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, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:04:56 AM

  (0+)

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 (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:29:54 AM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:59:45 AM

  (0+)

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 (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:46:21 AM

  (0+)

"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 (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:14:40 PM

  (0+)

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, 531 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 6:16:43 PM

  (0+)

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 (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 1:43:01 AM

  (0+)

by Kent Welton (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:15:53 PM

  (0+)

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 (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:34:51 PM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:23:34 PM

  (0+)

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 (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:26:04 PM

  (0+)

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 (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:35:03 PM

  (0+)

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 (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:41:45 PM

  (0+)

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

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:40:04 PM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:05:01 PM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:09:39 PM

  (0+)

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 (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:20:36 PM

  (0+)

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

Ed.

by Ed Martin (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:21:28 PM

  (0+)

Shhhh - silence.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:39:10 PM

  (0+)

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, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:05:27 PM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:26:35 PM

  (0+)

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:29:11 PM

  (0+)

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 (139 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 173 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 6:18:40 PM

  (0+)

Tell me... do you folks site around and hold these differing issues up to the light and see which way they refract?  NSPD-51 is the business continuity plan (BCP) that keeps the critical processes of government functioning in the event of a major incident.

If you want to know the REAL reasoning behind NSPD-51, read my comment here .  If you don't, then that's your issue.

I find it disturbing that a fair number of folks here fold, spindle, and mutilate separate and distinct  issues into a pretzel just to make them "fit".  Once the issues are merged and held under tension, the same folks immediately run to the worst-case scenario bookend, and proclaim "doom".  Forget about the critical analysis that requires the adoption of "reasonable and most likely".  It's the equivalent of playing the old vinyls backwards, listening for Satanic lyrics, thinking you've actually found them, and then telling those that just don't "hear" what you hear that they're ignorant.

Truthfully, it's sometimes sad.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:28:05 PM

  (0+)

Somebody should ask Bush who the Taliban are. Hizbollah, for that matter. I'll bet he has no idea, as far as explaining what their ethnicity, religion, history, politics, nationality, aspirations and general program are. He doesnt give a damn, as long as he can use the bogey man to further his agenda. Ten year olds act like that.

by Guajolotl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:34:08 PM

  (0+)

While we are arguing about hypotheticals, Fox News (sic) is propagandizing for our imprisonment, "our" meaning Ron Paul supporters, peace activists, anyone against their psychotic vision of reality. This parallels what was happening in Germany in the 1930s. Wake the fu*k up and take action!

This is from a Paul Watson article today, Friday Nov 16. Click here for the original website w/the actual videos. 

Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists
Neo-Con and ex-Marxist demonize founding fathers, Ron Paul supporters as terrorists in outrageous attack on free speech, urge use of U.S. military against domestic enemies, anti-war left, libertarians, talking points have roots in September 2006 White House strategy document, demands for retraction flood CNN, sponsors boycotted

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 6:21:06 PM

  (0+)

Correction to the above. Since I pretty much equate CNN with FOX, I inadvertantly said FOX up above where I meant to write CNN.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 6:24:53 PM

  (0+)

Let's be honest.  If liberal get elected to the White House, abortion clinic protesters will become 'terrorists'.  Just another way to suppress people you disagree with.

by Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:05:26 PM

  (0+)

 by the level of political ignorance this  comment reveals as well as  the whole trend of thought about 'liberals' and ' conservatives'.  The danger  which we face now is targeting ALL of us and  it will not ask what  is your ideology. For goodness sake, don't you see what is happening?  It is the mechanism. You, people here   just were lucky as Hell and now the luck is over and  the mechanism is being built  to eat you.  How can you be so moronic to  still throw stones at liberals and  make noises instead of being grateful. That's what people are for- to help each other, to share what you see and others don't. This time liberals see more, they see the danger and when they share the discontent you, folks should listen instead of sneering.

Bush will kill us ALL. You,  stupid ( sorry) don't you understand  that we are worried about you too? 

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:44:41 PM

  (0+)

You wrote:

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;

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! It is a rock solid basis for establishing that the Bush Administration has legally classified itself as a conspiring bunch of terrorists--as anyone with half a brain has known for the past seven years.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 9:36:45 PM

  (0+)

Daniel, you're very welcome!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:31:42 PM

  (0+)

by Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:09:40 PM

  (0+)

Barbara Peterson's Nov. 14 article points out how Bush's Homeland Security is trying to make the case that web sites that publish articles questioning the events of 9/11 are terrorist recruiters. 

Well, we all know the shoe fits Bush--who has singlehandedly created the most hatred America and West have ever faced.

I'll try to link this article to a couple of webites to get some folks attention.

K in Q8 

by ALONE (196 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 557 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:05:38 PM

  (0+)

... first speeches after 9/11 he said it: "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theorists."

Now why would he be worried about that so soon after the attacks at the same time he was resisting any attempt to have a criminal investigation?

With all respects to Buffalo Springfield: 

something happening there

what it is ain't exactly clear

there's a man with a gun over there - telling me I have to beware ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 2:16:07 AM

  (0+)

Silence means consent. Laughter indicates contempt.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 5:10:43 PM

  (0+)

"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter." - e.e. cummings

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 5:36:52 PM

  (0+)

the Truthers I remained silent.

The things going on are so obvious, and that's the scary part.

And yes, they HAVE kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered on a scale equal to any tyrant that walked the Earth without anyone seemingly able to even put the breaks on their genocidal activities. So excuse me if I think that they're capable of rounding large groups of us up "for national security" reasons when I've witnessed the silence of already being corralled in barbed-wired "Free f*cking Speech Zones"!

Have they put anyone in jail yet? YES! Renditions, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Jose Padilla was one of their first tests. Low hanging fruit. Recent arrests of Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern and others in Rep. Conyers office. The Memorial Day arrests of veterans protesting their denial of free speech. Now all of a sudden anyone asking questions about the day "that changed everything" become next? The first step is to demonize. The rest comes fairly easy and quickly.

I'm old enough to remember Kent State. That was also a day that "changed everything". No one was ever held accountable for those murders either. Just like the real perps of 9/11 today.

So excuse me if I get a little up-set when people go, "where's the fire?" The kindling is under our ass and I'm feeling the heat.  Google: Haliburton detention camps, and see what comes up.  They're building all those camps for what purpose again?

Nah, can't happen here ... riiiight ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 1:30:14 AM

  (0+)

THE BILL:

Quote:

"A close reading within an historical context – keeping especially in mind the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Presidential Executive Orders, pursuant to which the government has engaged in massive surveillance of its own citizens, as well as detentions, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, and torture – leads me to the following conclusions:

* This is a "Thought Crime" bill of the type so often discussed in an Orwellian context. 

* It specifically targets the civilian population of the United States. 

* It defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system that the government considers to be extremist. 

* "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" are defined as thought crimes. 

* Since the bill does not provide a specific definition of extremist belief system, it will be whatever the government at any given time deems it to be."

by Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:29:47 PM

  (0+)