KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

buddyChrist · **on:** August 28, 2008, 09:08:47 PM

Having taken an oath to protect the Constitution on the United States, then declaring free speech only in free speech zones, as well as denying the right to assembly, should he be charged as a traitor to the United States of America?

Lois · **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2008, 09:18:03 PM

Suspension of due process, guaranteed by the constitution, is treason - and I'm not just talking Gitmo - it is happening here at home.

MedievalDom · **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2008, 12:58:53 AM

Quote from: Emily on August 28, 2008, 09:18:03 PM

Suspension of due process, guaranteed by the constitution, is treason - and I'm not just talking Gitmo - it is happening here at home.

Well as for those nice folks at Gitmo, they are not citizens of the US and weather you like it or not they do not have any constitutional rights. They are also the type of people that would shot you in the back of the head, I think I showed you that photo before yes?

now name one person he has suspended due process on

He is not a nice person, not saying that, and I hate his environmental stance, but when at war one does not have time to be nice. Two tours in Afghanistan, Two Tours in Iraq proved that to me, I did not have to be taught that before hand thank God. And next time you think they (our guests in gitmo) deserve due process ask the Family of Danial Pearl http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1385811/Killers-filmed-Pearl-as-throat-was-cut.html
or maybe the families of the Koreans
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SEO78153.htm
yeah, maybe they should not have been there, but did they threaten any one with a weapon of any sort? NO
how about when they kill their own country men who are trying to turn a land filled with landmines into a safe place to live? Most of those planted by either taliban on land that was not

No, based on this, he is no traitor, just a leader doing what ever is necessary to protect his country

buddyChrist · **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2008, 02:40:37 AM

MedievalDom, as a soldier, you also swore to defend the Constitution first, then obey orders. Is that correct? I am not sure if you based you vote on what Emily posted, or the question at hand. He swore to defend the Constitution, then he denied people the freedom of speech. Free speech zones? Sorry, I am an American. Anyplace I am standing is a free speech zone. He denied freedom of assembly when protesters were not allowed to protest his views. He has given powers that allow your phone and email to be listened to without cause. Because of all these things that he knowingly did, after taking the oath of office, I consider him a traitor.

MedievalDom · **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2008, 03:20:35 AM

Quote from: buddyChrist on August 29, 2008, 02:40:37 AM

MedievalDom, as a soldier, you also swore to defend the Constitution first, then obey orders. Is that correct? I am not sure if you based you vote on what Emily posted, or the question at hand. He swore to defend the Constitution, then he denied people the freedom of speech. Free speech zones? Sorry, I am an American. Anyplace I am standing is a free speech zone. He denied freedom of assembly when protesters were not allowed to protest his views. He has given powers that allow your phone and email to be listened to without cause. Because of all these things that he knowingly did, after taking the oath of office, I consider him a traitor.

so, when did he denied freedom of assembly?
and where are these free speech zones, and more importantly show me where they are not?

I based my response on my knowledge, I only posted to Emily after the fact.
show me a reputable source for what you have stated.

and when you look it up be sure to quot some one about the Democratic Party getting a Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression,

Lois · **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2008, 09:11:51 AM

Read the Patriot Act. The suspension of habeas corpus (aka due process) allows a person to be held indefinitely without trial. This means it is possible that THOUSANDS of persons are being held in secret jails with no contact at all with their families and loved ones. (Rumors abound that such jails exist in Poland and elsewhere.)

So who determines if a person is being justifiably held because they are a danger to the public? That is what due process is all about. We all have the right to a hearing, a right to counsel, and to a fair trial.

As for your citizens only argument it does not hold water. The fifth amendment reads:

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 offence 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.

The constitution clearly states when a right is reserved for persons, and when it is reserved for citizens. Here the Constitution clearly states person.

Now some of the gitmo folks might be exempt because it also states:
.....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.....

I understand what you are saying about needing to be tough, but what happens when being tough makes us our own enemy? To fight evil do we need to become the enemy? Do we need to become intolerant and anti-democratic? Destroy our own freedoms that we cherish? I sure hope not, because if the answer is yes, we've already lost the war on terror.

MedievalDom · **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2008, 01:03:06 PM

Oh, I am going to So much enjoy arguing with you!
Most people take 'argue' as a negative thing, with negative connotations.

Any how I just woke up, need some coffee and I am going to go antiquing with my wife.

I would like to dismiss 'secret jails' out of hand, at least for Americans.
The folks at gitmo, were active participants in militia, there were and probably are a few that hand nothing to do with the war, or the taliban at all. One of the most talked about was a 14 year old boy, he really did not have anything to do with anything, and people get up in arms about "holding a child" but in Afghanistan 14 is 'a man grown' America and most of Europe are a bit of an anomaly when it comes to the idea of what is mature.

