| "Unconstitutional The Movie" - An eye opener.
Posted: 2/28/2005 1:54:28 PM | I saw this film recently and it was very well done. I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils but I am starting to think they were both equally evil. The rights of free speech, to peaceably assemble, and of protest are being trampled by his administration. Don't take my word for this, see the documentary and make up your own mind.
http://www.publicinterestpictures.org/unconstitutional/
The Patriot Act has parts which are so anti-American I can't believe it got through Congress. I can only attribute this to a knee-jerk reaction to 911, we need to make our legislators understand that we have had time to think and now realize the Patriot Act needs to be defeated when it is up for renewal. According to the ACLU (I am not a member) 4 states, and over 340 cities/counties have passed resolutions denouncing these sections of the Patriot Act and declining to have their constituents participate. See below:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFreemain.cfm
One thing I wanted to highlight though, was an act of pure fascism by the police providing security along the parade route. There were some very rowdy protestors, but you can see in the movie also many groups of peaceful protestors, many just holding signs, or chanting slogans. Typical, peaceful, American protests.
Then we see two men in civilian clothes enter the crowd, and begin spraying the unsuspecting people with pepper spray! The cans of spray are clearly marked as government issue, the men are identified by name in the movie, and we see them indiscriminately spraying peaceful protestors in their faces! I understand the need to protect the President, and for crowd control, but this was a clear case of fascist acts by our own police forces. This is an outrage to all true Americans! Why is there no public outcry over this? Where is the media coverage?
The right to peaceably assemble and to protest are fundamantal American rights set forth for all to see in our Constitution. History has shown us that if we do not allow peaceable protest, violent protest is sure to follow. As a Veteran with a Purple Heart I have shed my own blood for these rights, and seen too many of my compatriots sent home in metal boxes to stand by and allow anyone to undermine these rights.
If you feel the way I do please contact your representatives and let them know we will not tolerate such behaviour, they must enforce the law or we will recall them and send someone who will. The link below allows you to send a free email to your representatives, use it please!
http://www3.capwiz.com/congressorg/home/
Next time it could be your political party, your children protesting, your turn to taste the pepper spray and find out what it feels like not to be able to breath or see from the pain. If you love this country then you make your voice heard, say it loud and often, no fascism here!
MajMike
http://allenemies.blogspot.com/
 | |
|
| Dangerous Legislation
Posted: 2/28/2005 3:07:42 PM | Saw the documentary. Pretty crazy how they treated that Syrian-American family. The point of the movie is to raise the issue of the constitution and the Bill of Rights being watered down and even destroyed by the USA Patriot Act and legal precident. Currently there are more laws and Acts than just the Patriot Act that are destroying the constitution. I could name them, but I have already on another thread. And it seems it is not much welcomed these days. "Kill the messenger" is the mantra of our time.
Patriotism as it exists today means, "No Questions." How patriotic is that? LOL. Whatever.
Unfortunatley, this topic may not get much recognition. Sensational posts and comedy routines have higher priority on POF than the destroying of the constitution, I am afraid.
peace,
joe | |
|
| "Unconstitutional The Movie" - An eye opener.
Posted: 2/28/2005 3:25:31 PM | Obviously the Patriot Act is a piece of crap, that's pretty well recognized by most intelligent people. You can't pin it all on Bush though, the congress voted it in.
Are you trying to say Bush ordered the spraying of the protestors? I'm sure the movie implied that, but there's no way to prove it. I don't get my political opinions from forms of entertainment, whether its "informative" entertainment or not. A documentary is still a movie, and it can still manipulate.
But that really is depressing to hear about, I hope incidents like that don't expand. | |
|
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 9:37:26 AM | No I don't think Bush ordered the spraying. But, I think his administration has set the tone for dealing with opponents that lead someone to decide the spraying was an appropriate idea.
The police are the bad guys in this incident, unless it can be shown guidance for this came from elsewhere. I just can't fathom how anybody could decide this was acceptable.
MajMike | |
|
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 9:44:21 AM |
The police are the bad guys in this incident, unless it can be shown guidance for this came from elsewhere. I just can't fathom how anybody could decide this was acceptable.
