On 17th of October 2006, 135 years to the day after the last American President suspended habeus corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At it's worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone -- US citizen or not -- an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the founding fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed today with the stroke of a pen.

 

 

 

George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley, joins Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nations history."

 

 

 

You can watch the video here.

 

 

 

George W Bush and his administration, I can honestly say, are the major protagonists in the 21st Century age of terrorism.

Would I have to watch the video to understand a little bit more about what's going on? It might just because I don't know much about politics, but I just read your post without watching the video and I didn't really understand much of what was going on.

 

 

 

BTW Was that last sentence sarcastic?

 

 

 

I smell a lot of Bush-bashing posts coming. Especially a lot of unintelligent ones.

Hurray for the land of hope and glory. I think not.

George W Bush and his administration, I can honestly say, are the major protagonists in the 21st Century age of terrorism.

 

 

 

I think everything in your post except for that was a fair statement.

 

 

 

Giving Rumsfeld the right to do anything except eat and breath is dangerous at this point.

Great.. Give Bush more power than he needs. It's times like this I wish I was 18 so I could just head for Canada and escape my 'freedom'. I'm not feeling up to a debate at the moment so I'll shut up..

This makes me sick :(

Would I have to watch the video to understand a little bit more about what's going on? It might just because I don't know much about politics, but I just read your post without watching the video and I didn't really understand much of what was going on.

 

 

 

BTW Was that last sentence sarcastic?

 

 

 

I smell a lot of Bush-bashing posts coming. Especially a lot of unintelligent ones.

 

 

 

Try reading this BBC article :)

Great.. Give Bush more power than he needs. It's times like this I wish I was 18 so I could just head for Canada and escape my 'freedom'. I'm not feeling up to a debate at the moment so I'll shut up..

 

 

 

I heard so many people say that in 2004, but not a single one of them has lived up to it...

 

 

 

I've said it before: The supposed Number One President in US History has already done this, and worse, but nobody seems to care. Lincoln locked away more than 12,000 "Confederate Spies", many of which were beaten, tortured, or raped. The man who practically defined the U.S. as the "Home of Freedom" committed the largest civil rights violation the nation has ever seen.

 

 

 

However, Bush does not have an entire congress filled with people who religiously agree with him like Lincoln had at the time. You can expect heavy regulation on this. It's really hardly anything to worry about, compared to 135 years ago.

While you might be sickened by this, you might believe this is wrong, you might think this is the worst thing that could happen - to refer to Bush and his administration as the (emphasis added) protagonists of the 21st century is intellectually irresponsible. Statements like that do nothing but make responsible political dialogue impossible.

While you might be sickened by this, you might believe this is wrong, you might think this is the worst thing that could happen - to refer to Bush and his administration as the (emphasis added) protagonists of the 21st century is intellectually irresponsible. Statements like that do nothing but make responsible political dialogue impossible.

 

 

 

It's only intellectually responsible because century is just beginning, and we don't know what comes next.

 

 

 

However, in a work of literature, the protagonist will often have supporting characters, but the protagonist is the main instigator of plot action, and supporting characters act in regard to this central protagonist. I feel strongly that in this sense, the Bush administration IS the protagonist in this current war - everyone (Blair, Bin Ladin, etc) seems to act AROUND THIS ADMINISTRATION.

While you might be sickened by this, you might believe this is wrong, you might think this is the worst thing that could happen - to refer to Bush and his administration as the (emphasis added) protagonists of the 21st century is intellectually irresponsible. Statements like that do nothing but make responsible political dialogue impossible.

 

 

 

It's only intellectually responsible because century is just beginning, and we don't know what comes next.

 

 

 

However, in a work of literature, the protagonist will often have supporting characters, but the protagonist is the main instigator of plot action, and supporting characters act in regard to this central protagonist. I feel strongly that in this sense, the Bush administration IS the protagonist in this current war - everyone (Blair, Bin Ladin, etc) seems to act AROUND THIS ADMINISTRATION.

 

 

 

But terrorism was happening to a large scale before Bush - and would continue to happen without Bush (most likely). First, if we are focusing only on the 21st century that in itself is irresponsible because Bush and his administrations actions are combating the effects of terrorism that has been going on for decades. Second, it's irresponsible because the terrorists are the ones instigating the terror - Bush could be making it worse - you could definitely say he was making it worse - but what you cannot do is discount the decades of terrorism, and the terrorism that began the 21st century - 9/11. Saying, or implying that Bush is the main instigator of 21st terrorism - or just current terrorism is entirely irresponsible. The responsible thing to say would be that he is making it worse, or he is causing just as much terror as the terrorists. The protagonist of terror? Completely irresponsible.

 

 

 

EDIT: bin Ladin attacked America before Bush. His plans were being made long before Bush was elected. That point that he is acting around Bush doesn't make sense. Bush might be making Ladin madder, but Ladin certainly isn't acting because of or around Bush - he was acting long before Bush was the President.

Ghost, I accept it was phrased poorly. It was rather rushed. What I'm getting at is through all this so called war on terrorism, the current administration seem to make extremely worrying steps itself, which seem to do anything but safeguard our freedom.

At least we don't have to worry about quartering soldiers in our homes, the rest of the Bill of Rights however, is null and void.

 

 

 

The terrorists won.

I'd have to read the act myself to make a decision about whether it's good or not. I feel that trusting a video that explains it is a bad idea because it will only focus on points that it cares about.

Why cant we all hug and get along?

 

And not kill people that we don't like?

Why cant we all hug and get along?

 

And not kill people that we don't like?

 

 

 

People who have power, often want more power.

Why cant we all hug and get along?

 

And not kill people that we don't like?

 

 

 

People who have power, often want more power.

 

But I like hugs!

I'd have to read the act myself to make a decision about whether it's good or not. I feel that trusting a video that explains it is a bad idea because it will only focus on points that it cares about.

 

Oh you're totally right about that. I know the show has a democratic spin to it and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

And not kill people that we don't like?

 

 

 

Are we suppose to just let people differing beliefs and opinions live!? That's ridiculous!

 

 

 

:P

Bush only has two more years of presidency neway... I don't think he can do that much. And if he starts arresting a bunch of people, the supreme court may do something 'bout that... (altough Andrew Jackson ignored the court's ruling about the Native Americans...)

Bush only has two more years of presidency neway... I don't think he can do that much. And if he starts arresting a bunch of people, the supreme court may do something 'bout that... (altough Andrew Jackson ignored the court's ruling about the Native Americans...)

 

 

 

Unlike Jackson, our government is much more closely kept reign of and monitored by other branches and the media.

*Sigh*

 

 

 

Gotta' really watch our mouths now. Saying "I wish George Bush would die." will land you in jail without a trial? Psht.

Here's another great one by Olbermann.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

Sorry to continue the Olbermann trend, but I have to post this:

 

 

 

 

Whether you like Clinton or not, the way the media jumped on this just because some poor excuse for a journalist tried to 'Fox' him is dispicable. Olbermann picks up where Clinton left off.

This is sad. Too bad there's almost nothing we can do about it. What'd he do? Tell the press that it was to benefit the war on "terrorism"