This is really just the whole frog in a warming pot thing.
It's just kind of weird that they're doing this considering how high a chance the democrats have of taking over next election.
But democrats want to bring the troops home. That emboldens the terrorists.
Therefore, voting for a democrat becomes "providing services for or to the benefit of" and gets you locked up. Far more efficient than the caging lists and provisional ballots were.
Yeah, but then Gordon Brown breaks through the prison wall with his bare fists and saves us all.
Shinto on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
This bugs me the most because of Bush's mindset.
You know, that whole "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" bit.
You know what really bothers me about this story though? It seems to originate in Russian state controlled media, for the purpose of blunting any criticism of the regime there by making the America look hypocritical when we criticise Putin. And it gets over here and people eat it up.
Shinto on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
You know what really bothers me about this story though? It seems to originate in Russian state controlled media, for the purpose of blunting any criticism of the regime there by making the America look hypocritical when we criticise Putin. And it gets over here and people eat it up.
Why wouldn't we? Bush's administration is kind of known for this kind of shit. I just read the executive order in its entirety and it does seem fishy as hell.
It SAYS they freeze funding or property to those who support terrorists through whatever means, but lowering the support for the war effort could easily be construed as endangering our troops and backing up terrorist regimes morale.
Well I'm not surprised at all that Putin's mouthpieces would jump at any opportunity to critisize Bush.
Wow, the site in the OP has some crazy ass articles.
t was suggested a year ago, that the USS Enterprise was a likely “false flag†target to provide the Bush administration with an excuse to attack Iran. The ship’s last spell in the Gulf passed without incident (let’s hope it will again), but it is now returning to apparently replace the USS Nimitz.
The USS Enterprise is due to be decommissioned in 2014-2015 and is the oldest aircraft carrier in the fleet (launched in 1960), so one could say it is “expendable†on the grounds of age. But what other reasons are there to believe that a carrier might be a possible target for a “new†9/11?
As many already know, the US government carried out a number of exercises just before the original 9/11, to prepare for a possible air attack by terrorists on buildings within the United States (like the WTC for example), and such an exercise was underway on the day of the attack. In May 2005, the carrier USS America was deliberately sunk after a number of tests using explosives (lasting 25 days). These explosions were designed to simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a suicide attack with a small boat (like the one that damaged the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000).
You know what really bothers me about this story though? It seems to originate in Russian state controlled media, for the purpose of blunting any criticism of the regime there by making the America look hypocritical when we criticise Putin. And it gets over here and people eat it up.
Why wouldn't we? Bush's administration is kind of known for this kind of shit. I just read the executive order in its entirety and it does seem fishy as hell.
It SAYS they freeze funding or property to those who support terrorists through whatever means, but lowering the support for the war effort could easily be construed as endangering our troops and backing up terrorist regimes morale.
At least with these wackos in office.
Yes, I'm very concerned that 63% of the population will have their assetts frozen.
Shinto on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
You know what really bothers me about this story though? It seems to originate in Russian state controlled media, for the purpose of blunting any criticism of the regime there by making the America look hypocritical when we criticise Putin. And it gets over here and people eat it up.
Why wouldn't we? Bush's administration is kind of known for this kind of shit. I just read the executive order in its entirety and it does seem fishy as hell.
It SAYS they freeze funding or property to those who support terrorists through whatever means, but lowering the support for the war effort could easily be construed as endangering our troops and backing up terrorist regimes morale.
At least with these wackos in office.
Yes, I'm very concerned that 63% of the population will have their assetts frozen.
Don't need the masses to have their assets frozen.
All they need to find out is who organized it and nail the ringleader (so to speak). Hell, they could go after government funded institutions like universities with this, and easily.
If nobody is willing to organize it, it won't happen.
This is really just the whole frog in a warming pot thing.
It's just kind of weird that they're doing this considering how high a chance the democrats have of taking over next election.
But democrats want to bring the troops home. That emboldens the terrorists.
Therefore, voting for a democrat becomes "providing services for or to the benefit of" and gets you locked up. Far more efficient than the caging lists and provisional ballots were.
Yeah, but then Gordon Brown breaks through the prison wall with his bare fists and saves us all.
But you know he's going to whack a "Freedom Tax" on it. ;-)
This is really just the whole frog in a warming pot thing.
It's just kind of weird that they're doing this considering how high a chance the democrats have of taking over next election.
But democrats want to bring the troops home. That emboldens the terrorists.
Therefore, voting for a democrat becomes "providing services for or to the benefit of" and gets you locked up. Far more efficient than the caging lists and provisional ballots were.
Yeah, but then Gordon Brown breaks through the prison wall with his bare fists and saves us all.