Maybe they were on a powertrip, who knows. I agree it is disgusting. | |
|
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 10:16:28 AM |
The Patriot Act has parts which are so anti-American I can't believe it got through Congress. I can only attribute this to a knee-jerk reaction to 911
I really do think it voting for the Patriot Act was a reaction of fear.
If that was put forward today, it would not pass. Provided Republicans
don't take away the right to filabuster (Grumble. Sometimes they have no shame.)
I dare say even some Republicans would vote against it (I would hope
they aren't all fascism supporters) if it came up today.
When does it come up for "renewal"? Anyone know?
I'm going to get on my Congress people about it... | |
|
| |
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 10:26:25 AM | I think a lot of Republicans will push back on some sections of the Patriot Act -- especially the libertarian Repubicans (are there any of us left?). But this is a case where we all need to band together an do what we can to protect our civil liberties and at the same time, allow law enforcement to modernize in reasonable and "constitutional" ways.
I'm going to start a thread to study what is so bad about the Patriot Act so we all know what is good for our country and what is not.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6469357/ | |
|
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 10:47:43 AM | kadmus
I suggest you review the ACLU section called 'Safe and Free', it delineates the perceived problems with the Patriot Act, and those with the proposed Patriot Act II. I am not a member, but agree with them on this issue for sure.
MajMike | |
|
| |
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 1:14:30 PM | I thought this was pretty relevent to our discussion:
Gonzales urges extension of Patriot Act
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales yesterday called on Congress to renew the USA Patriot Act, saying the threat from international terrorism -- including the al Qaeda network -- was "still very real" despite U.S. successes in capturing and killing global terrorists.
In his first major address since his contentious confirmation hearing last month, Mr. Gonzales told a meeting of the Hoover Institution in Washington that some of the act's provisions will expire at the end of this year, but that "the terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule."
"The top priority of the United States government remains protecting our citizens from an unfamiliar type of enemy, one that does not share our values, or cherish life, or respect the rule of law," he said. "This foe is quite willing to pursue the mass murder of innocent Americans and the destruction of our way of life in order to achieve their goals.
"For this reason, they must be defeated. Without security, there can be no real freedom, and we cannot relent in fulfilling this most basic obligation of government," he told members of the conservative think tank based on the campus of Stanford University.
Senate Democrats and some civil rights organizations have challenged the act, saying it allows the government to pry into the activities of private citizens in its search for terrorists.
But Mr. Gonzales, who formerly served as White House counsel, described the Patriot Act as "one of the most important weapons" the Justice Department has in the war against terror, adding that the "brave and dedicated men and women" who work each day to track down, disrupt and prosecute terrorists deserve to have "the right tools and resources" to do the job.
Three years after its passage, Mr. Gonzales said, the Patriot Act has helped prevent more terror attacks by lowering the bureaucratic wall that separated law enforcement from the intelligence community and ensuring that law enforcement could battle terrorism by deploying many legal tools long used against drug smugglers, mobsters and other criminals.
"The coming congressional deliberations regarding the reauthorization of the Patriot Act are important. Debate and discussion reflect our strength as a democracy," he said, adding that he would not support changes in the law that would make the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Mr. Gonzales' comments came as part of what he called an explanation of his vision for the Justice Department and what he hopes to accomplish as the nation's 80th attorney general.
He said as the department pursues justice -- from fighting the war on terror to combating violent crime, from prosecuting corporate fraud to protecting and enforcing civil rights -- its mission remains clear: "to expand freedom, extend opportunity and protect human dignity and equal justice for all."
Mr. Gonzales, the first Hispanic-American to be named as attorney general, also called the country's immigration litigation system "broken," adding that although aliens should be given fair and complete hearings, reforms should ensure that the system does not reward criminals or overburden the court system with unnecessary appeals.
Mr. Gonzales also said the Senate's system of approving judicial nominees needs to be "fixed" so presidential nominees could receive fair hearings; that the department intends to vigorously pursue those who violate obscenity laws; and that he would increase from 15 to 20 the number of cities with federal agents to help combat violent crime as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods.