Are there people held in secret eastern European jails? well again I would have to ask for evidence to that. In the world we live in with information imposable to control much less track it is imposable to keep any thing secret.

"become the enemy" that is an interesting statement in itself. Consider Dresden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
in comparison the American and world response has been very controlled. We have not become evil at all. As countries I love Afghanistan, I am not at all found of Iraq. I have friends in both countries. Afghanistan gets under your skin, it is hard to explain but it is very easy to become attached to the land and the people, but I would flatten the country to protect my own. (I would make a very bad president)

Perhaps on another thread we can discuss what one has to sacrifice to be a leader, what of themselves that is.

as with the 'free speech zones' habeas corpus also has some exceptions that are very old. Washington DC police officers can hold people with out charge, on matters of national security, and that law has been in writing from the mid 1870s. Free Speech zones are also reflections of very old laws. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not freedoms to express one's self in civilly disruptive ways.

buddyChrist · **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2008, 06:38:11 PM

Free speech zones were well documented anytime W appears somewhere. If you wanted to have a different opinion, you could voice it anywhere near him. They directed you to some bleechers, or a fenced in area where you could speak all you want. That is in direct violation to the first amendment, which he swore an oath to protect.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, having sworn to protect this, then taking it away from the citizens, is he not a traitor?

AvatarofTruth · **Reply #8 on:** August 29, 2008, 07:19:43 PM

Okay, let's clear up a few misconceptions some of you are clinging to.

The suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus is not in itself unconstitutional. It is allowed for under section 9 of article one. However, enforcing the portions of the patriot act which allow for greater suspension of the Writ is, in my view, unconstitutional.

As for whether George Bush is a traitor....well, traitor and criminal are not necessarily the same thing. A traitor means something very specific in the US Constitution. From article 3 section three:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So I would agree that many of the things President Bush has done in office are illegal, and worthy of impeachment, imprisonment, etc. But not execution.

Lois · **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2008, 10:37:15 PM

Tahnks AoT .... that's what I meant to say. Yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

MedievalDom · **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2008, 02:28:43 AM

Quote from: buddyChrist on August 29, 2008, 06:38:11 PM

Free speech zones were well documented anytime W appears somewhere. If you wanted to have a different opinion, you could voice it anywhere near him. They directed you to some bleechers, or a fenced in area where you could speak all you want. That is in direct violation to the first amendment, which he swore an oath to protect.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, having sworn to protect this, then taking it away from the citizens, is he not a traitor?

actuly I sort of mislead you, the "free speech zones" are much older than the bush administration, You might want to check what the Democrats did in the 1988 Democratic convention,
During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator against an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage." "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions
or this
Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the Fleet Center where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray"
Its that whole Peaceably Assemble thing that bites people in the backside, the first amendment says you can express any idea you want, you just have to be polite about it,

the research is pretty easy to do on the net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones

so before you drop all of that on one persons lap get your facts straight

MedievalDom · **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2008, 02:31:34 AM

very well said avatar,

The problem with opinions are that most people will not bother to do research on their own and find out all the facts or ins and out of the law.

with "Google" making it so easy to do, almost anything a person wants is at the stroke of a key board.

ebilbob · **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2008, 04:23:36 AM

Quote from: AvatarofTruth on August 29, 2008, 07:19:43 PM

Okay, let's clear up a few misconceptions some of you are clinging to.

The suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus is not in itself unconstitutional. It is allowed for under section 9 of article one. However, enforcing the portions of the patriot act which allow for greater suspension of the Writ is, in my view, unconstitutional.

As for whether George Bush is a traitor....well, traitor and criminal are not necessarily the same thing. A traitor means something very specific in the US Constitution. From article 3 section three:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So I would agree that many of the things President Bush has done in office are illegal, and worthy of impeachment, imprisonment, etc. But not execution.

Purposefully exposing the identity of a covert operative has been defined legally as falling within the definition of giving Aid to the enemies of the United States. When George Bush ordered the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame in retribution for her husband publishing an entirely factual article in the NYT, Bush became a traitor to this nation.
If you actually believe he had nothing to do with that disclosure and that it really did all originate in the office of the Vice President without knowledge or consent of the President, then I guess Bush would only be guilty of obstruction of justice in the pursuit of the prosecution of a traitor, which probably isn't traitorous in and of itself. I however, believe Bush, at a bare minimum, knew about the plan to disclose Plame's identity beforehand, which makes him guilty as well.