But you know he's going to whack a "Freedom Tax" on it. ;-)
Well yeah. Those Scottish orphans aren't going to feed themselves. Gruel costs money.
Shinto on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Addendum: Until Snow Job or another government official actually declare (in lucid, everyday speech) that they will not go after protestors (which they HAVEN'T), then I will continue to believe they are out to silence those pesky little other-thinkers.
I'm not much on big ol' conspiracy theories, I'm also not huge on political rhetoric and bullshit. I've read this thing, though, and I've judged this administration based solely on their previous track record... as such I've come to my conclusion on this. It would NOT surprise me to see the worst-case scenario right out of Orwell's doesn't-need-to-be-named-at-this-point classic from these guys.
jungleroomx on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Addendum: Until Snow Job or another government official actually declare (in lucid, everyday speech) that they will not go after protestors (which they HAVEN'T), then I will continue to believe they are out to silence those pesky little other-thinkers.
Any power a government is given it will eventually use.
Addendum: Until Snow Job or another government official actually declare (in lucid, everyday speech) that they will not go after protestors (which they HAVEN'T), then I will continue to believe they are out to silence those pesky little other-thinkers.
I'm not much on big ol' conspiracy theories, I'm also not huge on political rhetoric and bullshit. I've read this thing, though, and I've judged this administration based solely on their previous track record... as such I've come to my conclusion on this. It would NOT surprise me to see the worst-case scenario right out of Orwell's doesn't-need-to-be-named-at-this-point classic from these guys.
Their track record? They haven't moved to shut down the federal funding of universities with anti-war organizations and academics. They wouldn't even need this executive order to do that.
What is this track record that suggests to you the imminent seizure of the property of any prominent anti-war leaders at all? Has the IRS been harrassing them? Have security services done more than surveil protest groups?
Please.
Shinto on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
The US Government already had the power to freeze the assets and sieze property of people supporting terrorist organizations, didn't they?
Coincidentally, remember that directive establishing Executive control over all the government in the event of a significant, disruptive terrorist attack?
They just denied Congress the ability to look at materials related to its implementation.
"services for or to the benefit of" (emphasis mine) can reasonably be used to freeze the assets of protestors.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
Or to a given organization. It is far from an unreasonable claim that undermining the morale of both the American military and the civilian population's support of the war provides a service to organizations who wish to destabilize Iraq.
This whole idea that protests undermine troop morale strikes me as sheer idiocy. Surely their morale is more threatened by having to serve 11-month tours in an increasingly hostile war zone while being led by incompetent Bush cronies, than by a bunch of people with signs who are lucky to get a passing mention in the back section of the local daily.
"services for or to the benefit of" (emphasis mine) can reasonably be used to freeze the assets of protestors.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
Or to a given organization. It is far from an unreasonable claim that undermining the morale of both the American military and the civilian population's support of the war provides a service to organizations who wish to destabilize Iraq.
This whole idea that protests undermine troop morale strikes me as sheer idiocy. Surely their morale is more threatened by having to serve 11-month tours in an increasingly hostile war zone while being led by incompetent Bush cronies, than by a bunch of people with signs who are lucky to get a passing mention in the back section of the local daily.
I rather enjoy when people form protests; it's nice to see people exercising their Constitutional rights.
But suppose the DOHS had intercepted a slew of incredibly violent terrorist attacks in the last few weeks that were given zero publicity.
Would calling for what amounts to financial martial law be justified if it became obvious that the terror attacks were being orchestrated to coincide with public demonstrations?
"services for or to the benefit of" (emphasis mine) can reasonably be used to freeze the assets of protestors.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
Or to a given organization. It is far from an unreasonable claim that undermining the morale of both the American military and the civilian population's support of the war provides a service to organizations who wish to destabilize Iraq.
This whole idea that protests undermine troop morale strikes me as sheer idiocy. Surely their morale is more threatened by having to serve 11-month tours in an increasingly hostile war zone while being led by incompetent Bush cronies, than by a bunch of people with signs who are lucky to get a passing mention in the back section of the local daily.
15. 15 month tours.
Doc on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
"services for or to the benefit of" (emphasis mine) can reasonably be used to freeze the assets of protestors.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
Or to a given organization. It is far from an unreasonable claim that undermining the morale of both the American military and the civilian population's support of the war provides a service to organizations who wish to destabilize Iraq.
This whole idea that protests undermine troop morale strikes me as sheer idiocy. Surely their morale is more threatened by having to serve 11-month tours in an increasingly hostile war zone while being led by incompetent Bush cronies, than by a bunch of people with signs who are lucky to get a passing mention in the back section of the local daily.
15. 15 month tours.
Not to mention the whole operation is run by Zapp Brannigan.
But suppose the DOHS had intercepted a slew of incredibly violent terrorist attacks in the last few weeks that were given zero publicity.