Source: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050228-102608-7380r.htm
peace,
joe | |
|
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 3/1/2005 4:02:18 PM | Gonzales and Ashcroft both love the Patriot Act, maybe if I were in their shoes I would too. But, I'm not, and from my position it seems they can't see the forest for the trees.
To destroy the very liberties the terrorists attacked to catch the terrorists seems pretty stupid. Many Americans agree with me too, as the following stats fromn the ACLU show.
Resolutions (against portions of the Patriot Act) have been passed in 372 communities in 43 states including four state-wide resolutions. These communities represent approximately 56.2 million people who oppose sections of the USA PATRIOT Act.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11294&c=207
Now the DOJ is trying to pass a bill nicknamed Patriot Act II, also called the 'Domestic Security Enhancement Act'.
The Department of Justice has been drafting the new legislation -- called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), but nicknamed PATRIOT II -- in secret over the past several months. The draft language, which was leaked to the media last month, contains a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers and expands on many provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act.
The big picture implications of the bill, the ACLU said, include a severe reduction of basic checks and balances on the power of the executive branch. “If this proposal becomes law,” Edgar said, “it will encourage police spying on political and religious activities, allow the government to wiretap without going to court and expand wiretapping and asset forfeiture laws under an overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.”
Reaction to the leaked proposal has been quick and unfavorable. Conservative New York Times columnist William Safire called the draft legislation an “abomination” and Fox News Channel personality Bill O’Reilly – who recently declared “I’m not the ACLU poster boy” – is up in arms about several provisions in the proposal, including one that would greatly expand the ability of authorities to collect and keep DNA samples of law-abiding Americans.
Sixty-seven organizations expressed their concerns in a letter sent today to every Member of Congress. Its strange-bedfellows signatories represented groups as far apart on the political spectrum as the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza. People of faith also expressed opposition to the Justice Department plans, including the American Baptist Churches USA, Presbyterian Church USA and the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12125&c=206
Many groups are also asking Congress to pass a bill enacting an oversight committee for FISA, see the following.
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (most commonly known as FISA), a secret intelligence court was created to authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Since its initial enactment, FISA has been steadily expanded in ways that pose an increasing threat to individual rights.
Under FISA procedures, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret. The Department of Justice has not disclosed even the most basic information about the court's activities despite repeated requests from Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups.
Furthermore, by skirting reports of illegal warrants and unlawful surveillance by the FISA court itself, the FISA Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have failed to address several fundamental issues. It is critical that the Congress ensure our judicial system is lawful and proper by providing proper oversight of this secret court.
A bipartisan group of Senators, including Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), have introduced legislation called the FISA Oversight Bill (S. 436) that would ensure our elected officials are able to provide appropriate oversight over the secret FISA court. This bill would not hinder law enforcement but instead would simply require the public accounting of basic information such as the number of Americans subjected to surveillance under FISA and the number of times that FISA information has been used for law enforcement purposes.
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=12219&c=110
I have written several letters to my local Congressmen and the President, I'm don't think Bush will listen but maybe they will.
MajMike
p.s. I am not a member of the ACLU because they often attack public displays of Christianity, nor do they seem to support all of the Bill of Rights equally (see 2nd amendment), BUT I am in agreement with them on this issue and will do whatever I can to stop these fascist acts. | |
|
| |
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 8/17/2007 6:12:59 PM | come on, does anyone actually believe the US was in danger of being taken over by North Vietnam? even if they had to be there, there could have been enough volunteers, but the draft saved a few dollars in the budger I guess by not having to pay high enough salaries to attract volunteers..meanwhile p*ssing away multiples of that amount on wasteful gov't spending..
Crossposting from another thread...
The draft in the United States wasn't about Vietnam. It was about the Cold War. The majority of soldiers to fight (and die) in Vietnam were volunteers. Draftees were sent there, but also to Germany, where a sizeable NATO force was kept from the 1950s to the 1990s. Johnny Cash and Elvis Presley both formed part of this contingent at various times.
