press is on top of today's executive order.

...............

Bush alters rules for interrogations

Executive order applies to CIA, if it has detention and interrogation

July 20, 2007 WASHINGTON - President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19873918/

..................

These executive orders are becoming almost a daily thing.

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

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Charles here's another link:

http://rense.com/general77/seiz.htm

Obviously this has gone beyond too far. The executive branch is out of control and the remaining two branches are obviously too cowardly to perform their due diligence.

This is a dark day for the rebellion.

Today btw is President Dick Cheney's second presidency. Reason being the main man Bush is getting his rear end scoured at the doctors.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Tobias A. Wolf
IE # 250
Member # 383

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tobias A. Wolf   Email Tobias A. Wolf         Edit/Delete Post 
There is a terrorist in the lead of our executive branch. This is the definition:

ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
duuuuude, definitions are soooo open to be defined. lol

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged


 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0