Would calling for what amounts to financial martial law be justified if it became obvious that the terror attacks were being orchestrated to coincide with public demonstrations?
That sounds an awful lot like giving into terrorist demands to me.
man, I didn't realize until halfway into this thread that the OP linked a Winnipeg "media" site. Winnipeg is a small, small city and I've never even HEARD of them, although I'm pretty certain that the "favoured downtown cafe" mentioned in the FAQ is Mondragon, a bullshit hippie joint.
That said, this is powerfully fucked up stuff. Was this one of those things that people you elected were supposed to vote against, or is this pretty much just Bush writing down a memo that says "I can take whatever I like if I want to" and then calling that law?
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
"services for or to the benefit of" (emphasis mine) can reasonably be used to freeze the assets of protestors.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
Or to a given organization. It is far from an unreasonable claim that undermining the morale of both the American military and the civilian population's support of the war provides a service to organizations who wish to destabilize Iraq.
This whole idea that protests undermine troop morale strikes me as sheer idiocy. Surely their morale is more threatened by having to serve 11-month tours in an increasingly hostile war zone while being led by incompetent Bush cronies, than by a bunch of people with signs who are lucky to get a passing mention in the back section of the local daily.
man, I didn't realize until halfway into this thread that the OP linked a Winnipeg "media" site. Winnipeg is a small, small city and I've never even HEARD of them, although I'm pretty certain that the "favoured downtown cafe" mentioned in the FAQ is Mondragon, a bullshit hippie joint.
That said, this is powerfully fucked up stuff. Was this one of those things that people you elected were supposed to vote against, or is this pretty much just Bush writing down a memo that says "I can take whatever I like if I want to" and then calling that law?
Pretty much Bush writing a memo.
If they try to use it against simple protestors, it won't hold up in court. Our court system isn't totally fucktarded, yet.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"services for or to the benefit of" (emphasis mine) can reasonably be used to freeze the assets of protestors.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
Or to a given organization. It is far from an unreasonable claim that undermining the morale of both the American military and the civilian population's support of the war provides a service to organizations who wish to destabilize Iraq.
This whole idea that protests undermine troop morale strikes me as sheer idiocy. Surely their morale is more threatened by having to serve 11-month tours in an increasingly hostile war zone while being led by incompetent Bush cronies, than by a bunch of people with signs who are lucky to get a passing mention in the back section of the local daily.
15. 15 month tours.
Not to mention the whole operation is run by Zapp Brannigan.
Quid knows what I'm talking about.
He sent wave after wave of his own men at the terrorists until they got sad and gave up?
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
But suppose the DOHS had intercepted a slew of incredibly violent terrorist attacks in the last few weeks that were given zero publicity.
Would calling for what amounts to financial martial law be justified if it became obvious that the terror attacks were being orchestrated to coincide with public demonstrations?
That sounds an awful lot like giving into terrorist demands to me.
Wouldn't the alternative be real martial law? Right now they're just threatening everyone's wallets.
That would be a considerable step down in terms of how they moderate their response to terrorist activity.
Are they worried about homegrown terrorists rioting in the streets?
Theoretically, yes, such an executive order could be used to stop many types of protests. But if he actually tried to enforce it against protesters, I'm fairly certain he'd be struck down by the Supreme Court. That whole, "freedom of speech" nonsense.
you would think, but very few people remember that toward the beginning of this war, Bush had a group of peaceful protestors arrested for protesting this war. There has never been any repercussion for that action. His justification was that they were comitting treason by going against his orders and decisions. Since you know, he is the US dictator.
man, I didn't realize until halfway into this thread that the OP linked a Winnipeg "media" site. Winnipeg is a small, small city and I've never even HEARD of them, although I'm pretty certain that the "favoured downtown cafe" mentioned in the FAQ is Mondragon, a bullshit hippie joint.
That said, this is powerfully fucked up stuff. Was this one of those things that people you elected were supposed to vote against, or is this pretty much just Bush writing down a memo that says "I can take whatever I like if I want to" and then calling that law?
Pretty much Bush writing a memo.
If they try to use it against simple protestors, it won't hold up in court. Our court system isn't totally fucktarded, yet.
I do not see where, in the actual text quoted, it outlaws protests.
I see outlawing behaviour that supports actions against the USA overseas. As in, funding insurgents in Iraq. Am I missing something?
The elasticity of the term 'supporting actions against the US overseas.' Although it would take a hell of a lot of work to stretch that out to protestors. I mean, the definition of treason more or less coincides with this. Who cares, though. Damn hippies never really do anything. They just block traffic for a few hours and stink up the place.
man, I didn't realize until halfway into this thread that the OP linked a Winnipeg "media" site. Winnipeg is a small, small city and I've never even HEARD of them, although I'm pretty certain that the "favoured downtown cafe" mentioned in the FAQ is Mondragon, a bullshit hippie joint.
