All in the name of fighting terrorism

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by JimH52, Nov 22, 2007.

  1. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,103
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,277
    bush is supporting Musharraf. This is a man that has removed all the Supreme Court justices that felt his take over of the Pakistani government was illegal. He has replaced them with his own supporters and they have rubber stamped his presidencey. I suppose bush admires this and, if given the time, he may even replicate some of these moves. When challenged he arrested journalist, lawyers, and anyone that he sees a threat. But bush is blindly following along. Here is a quote from ABC News.

    "Under international pressure, Musharraf appears to be relaxing some of his strong-arm tactics, however he has already lost credibility with many Pakistanis. He continues to enjoy the support of the Bush administration, a fact not lost on Pakistan's literate elite. The morning after President Bush told ABC News' Charles Gibson that Musharraf "hadn't crossed the line," the story of Bush's support was splashed on the front page of every major Pakistani newspaper."

    I guess Dictators stick together!
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,010
    What a load of Garbage. I assume when the election is held next year and whom ever wins moves into the Whitehouse we can remind you of this claim that Bush is a dictator and you will of course apologize for such a baldfaced, ignorant LIE? I won't hold my breath for it though.

    Please provide us with some examples of Bsh being a Dictator. Maybe you can anme the Supreme Court Justices he has illegally replaced? Some Federal Judges? Some Congressman or Senators? Some actions he has taken that a court has ruled illegal?

    Again I won't hold my breath for your reply.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,058
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,244
    I won't prove that, but I was concerned over the Valerie Palme thing, but the thing that really concerned me above anything else was Gonzalez firing the folk...
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,010
    If you mean the US Attorneys , all of them had already served their initial terms, further the President can replace them anytime he wants, they are POLITICAL appointments. There is NO difference between firing them the day he takes office or any other time as some have claimed in regards Clinton axeing all of them when elected.

    Further the claim they were fired for not doing what the President wanted? Umm they serve the President, as long as what he wants is legal he can fire them for failing to do as he wishes. But there is no evidence thats why they were fired either.

    The President can wake up tomorrow morning and decide his dog told him to fire ever US DA there is. It is totally with in his power.

    The other claim that they were working on some case against the Republican party also does not fly. Clinton fired several US attorneys just days before they were to decide whether to bring cases against Democrats, no one even cared one whit. Why? Because the paper work does not disappear. The new Attorney assigned or his interm has the files, information and investigations and is still task with making that decision. No one fired the staff. No one shredded documents, no one hid information.
     
  5. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,103
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,277
    :badgrin: :badgrin: :badgrin: :badgrin:
     
  6. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,606
    Thanks Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,500
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
    speaks for itself - "The President can declare a national emergency, and suspend the constitution", thus becoming a dictator

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-1.html
    vaguely defines ANYONE as "terrorist" and nullifies Habeus Corpus

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
    so vague, that literally ANYONE could be considered a "threat" to Iraq stability efforts, including non-violent protestors

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.html
    Nullifies Posse Comitatus, and for the first time in HISTORY, a US President has the power to deploy STATE NG units DOMESTICALLY, superceding the original power always delgated to only each individual state's governor

    ALL of these bills tie into each other, with respect to the unprecedented power the executive branch now has. NSPD 51 got NO media coverage, and actually wasn't even accompanied by a press conference from the DHS, as would usually be the case in such a situation.

    In the event that a "new 9/11" might happen on US soil, all of these bills can be utilized to achieve a situation like what is happening in Pakistan right now.

    And coicidentally, the things that happened in Nazi Germany as well.

    Here are a few articles to ponder, with some relation to the topic at hand:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/US_has_contingency_plan_to_strike_0201.html
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter


    I'll expect you to bury your head in the sand on this, and make your typical excuses, and turn it into a partisan political attack on Bush by "crazy lefties".

    It's your M.O., of course.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,010
    2 of those are Executive orders which have no power outside the executive branch, Neither give the President the Power to shut down courts or the Congress and if he tried the Military would not stand for it as would not the General Public.

    The other two are BILLS passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, don't like them? Get the Dems to change them, ohh wait, the Dems voted for at least one of them and even sponsored it.

    Get back to me when Bush takes over illegally. You will have a hard time finding me though because I will be out organizing a militia to retake my Government with the help of the MArines here at Camp Lejeune.
     
  8. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,606
    Thanks Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,500
    RGS, I have to say, I respect everything you just said.

    I do believe however that EO's are as good as law when they are used in pursuance to Congressional Acts, are they not? If they AREN'T, then what purpose do they serve? NSPD 51 seems to be in pursuance to those other Acts I posted and linked to. They alll tie together in one common cause.

    As far as the congressional bills, I'm not a democrat nor a republican, as far as current mainstream political ideals are concerned. Getting the Dem's to change them was one of the MAJOR reasons they were voted in last November. The fact that they haven't even TRIED, ought to go to show the masses that neither party is for THE PEOPLE.

    As far as organizing a militia, I hope I have an EASY time finding you, because I'll be right there WITH you.

    I just hope you know that in the event that something like this actually DOES happen, contingencies are already in place to deal with dissenters. Organized militias will be the first ones rounded up with force.

    Are you really, SERIOUSLY, prepared for such a thing?

    Do you really feel that a situation like what's going on in Pakistan is that far-fetched?

    The question you need to ask yourself is: Why the fuck does the government as a whole even feel a NEED to draft, and pass bills such as these? And why does the executive branch feel a need to create these executive orders?

    This is the only thing you said that I feel is a shame. If you have even one iota of belief in you that it may be possible, why do you bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn't, while saying that if it DOES happen, only THEN will you be willing to do something to stop it? Don't you realize that by THEN, it will be too late?
     

Share This Page