You could also argue that Bush's lies to start the war in Iraq eventually led to the greatest recruiting tool Al Qaeda has ever had, Bush is guilty of giving aid to terrorist organizations that have pledged to do harm to the United States and once again is guilty of treason. That one probably wouldn't stick though and so he should just be imprisoned for a that one.

ebilbob · **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2008, 04:39:12 AM

Quote from: MedievalDom on August 29, 2008, 12:58:53 AM

Well as for those nice folks at Gitmo, they are not citizens of the US and weather you like it or not they do not have any constitutional rights. They are also the type of people that would shot you in the back of the head, I think I showed you that photo before yes?
...
And next time you think they (our guests in gitmo) deserve due process ask the Family of Danial Pearl http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1385811/Killers-filmed-Pearl-as-throat-was-cut.html
or maybe the families of the Koreans
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SEO78153.htm
yeah, maybe they should not have been there, but did they threaten any one with a weapon of any sort? NO
how about when they kill their own country men who are trying to turn a land filled with landmines into a safe place to live? Most of those planted by either taliban on land that was not

No, based on this, he is no traitor, just a leader doing what ever is necessary to protect his country

First, habeas corpus isn't just a "constitutional right" in the United States. It's a fundamental tenet of representative government. It's not an American right. It's a human right.
As far as being the type of people who would shoot you in the back of the head, I appreciate that you've been around a bunch of people who would shoot you in the back of the head, but those people weren't in Gitmo, were they?
It's been estimated that over 70% of the prisoners in Gitmo were turned over to United States forces on the equivalent of word of mouth charges and absolutely no supporting evidence. That's why the Bush administration has fought so hard for military tribunals and the right to torture. Torture-induced confessions are the only evidence they have in a vast majority of the cases and they can't submit a coerced confession in a real court.
There are a lot of bad guys in the world, but many of the prisoners in Gitmo are victims of inter tribal rivalries and personal vendettas. The Gitmo roundup has more in common with the Salem witch trials than with actual rule of law.
And finally, EVERYONE deserves due process. You don't get to claim you're fighting for the American way of life if you're using terrorist ideology to do it.

MedievalDom · **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2008, 04:54:53 AM

The first is hog wash, nicely put there is no proof to support your claim, never has been, (though it was fucked up to do)
and the second is the stretch of an over active imagination. Again, you have claims that fall with in the parameters of your belief, but the simple fact of the matter is extremists do not need a tool, they simply hate because they are extreme. That might seem a very simplistic explanation but the reality is it is that simple for people, they hate you (assuming you are an American) just because you are an American. Because of what you have and supposedly what they do not have. They would gladly cut your throat and put it on camera for the world to see for no other reason than to do it, and their hate for you based on nothing more than your place of birth. Also remember these are the same people that took two mentally retarded girls, wired them with remote control devices and blew them up in a market that sells pets. The first time I was there we had to speak to a family about there son who was a "suicide bomber" in an VBED, they told us it was imposable, why? Because he was mentally retarded as well and could not drive. In the end the they had said to a young man who had never driven anything, "hey want to drive my car" he did, and they used an remote to detonate him at a check point.

Does that fall in your nice clean definition of 'recruiting'?
90% of the time they do not target Americans or even Iraqi military and police. They target civilians.

What do you think they would do in say, New York City? or Boston, or any small town in the US?

stop watching just some news station that supports your views and take a hard look at what goes on out side your boarders. Try the BBC, hell try Al Jazeera, even they report on the crap that happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is a novel idea for every one, Go out and do something constrictive about how you feel hell get a box of old clothing and donate it to some charity that sends it to Iraq and Afghanistan. Or why not get a job with HALO trust and clear some minds from farm land so an Afghan village has more land to farm? Would you do that?

Pan · **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2008, 09:16:28 AM

Quote from: MedievalDom on August 29, 2008, 01:03:06 PM

Are there people held in secret eastern European jails? well again I would have to ask for evidence to that. In the world we live in with information imposable to control much less track it is imposable to keep any thing secret.

Read up on Dick Marty, a Swiss senator and a report for the Council of Europe.
The site could be near Szymany airport in Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_Kiejkuty_(base)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6733353.stm
and the report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/marty_08_06_07.pdf

AvatarofTruth · **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2008, 10:35:52 AM

Quote from: ebilbob on August 30, 2008, 04:23:36 AM

Purposefully exposing the identity of a covert operative has been defined legally as falling within the definition of giving Aid to the enemies of the United States.

I call bullshit on this, and I'd like to see some empirical evidence to support your claim.

