MUCH, MUCH WORSE

After reading Peterson's article, I took the time to look up and read the various Executive Orders and newly passed laws upon which the President asserts such sweeping powers. The situation is much worse than has been explained. Not only can all of the assets of a U.S. citizen be taken for activities merely alleged to be detrimental to the Iraqi rebuilding effort, which apparently includes questioning the government's version of 911, but all of the assets of that person's family can also be taken. Moreover, such taking can be done without prior notice to the citizens affected, so that there would be no way for them to hire counsel to contest the taking. This type of governmental conduct, the punishment of the innocent family for the alleged transgressions of the activist, harkens back to the darkest days of Stalin, Hitler, and the well known South American dictators.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:04:56 AM
 

Getting Maximum Mileage Out of Semantics

Wow, what a bonanza the "terrorist" canard is for the reactionaries, sadists and merchants of death controlling our government, even better than the red-baiting "commie" canard of the 50's and 60's. All police states must have a central scapegoating stereotype to demonize their opponents with. We watched the Central and South American dictatorships of last century use "Communist" to torture and murder hundreds of thousands with, and now "Terrorist" is the tar to paint hundreds of thousands with now. We will all be on the elimination list soon if we do not expose all the evil and untruth behind this tool of oppression and control. This is no longer an intellectual argument but a matter of survival.

by Mac McKinney (37 articles, 43 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 795 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:29:54 AM
 

Reality vs. fear speech

Has any 911Truther had their property confiscated by the executive order mentioned previously? Has anyone browsing such web sites been threatened by mysterious government agents mandating they stop ? Have the web sites been shut down by the mysterious government agents?

The answers to all are "no".  Tell it like it TRULY is, Brother Ed, and dispense with the fire and brimstone fear of the non-factual.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:59:45 AM
 

Although

the people in question had not been  repressed yet, they are targeted , that's for sure. Others haad been repressed, Professor Al- Arian, the ' Brooklyn Bridge surveyor' etc. It is a very myopic way of thinking  to  wait and see if the evil machine starts its function, even more malicious is to actually want it to  happen instead of warning about it and stopping  even a possiblity of such thing to happen. People would be a very stupid species if they had not learned from the experience of the previous generations and/or of the other people.  And if someone  says the same as ' Despite his ferocious appearance Goering is a good man' which now sounds like ,'Despite the obvious  repression-oriented mechanism the machine had not eaten  enough people yet,' that means that someone had not learned from those lessons for which millions of people paid by their very lives.

by Mark Sashine (37 articles, 19 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 3074 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:46:21 AM
 

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know...!?!

"Although the people in question had not been repressed yet, they are targeted , that's for sure. Others had been repressed, Professor Al- Arian, the ' Brooklyn Bridge surveyor'..."

Which is it - yes, no, maybe, I don't know!?!

As to your "yet" comment, this is a deflection of the reality of the issue. No one has been censured under the Executive Order for displaying their ignorance of the facts with respect to 9/11. If you want to claim that the government "did it" via LIHOP or MIHOP and planned it in a booth at IHOP, then you'd only be labeled naïve – not as an individual identified "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence" as they relate to Iraq.

If you look at the Order, Section 2. (b) states, "Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited." And what are those prohibitions? Let's look at them Section 1.

"(a) Except to the extent provided in [certain] section[s]..., all property and interests in property of the following persons, ... are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

"(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

"(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

"(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

"(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. "

I see nothing in the prohibitions that addresses "thoughts" or "beliefs"; however, I see MUCH about materials, money, goods, services that include the act or acts of violence. If you want to use the fear of "yet", then you do so with the historical record of a multitude of other failed anti-Bush & Co proclaimers of past things "yet". And you're running out of time for President Bush to stage his coup that I've read about at length on here.

What I want to know is how should we respond to all these proclaimers of past things yet, when their yets don't come true? Will their words have lost validity because of the incorrect analysis, or will they be heralded as the David that conquered the Goliath because of their generous but strategic use of "yet"?

I think the answer is a no-brainer. They'll be portrayed as the later, but they'll only be fooling themselves.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 1:14:40 PM
 

Go Tom

My reading of this article, despite that we don't politically agree is that you're largely correct.

Ed is usually one of the more reliable authors but in this case I think he's looking for monsters under the bed......and finding them.....could be a movie in that.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 6:16:43 PM
 

You might want to ask ...

Sibel Edmonds about just how hard they can lean on you. Valarie Plame might have something to add. Even poor old Dan Rather had something to say about "neck-tying".

I see this as a shot across the bow. Being one of those that have questioned the events of 9/11 since day one, I heard this shot loud and clear.

by Mr M (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 873 comments) on Sunday, November 18, 2007 at 1:43:01 AM
 

Who did it?

by Kent Welton (46 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 12:15:53 PM
 

Non-factual?

