Bush Outlaws War Protests

[AndrewH]

Oh, I'm sure every country in the world would be guilty in some degree of the atrocities you've listed.

So? Because everyone else does it, it's ok that we do it too? I thought the US was supposed to be different, that this country was supposed to fix the mistakes made by England, et al.

When they come knocking on my door looking to collect my firearms, then I'll be concerned. But, I suspect you'd think that was actually ok and a "responsible" act of good government. Yes?

You kidding? From my cold dead fingers. Whenever the NJ beauracracy finishes my paperwork I'll be going shopping. (applied on my 21st birthday, still waiting...). Of course, NJ doesnt let people defend themselves on the street, but at least I can keep my house safe.

[Philistine]

{snip}
Still, what and who defines significant risk, or act of violence?

The same people--or rather those in the same positions--who did so under Clinton's 1995 Executive Order 12947 entitled "Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process."

It has the same language relating to those engaging in violence, or posing a risk of violence, and the same type of prohibitions on support to those who do so engage. It's just aimed at different violence.

And let's return to Mr. Mayfield's example. If he had been erroneously misidentified as an Iraqi bomber suspect, instead of Spanish, he and all his assets could easily have fallen afoul of this provision. As would I, with my box of cookies and $20 legal defense contribution.

Are your concerns at all ameliorated by the fact that Mayfield would actually have been subject to having his assets frozen under Executive Order 12947-- as amended by Clinton to include Al Queda and Bin Ladin? This Executive Order has been in place all during Bush's presidency, and yet, nobody burning flags, and no pesky Democratic senators have had their assets frozen....

{snip} Others that have had property/assets seized under suspected drug involvement statutes have found that getting their assets back is often much more difficult than losing them in the first place.

The vast majority of people have far more reason to be concerned about having their assets seized from general criminal forfeiture statutes than they do any of the national security issues. Personally, I think the current forfeiture rules and laws are pretty crappy and unfair--but they don't seem to be getting much press (as they've been in place for a while, now).

To my mind--this new Executive Order is a non-issue.

--Philistine

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Somewhat ameliorated.

One has to wonder, then, what the compelling need was for this executive order.

And whether it's a Clinton or a Bush EO, I still think having the ability to delegate Irving R. McPringle, 12th Undersecretary of Agriculture for Anti-Corn-Pone Denigration as the point man for determining who's going to get busted under the "risk of act of violence" provision is a bad idea. It seems designed to insulate the architects of the EO with plausible deniability, if things go badly.

[Philistine]

{snip}
And whether it's a Clinton or a Bush EO, I still think having the ability to delegate Irving R. McPringle, 12th Undersecretary of Agriculture for Anti-Corn-Pone Denigration as the point man for determining who's going to get busted under the "risk of act of violence" provision is a bad idea. It seems designed to insulate the architects of the EO with plausible deniability, if things go badly.

I don't know... given that the EO designates the decision-making authority as the "Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense", I might actually prefer the decision to be made by some of the career staffers rather than the politicos....

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

But then, what fun would it be to not succumb to knee-jerk reactions?

Hah, you don't know what fun IS until you've identified a few logical fallacies in Latin. I invite you to enter the seductive world of Aristotelian pleasures!

Still, what and who defines significant risk, or act of violence? The 12th-tier government employee in the Agriculture Department who's been vaguely delegated to "hunting out the rats in the corn crib?"

Let me put it this way:

No.

As would I, with my box of cookies and $20 legal defense contribution.

I can set your mind half to rest. 50 USC 1702 contains an exception for "donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title, (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or (C) would endanger armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances".

[Lemonaide]

Since when did a protest include 'permission' from the White House? Buttttttttt........

In our experience as Americans, the entire Vietnam era was hallmarked with protests and it was the protesters who actually ended the war. It must be very difficult to marshall support to form such a protest and John Lennon was the only one who could get things going, because he had a huge following and a huge purse to fly around the country and meet with people to organize these protests. They were all highly organized and were led by radical intellegensia like Abby Hoffman [author of "Steal this Book], and Jerry Rubin.

There's no way to duplicate these men. I tried to get a little thing going here, but no-one was interested. So much for that. In the US, the 'war protesters' of the 1960's and early 1970's were generally perceived as being 'no good, teenage pot smoking head cases' and some of them were shot for protesting - it was horrible.... The police used to round them up and stuff them in jail while the conservatives world-wide smiled at the decadent display of 'hippy drop outs with drugs running through their veins'.