That said, this is powerfully fucked up stuff. Was this one of those things that people you elected were supposed to vote against, or is this pretty much just Bush writing down a memo that says "I can take whatever I like if I want to" and then calling that law?
Pretty much Bush writing a memo.
If they try to use it against simple protestors, it won't hold up in court. Our court system isn't totally fucktarded, yet.
I'd Google "Federalist Society" if I were you.
That a significant proportion of judges are conservative does not imply that they are also fucktarded. I'm not so kneejerk liberal to suggest that believing in strict constructionism makes one inherently corrupt.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The real thing isn't protests but the ability of the President to declare someone financially annihilated by fiat, with little hope for review.
Like much of the abuses of this administration, it isn't so much what they want to do that is bad, it's that they want to do it without any checks on their power or oversight over their decisions.
Posts
Yeah, but then Gordon Brown breaks through the prison wall with his bare fists and saves us all.
You know, that whole "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" bit.
Why wouldn't we? Bush's administration is kind of known for this kind of shit. I just read the executive order in its entirety and it does seem fishy as hell.
It SAYS they freeze funding or property to those who support terrorists through whatever means, but lowering the support for the war effort could easily be construed as endangering our troops and backing up terrorist regimes morale.
At least with these wackos in office.
Wow, the site in the OP has some crazy ass articles.
Yes, I'm very concerned that 63% of the population will have their assetts frozen.
Don't need the masses to have their assets frozen.
All they need to find out is who organized it and nail the ringleader (so to speak). Hell, they could go after government funded institutions like universities with this, and easily.
If nobody is willing to organize it, it won't happen.
But you know he's going to whack a "Freedom Tax" on it. ;-)
ZING!
Well yeah. Those Scottish orphans aren't going to feed themselves. Gruel costs money.
I'm not much on big ol' conspiracy theories, I'm also not huge on political rhetoric and bullshit. I've read this thing, though, and I've judged this administration based solely on their previous track record... as such I've come to my conclusion on this. It would NOT surprise me to see the worst-case scenario right out of Orwell's doesn't-need-to-be-named-at-this-point classic from these guys.
Nothing these people have done yet has been plausible.
Any power a government is given it will eventually use.
Their track record? They haven't moved to shut down the federal funding of universities with anti-war organizations and academics. They wouldn't even need this executive order to do that.
What is this track record that suggests to you the imminent seizure of the property of any prominent anti-war leaders at all? Has the IRS been harrassing them? Have security services done more than surveil protest groups?
Please.
So why the EO? Friendly reminder?
I'm not worried.
They just denied Congress the ability to look at materials related to its implementation.
I rather enjoy when people form protests; it's nice to see people exercising their Constitutional rights.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Pesky hippies.
But suppose the DOHS had intercepted a slew of incredibly violent terrorist attacks in the last few weeks that were given zero publicity.
Would calling for what amounts to financial martial law be justified if it became obvious that the terror attacks were being orchestrated to coincide with public demonstrations?
15. 15 month tours.
Quid knows what I'm talking about.
That said, this is powerfully fucked up stuff. Was this one of those things that people you elected were supposed to vote against, or is this pretty much just Bush writing down a memo that says "I can take whatever I like if I want to" and then calling that law?
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Pretty much Bush writing a memo.
If they try to use it against simple protestors, it won't hold up in court. Our court system isn't totally fucktarded, yet.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
http://thornsbook.com online novel
Wouldn't the alternative be real martial law? Right now they're just threatening everyone's wallets.
That would be a considerable step down in terms of how they moderate their response to terrorist activity.
Are they worried about homegrown terrorists rioting in the streets?
you would think, but very few people remember that toward the beginning of this war, Bush had a group of peaceful protestors arrested for protesting this war. There has never been any repercussion for that action. His justification was that they were comitting treason by going against his orders and decisions. Since you know, he is the US dictator.
I'd Google "Federalist Society" if I were you.
I see outlawing behaviour that supports actions against the USA overseas. As in, funding insurgents in Iraq. Am I missing something?
The elasticity of the term 'supporting actions against the US overseas.' Although it would take a hell of a lot of work to stretch that out to protestors. I mean, the definition of treason more or less coincides with this. Who cares, though. Damn hippies never really do anything. They just block traffic for a few hours and stink up the place.
That a significant proportion of judges are conservative does not imply that they are also fucktarded. I'm not so kneejerk liberal to suggest that believing in strict constructionism makes one inherently corrupt.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Like much of the abuses of this administration, it isn't so much what they want to do that is bad, it's that they want to do it without any checks on their power or oversight over their decisions.