If you had read the article with comprehension, you'd be aware that there are no non-factual statements there.  If you had a knowledge of rhetorical fallacies, you'd realize that your questions are the rhetorical device of the non-sequitur, making statements or asking questions with no previous foundation or relevance.  The fact is that Bush has set in place, ready for use, a system whereby he can confiscate our property.  I never claimed that he had done so, as you so mistakenly insinuate.  If you can show where I did, I'll gladly retract them.

Mr. Murphy, I don't hate to tell you this, because you need to know this.  You're out of your depth here.  Completely out-classed.  You're making claims that are unfounded, untrue, easily demonstrated to be false.  However, you have the absolute right to do so, along with other's rights to have your false claims pointed out. 

We need the comments of such as yourself as contrast, to magnify the validity of what is being said.  Truth would be a weak thing without the false to verify it.

When too many people agree with me, I realize it's a sign that I've done something wrong.  I thank you and appreciate your comments as absolute proof and confirmation that I'm doing the right thing.  It gives me a really good feeling to know that you disagree, and I hope that you will always do so.

I thank you, again, for the confirmation and for that reason, I encourage you to continue making your comments at every opportunity.

Thanks, Ed.

by Ed Martin (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 71 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 12:34:51 PM
 

Thanks!

Why thank you!  Anything I can do to boost your ego and make you "feel" more confident in your positions is okey-dokey with me!  It's the ignorant that make the superior feel... superior.  And I is ignorant :D

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 1:23:34 PM
 

Right on the money

Hi Ed,

You wrote:

"The fact is that Bush has set in place, ready for use, a system whereby he can confiscate our property."

You are right on the money. Things do not happen all at once. Being an old prison guard, I look at it this way: The time to fight is before the cell door is locked behind you. Once you are locked up, there is nothing left to do but beat against the bars.

by Barbara Peterson (42 articles, 52 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 360 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 1:26:04 PM
 

I think Barbara summarised it very nicely

To explain:  In the medieval Germany there were laws against the Jews having 'copulations' with the Christian women.  Those laws sometimes were dormant for decades. But, Lo and behold, they were used when needed until they were fully repelled.  Mr. Murphy above thinks he is reasonable  because he reads the document which claims to be a law while produced under unlawful premise of ' Homegrown terrorism' and under the the umbrella of lies.  Thus  such document no matter how written has no purpose other than evil. Mr. Murphy does not care for other people and he thinks  we here are raising panic.  He is  up for a rude awakening. What bothers me, though that  he even does not want to accept that someone  worries about him, his rights, his safety and his sustenance.  Strange.

by Mark Sashine (37 articles, 19 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 3074 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 1:35:03 PM
 

Synopsis

Hi, Barbara. 

Glad you picked up on what went on in that hearing.  Everyone should know about it.

I hope you don't mind that I did a synopsis of your article.  I just felt that the implications of what you had to say should be emphasised as much as possible.

Thanks, Ed.

by Ed Martin (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 71 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 1:41:45 PM
 

The more the better

Not in the least. The more people that get this information out the better.

by Barbara Peterson (42 articles, 52 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 360 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 4:40:04 PM
 

Thanks!

Why thank you!  Anything I can do to boost your ego and make you "feel" more confident in your positions is okey-dokey with me!  It's the ignorant that make the superior feel... superior.  And I is ignorant :D

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:05:01 PM
 

Where is the additional madness?

The Executive Order was aimed at discouraging (a) person(s) that are currently in or will be entering the United States, its possessions, or extensions from committing or participating in (individually or collectively) (a) violent act(s) that impacts America's activities in Iraq.  This discouragement takes the form of blocking the person(s) property or interest in property (e.g., a freezing of their assets)  - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html .  

Where are you seeing "madness" in this McDonald's jingle beyond that which is stated and would lead to, "Things [that] do not happen all at once"?  It seems focused in its targeting to me, but then again, I am ignorant.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:09:39 PM
 

Tom

are you absolutely sure that you, your activities ( you liked the anti-war poem I posted for instance), ANYTHING you do   cannot fall under the umbrella of that very act and be qualifed accordingly.  If, of course you are absolutely sure of that than    we here can't help you,  I guess.

Everything is individual, Tom. And everyone dies alone.

by Mark Sashine (37 articles, 19 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 3074 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:20:36 PM
 

Silence

The most eloquent expression of contempt is silence.  Everyong but Mr. Murphy will understand and act on this.

Ed.

by Ed Martin (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 71 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:21:28 PM
 

Shhhh

Shhhh - silence.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:39:10 PM
 

Ed this is essentially an open forum

I say that with a tip of my hypotheticial hat to Rob for his support of free speech.

One of the consequences of having an open forum though is that people who are purely politically oriented can use that forum not as a place to learn and teach truth through discussion and debate but as a forum for launching diversionary and divisionary tactics.

Tom Murphy is in my opinion an intelligent person. But he is not in my opinion a person that has an open mind or that has come here in order to be persuaded. In my opinion he is here to defend certain precepts and positions which many of the others of us here do not accept. So long as Tom makes it harder for sillier arguments to stand Tom will do the cause of truth good whether he intends it or not because he will effectively help train the genuine truthseekers in how to make their arguments effective.