The conservative right has the reins, [my mutant friends!!!] they always have the man in the office who is pure as the driven snow and will always be able to marshall support and that is because people look up to the true pure-conservative who is squeeky clean. [until they find a Watergate which everyone has tried to do, but since Bill Clinton was caught with his panties down, they haven't come close and to tell you the truth, we would have had another Dem Presidency if it weren't for all of that.]



The answer my friend is Blowing in the Wind, The Answer if Blowing in the WInd.

[Epee_Pox]

Mango/Umbrella/Introspective... is that you?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Ahh...the many faces/screen names of Mango....

[mrbiggs]

I can set your mind half to rest. 50 USC 1702 contains an exception for "donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title, (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or (C) would endanger armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances".

It's not how it's applied that I'm concerned about. It's how it could be applied. I doubt that Bush will arrest anyone for sending cookies to Iraq, but I don't see why he should have that power anyway.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Exactly.

Send someone accused of being dangerous to Iraq a bag of Texas praline cookies, and you get the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Send them a box of those fruity lemon bars with frosting, you get a ticket in the mail from the CIA for an all-expense paid vacation to their new "spa" facility in Romania.

All depends on which button the President pushes on his Patriot-O-Meter (tm) box. It's the entrance chute to the slippery slope, my fellow Americans.

[Shi no Tenshi]

So? Because everyone else does it, it's ok that we do it too? I thought the US was supposed to be different, that this country was supposed to fix the mistakes made by England, et al.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously using that as your argument? The US separated from the UK back when powdered wigs were fashionable. You could say it tried to fix the mistakes they saw back then, but after that point, your argument loses it's steam. At this point in time, any attempt to say the US is supposed to fix the mistakes made by anybody in Europe is a misdirection attempt.

[jeff]

Frivolous aside, which I suggested to Andrew during incredibly creepy meeting today: with a few liberties in punctuation, permuting the word order of the subject thread makes much more interesting reults:

Bush protests war outlaw -- that would be a change!
War Outlaw Protests Bush -- well, that would be payback, I suppose
"Bush Outlaw!", protests war -- even the war has hard feelings about Bush
Bush' War outlaws protests -- well, it might come to that
Protest War, Outlaw Bush -- hmm, there's a possibility.
Bush Protests, Outlaws War -- a boy can dream, can't he?

[AndrewH]

I'm sorry, but are you seriously using that as your argument? The US separated from the UK back when powdered wigs were fashionable. You could say it tried to fix the mistakes they saw back then, but after that point, your argument loses it's steam. At this point in time, any attempt to say the US is supposed to fix the mistakes made by anybody in Europe is a misdirection attempt.

Yes, I am seriously using that as my argument. The US was founded on the idea that a new country could fix all the mistakes in government that were being made, especially in England. Things like warrantless searches, indefinite imprisonment, no due process, etc. Now look where we are today? We've become exactly what we tried to get away from, full circle.

The US is supposed to be a role model to others, that's our responsibility as a superpower. We're supposed to spread the philosophies of democracy, capitalism and human rights. Looking at the situation today, I would say we have failed on two of the three counts. (We've been doing pretty good with capitalism).

[Inquartata]

Pfft! Grading on a curve, we are still one of only about 3 A's in the class. It's good enough for the quotidian world. If you are searching for perfect, you want the next world.

[Neinteen]

Grading Curves are awesome, they turn As into Super As

I guess the cub you experienced musta knocked you down to F.

Then you worked hard to look smart ( and evil ) but now youre the same F and (good )? Curmodegeon? WoOT ( Had to post )

And Police state SHmalice state. What's so wrong with that

As long as we do it, its okakkkkkkkkaayyy

[Inquartata]

Hey, you might want to cut back a bit on the meth.

[Lemonaide]

so lemme get this straight, Slim...

islam seeks to deny americans freedom of speech (what??). therefore, we must turn this country into a police state to prevent that.

i'm no logician but something about that doesn't follow.

I understand what you're saying Andrew and you have a good point to be made, but, there's one thing that we sometimes overlook and that is simply that when a nation is in the middle of a conflict with anyone, there is a tendancy for that nation to clamp down on stuff, even if it makes it more difficult for a sub-group to load their gear for a bout. It's not meant to be personal, but they sort of expect us to give something up as the men overseas have given up much. During WWII no one in the country talked about anything - it was 'loose lips sink ships'; no-one bought gas except with coupons; and they ate junk food. Our grandparents and parents had very little material wealth during the war,and overseas was worse, those people literally starved. I don't know if anyone is trying to take away 'freedom of speech' - take a look at the news, they are blabbering left and right.

[BrianH]

And Police state SHmalice state. What's so wrong with that

Say, do you by any chance know a fellow named DFP? Some of the things you say remind me of his pronouncements.