Incidentally, the draft was enacted before Vietnam and didn't die out until afterwards.
I was surprised to find out that the majority of US soldiers to serve in-country were volunteers, but the VFW will verify that fact.
The Cold War, on the other hand, required combat capable forces in West Germany ready to fight the Warsaw Pact. It seems stupid now, but it was a national imperative at the time. It bankrupted the Soviet Union and eventually led to democracy in Eastern Europe, which may or may not be a good thing depending on how you look at their economic status right now. Personally, I think it is a good thing, but regret that there wasn't a better way to do things.
The Cold War also drove scientific achievement - notally Project Apollo and the first exploration of the moon.
A google search tells us that "It may come as a surprise to some that 63.3% of all V'nam enlisted casualties were volunteer. If ofcrs are added then almost 70% of those who died in V'nam were volunteers. Of course, the Marine, Navy & Air Corps enlisted personnel were, with the exception of a small percentage of USMC, all volunteer & as it turned out almost 50% of Army enlisted casualties were also volunteer."
There may be some technicalities at play; soldiers volunteering rather than waiting to be drafted did have the enticement of trades training and a promise (or faint hope) of learning to do something that would have applicability in the civilian world once they left the service. The Marine Corps has always been all-volunteer, and the USAF and USN were largely oriented away from ground combat roles so they were probably genuinely more popular as career choices (though naval personnel still provided corpsmen to USMC infantry/armored units in the field and the USAF had aviation units, etc.)
for one clear and obvious example, how can forced servitude/slavery in the armed forces and being forced to place your very life at risk of ending (conscription, the draft, which was in place for many years, ever be considered "constitutional" ?)
The comparison of military service to slavery is not apt either. It's actually a bit insulting, especially given the importance of military service. It's been suggested in another thread that death rates among draftees in Vietnam were horrifically high and the U.S. government basically sent its young sons into a charnel house on the same proportions of the Battle of the Somme. The evidence doesn't bear that out.
Life expectancy for soldiers in Vietnam was actually pretty good. At its peak, U.S. troop levels numbered 500,000 soldiers, but only 50,000 of them were in combat roles (infantry, armored, engineer, artillery, combat aviation). Nine of 10 soldiers served exclusively in non-combat jobs in base camps, largely immune to danger though they did come under direct attack on occasion.
Not that I'm trying to say the 58,000 fatalities there aren't tragic (not to mention untold thousands of Vietnamese civilians, enemy soldiers, and soldiers of Thailand, Korea, Australia and other allied nations), but the odds of death as a soldier in the US Army in the 1960s - even if you factor out the fact that many troops served in West Germany and never went to Vietnam - were not as drastic as "a life expectancy of a few days." It naturally depended on your Military Occupational Specialty, with infantrymen suffering the highest loss rate. I won't make any crass comments on the relative value to society of fellows who were placed into that specialty by the Army's selection service.
In all, some 8.7 million US service personnel served in Vietnam during the war - I believe that is 6/10 of 1 percent being killed. Were death rates among slaves really that low?
Soldiers received the benefits of the GI Bill (if they lived), but many suffered from PTSD that went undiagnosed. But again - the vast majority of soldiers in Vietnam never, ever, never saw active combat, so the only thing they lost by serving was three years of their life (in which the government paid them to learn a trade). So mostly you did your time as a truck driver, radio repairman, radar operator, military policeman, cook, mechanic, or what have you, and got on with your life afterwards. Most likely with a lot more focus and direction in your life; the military tends to do that for most, though not all.
Hardly comparable to slavery.
Personally, I'm against conscription in peacetime as it dilutes the military with a bunch of whiners and slackers who don't want to be there, but it also does bring in some bright shining lights who normally wouldn't join up outside of a war, too - just not in enough numbers to balance out or make it worthwhile, in my opinion. | |
|
| msugirl004 - Bush ordering . . .
Posted: 8/18/2007 5:48:13 AM |
I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils
I would love to see the rationale behind this statement. | |
|
|
Home
login 