But if people having conversed with Tom discover that he does not change his mind when he is confronted by facts that require he change his mind then that should be a warning to people that they are potentially wasting their time with Tom.

I am against censoring Tom out even IF he is here in bad faith as a spoiler and a scoundrel. But I do think people deserve fair warning that that could well be why he is here. Being silent alone would not get that warning out. 

I'd ask those who feel that Tom might be getting an unfair lefthanded wack at him in this comment to consider if they have ever seen Tom change his mind on anything.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 610 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:05:27 PM
 

Thoughts of a scoundrel...

For the record, I did have a banana this morning rather than the typical bowl of Cheerios. I consider that a changed mind, if only for that one time. Does that count, Brett?

"I am against censoring Tom out even IF he is here in bad faith as a spoiler and a scoundrel. But I do think people deserve fair warning that that could well be why he is here."

Really, Brett! You're too kind with your gentleman-like approach to supporting "a spoiler and a scoundrel". I could very well be many things, but a spoiler and scoundrel only pertain if the perceiver deems it so, which you seem inclined to presume. Also, your presumption that I must show that I can change my mind on an issue here in order to be an... enlightener and gentleman (like yourself and the antithesis of the spoiler and scoundrel image) is quaint – not unlike a "Father Knows Best" or "Brady Bunch" moral that's packed neatly into a one-minute read.

"But if people having conversed with Tom discover that he does not change his mind when he is confronted by facts that require he change his mind then that should be a warning to people that they are potentially wasting their time with Tom."

Brett's still upset, or so it reads, over our tête-à-tête regarding the question of whether or not President Bush exceeded his Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq vis-à-vis the U.N. Security Council resolutions. I know that Brett has classified me, at least on some issues, as a thrall, and that may very well be. But from where I stand, I could think that Brett is also a thrall but I wouldn't say that publicly. Besides, it's immaterial to any discussion.

Regardless, is it, then, the intent of this site and its commenters to change another's belief or position on an issue? Or is to refine the "truth" as is implied by the general liberal theme of the site? Or... is it already detailed under the "OpEdNews Writer's Guidelines":

"Once you get started with OpEdNews, keep in mind, this is not a passive, one way media site, like a magazine or newspaper. We're a community, and when people comment on your article, you're expected to respond to their comments. This is fun!!"

However, Brett, you appear to only want my response if I intend to change my position on an issue. So much do you appear to believe this that you felt compelled to "warn" others of my roguish and rebellious (well, to this site's content) nature. Where, I ask, is the "fun" in acquiescing to that belief?

"But he is not in my opinion a person that has an open mind or that has come here in order to be persuaded. In my opinion he is here to defend certain precepts and positions which many of the others of us here do not accept."

Hmmm... Interesting opinion, Brett. Hey, did you ever think that perhaps it could apply still but in reverse? Try this:

But [Brett] is not in my opinion a person that has an open mind or that has [discussed issues with Tom] in order to be persuaded [by Tom]. In my opinion [Brett] is here to defend certain precepts and positions which many of... us... here... accept.

Why do you view our (and now others and mine) dialogue as strictly an Eine Bahn Straße where only you (and now the others) can direct the traffic? This seems a wee-bit pretentious in that only you, or someone of like mind to you, is the one, true bearer of Knowledge. Why is it that you view, Brett, my opinions as diversionary and divisionary when they may very well be enlightening some (a minority granted) as to the "truth" (whatever that is)?

Certainly, I don't mind being treated like the child upon whom the wise and knowing parents can try out their latest Dr. T. Barry Brazelton manipulations – "So long as Tom makes it harder for sillier arguments to stand Tom will do the cause of truth good whether he intends it or not because he will effectively help train the genuine truthseekers in how to make their arguments effective." However, this IS a decidedly elitist attitude that this lowly serf can but smile up in wonder and gratitude at whichever pearls of wisdom you, Brett, may deign to provide me.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I thought you were above such bourgeois antics, Brett, but it's not the first (nor will it be the last) time I was wrong.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:26:35 PM
 

It's even worse than the above article states!

by William Cormier (90 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 220 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 4:29:11 PM
 

You're right.

Thanks for the additional information.  I read 51 and what's insidious about it is that whatever the unrevealed plan is, it's to be implemented, not on any warning or evidence of an attack, but only on the probability of one.  There doesn't have to be an attack, they just have to say that they think that there might be one.

This dispersal of the government to geographic areas would put the Bushies beyond the reach, not only of any supposed or contrived attackers, but also beyond the reach of us, the people.  They could then go about their nefarious deeds with no one watching.

The thing is, had any other President issued this, it would not have such sinister connotations.  Because Bush issued it, we can figure that it's only for the purpose of furthering Bush's take-over of the United States.

Thanks, Ed.

by Ed Martin (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 71 comments) on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 6:18:40 PM