The phrase 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' comes readily to mind. No matter how good it feels to label George Bush a traitor, wishing does not make it so. Is he a criminal? Obviously. But a traitor? Those in this thread supporting the moniker are stretching their logic very thin. As I said, there is a very specific definition in US law for acts of treason, and trying to redefine it to fit a person you despise only sets a nasty precedent.

Pan · **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2008, 11:07:53 AM

Quote from: ebilbob on August 30, 2008, 04:23:36 AM

Purposefully exposing the identity of a covert operative has been defined legally as falling within the definition of giving Aid to the enemies of the United States. When George Bush ordered the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame in retribution for her husband publishing an entirely factual article in the NYT, Bush became a traitor to this nation.

The CIA used a front to track a sub set of the nuclear arms trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

The background to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

MedievalDom · **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2008, 03:15:48 AM

Quote from: Pan on August 30, 2008, 09:16:28 AM

Quote from: MedievalDom on August 29, 2008, 01:03:06 PM

Are there people held in secret eastern European jails? well again I would have to ask for evidence to that. In the world we live in with information imposable to control much less track it is imposable to keep any thing secret.

Read up on Dick Marty, a Swiss senator and a report for the Council of Europe.
The site could be near Szymany airport in Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_Kiejkuty_(base)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6733353.stm
and the report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/marty_08_06_07.pdf

Conjecture but no proof,

claims of holding a smoking gun, and having a smoking gun in your hand are two different things.
the Wiki sight says that there are CIA personal working there but puts nothing forward as to what they are doing. Might be peaking across the border at Russia, might be doing anything else

the second says
A BBC investigation last year revealed that a well-known CIA Gulfstream plane, the N379P, had made several landings at Szymany airport in northern Poland in 2003

well, so? that does not prove anything at all.

Now I will break it down so you can understand folllow along bambies, this might be important, Even if we do hold people in secret bases in the middle of New York City, guess what, there is good reason for doing so, and You defending them is the exact same thing you accuse the President of, defending the enemy, and giving aid and comfort even in just written form is still aid and comfort.

Do you not get that these people are in an active war attempting to kill every single person that does not believe like them? It is not just against Americans either. That the intent is to reestablish their rule, they call it Muslim rule but it is so twisted that it is Islam only in name and not in practice and any one, any one that does not convert or 'pay tax' Dies?
Pull your heads out and look around.
here is the cool part, six months before taking office IF Obama winds, he gets an Intel read on, and you will see a difference in practice and action. At sucks being at the top for far more reasons than most people can understand.

AvatarofTruth · **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2008, 08:01:53 AM

Quote from: MedievalDom on August 31, 2008, 03:15:48 AM

Now I will break it down so you can understand folllow along bambies, this might be important, Even if we do hold people in secret bases in the middle of New York City, guess what, there is good reason for doing so, and You defending them is the exact same thing you accuse the President of, defending the enemy, and giving aid and comfort even in just written form is still aid and comfort.

Do you not get that these people are in an active war attempting to kill every single person that does not believe like them? It is not just against Americans either. That the intent is to reestablish their rule, they call it Muslim rule but it is so twisted that it is Islam only in name and not in practice and any one, any one that does not convert or 'pay tax' Dies?
Pull your heads out and look around.
here is the cool part, six months before taking office IF Obama winds, he gets an Intel read on, and you will see a difference in practice and action. At sucks being at the top for far more reasons than most people can understand.

I am attempting to compose words to express exactly how much I disagree with your statement, and nothing I come up with seems adequate.

First of all, before attacking your argument, let's clear something up once and for all in Room 1408: Grammar and composition do matter. Why do they matter? Well, it is very difficult to take your opinion seriously when you don't know the difference between personal and personnel. No amount of persuasive argumentation can get one past a lack of fluency in your native tongue. If this were the science board and we were talking math, physics or chemistry, certainly spelling and grammar matter much less. However, subjective topics like politics rely on the written and spoken word. Think of it like an equation; if you put a greek letter in the wrong place, the whole thing falls apart.

Now that we've covered that, back to the argument that if a government is doing something, it must be for a good reason.

Uh...

What

The

Fuck

IS WRONG WITH YOU?

There is a point at which governments whose motives were once perceived as altruistic turn sinister behind closed doors. As citizens it is our duty to watch for that moment, to question it, to always criticize any action we think is remotely sketchy.

Just as it is the job of congress to always question the executive branch, to maintain the balance of power (a job they seem to be failing, but save that for later), if it is the job of the government to keep secrets for our safety, it is the job of citizens to seek those secrets out and expose them. No matter what they are. This keeps those secrets from becoming sinister. This is something we forget in times of national crisis. We must never turn our eyes so blindly that we allow a Birkenau or Auschwitz.

Is George Bush a traitor?