| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Jul 2006 06:27:51 PM |
| Object: |
The foundation of totalitarianism |
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
.
|
|
| User: "goofy" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 09:11:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Did you think these words where
hollow rhetoric? The possibility that you or your loved ones might die
at the hands of criminals IS 'the cost of freedom'. These words and the
sentiments portrayed in your constitution are the gift that your great
founders have given to the people of the entire world. Why are you so
afraid to live up to those sentiments? FEAR is what drives the
Republican agenda these days. Fear of criminals, fear of terrorists,
fear of atheists. Whatever happened to the "Home of the Brave?" Is it
not better to die a free man than to live under tyrany? Are the ideals
of your fore-fathers just so much crap?
YOUR Constitution, and copies of it, around the world, (including that
of my own country), guarantee that no-one, NOT EVEN YOU, can be held
against his/her will without reason, except by criminals. YES, these
prisoners may be dangerous to us .YES, we could release another
terrorist into our midst. YES, we might release another murderer into
our land. BUT!! the unthinkable alternative is to allow a President or
King, Caesar or Emporer, Csar or Governor to become the criminal that
can hold us against our will without due cause.
The Judges, who's job it is to uphold our freedom "by rule of law" are
not "radical judges" as many would have you believe. They are here to
protect ALL from the abuses of "those who would be king".
The "detainees" being held illegally by "King Dubya" and his minions
are no doubt suspect. But if it cannot be proven that they have
committed a crime, then they must be set free. If their 'freedom' from
our prison, results in the loss of innocent lives, then we will have to
reconsider the entire purpose of our own freedom and decide again which
is more important, liberty or death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 09:44:29 PM |
|
|
goofy wrote:
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Did you think these words where
hollow rhetoric? The possibility that you or your loved ones might die
at the hands of criminals IS 'the cost of freedom'. These words and the
sentiments portrayed in your constitution are the gift that your great
founders have given to the people of the entire world. Why are you so
afraid to live up to those sentiments? FEAR is what drives the
Republican agenda these days. Fear of criminals, fear of terrorists,
fear of atheists. Whatever happened to the "Home of the Brave?" Is it
not better to die a free man than to live under tyrany? Are the ideals
of your fore-fathers just so much crap?
I will make it easy for you guys.....
God is with the one who has money...
relax
YOUR Constitution, and copies of it, around the world, (including that
of my own country), guarantee that no-one, NOT EVEN YOU, can be held
against his/her will without reason, except by criminals. YES, these
prisoners may be dangerous to us .YES, we could release another
terrorist into our midst. YES, we might release another murderer into
our land. BUT!! the unthinkable alternative is to allow a President or
King, Caesar or Emporer, Csar or Governor to become the criminal that
can hold us against our will without due cause.
The Judges, who's job it is to uphold our freedom "by rule of law" are
not "radical judges" as many would have you believe. They are here to
protect ALL from the abuses of "those who would be king".
The "detainees" being held illegally by "King Dubya" and his minions
are no doubt suspect. But if it cannot be proven that they have
committed a crime, then they must be set free. If their 'freedom' from
our prison, results in the loss of innocent lives, then we will have to
reconsider the entire purpose of our own freedom and decide again which
is more important, liberty or death.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 07:10:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
Churchill never intended to apply this to enemy combatants. U.S. and
British military have always tossed captured enemy personnel into
prisoner of war camps without formulating any charges against them.
Liberal attempts to apply that to captured terrorists is disingenuous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Justin A. Cobb" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 08:02:23 PM |
|
|
<snip top>
Churchill never intended to apply this to enemy combatants. U.S. and
British military have always tossed captured enemy personnel into
prisoner of war camps without formulating any charges against them.
Liberal attempts to apply that to captured terrorists is disingenuous.
There was no such term as "enemy combatant" in Churchill's day. The
problem with our current government placing individuals SUSPECTED--have not
been tried yet and convicted (presumed innocent until proven guilty,
remember)--of terrorism into Gitmo is that our legal system recognizes only
three categories of individuals which it gives our government the power to
detain: criminal suspects awaiting trial, POWs, and convicted prisoners.
Suspects held in Gitmo are not given the rights of criminal suspects,
such as habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc. POWs are simply enemy
soldiers captured in combat, who are not suspected of committing any acts
for which the criminal legal system can pursue charges. However, POWs are
granted certain rights by the Geneva Conventions, and our government has not
been willing to do this, either. Convicted prisoners have had their day in
court and either plead or were found guilty of the charges leveled against
them. Thus, the current administration has arbitrarily placed terrorism
suspects into a category that does not even exist in our legal system.
There has been some recent discussion of the Congress possibly creating
an appropriate legal category for these suspects in order to balance the
ethical duty for our government to operate within the law with the perceived
need for more stringent arrangements to protect the public, avoid
compromising ongoing investigations of additional terror suspects, etc.
However, it is unfortunate that it required that the Supreme Court declare
the administration's approach unconstitutional before the administration
would even consider this course of action.
Justin A. Cobb
.
|
|
|
| User: "goofy" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 08:17:17 PM |
|
|
Justin A. Cobb wrote:
<snip top>
Churchill never intended to apply this to enemy combatants. U.S. and
British military have always tossed captured enemy personnel into
prisoner of war camps without formulating any charges against them.
Liberal attempts to apply that to captured terrorists is disingenuous.
There was no such term as "enemy combatant" in Churchill's day. The
problem with our current government placing individuals SUSPECTED--have not
been tried yet and convicted (presumed innocent until proven guilty,
remember)--of terrorism into Gitmo is that our legal system recognizes only
three categories of individuals which it gives our government the power to
detain: criminal suspects awaiting trial, POWs, and convicted prisoners.
Suspects held in Gitmo are not given the rights of criminal suspects,
such as habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc. POWs are simply enemy
soldiers captured in combat, who are not suspected of committing any acts
for which the criminal legal system can pursue charges. However, POWs are
granted certain rights by the Geneva Conventions, and our government has not
been willing to do this, either. Convicted prisoners have had their day in
court and either plead or were found guilty of the charges leveled against
them. Thus, the current administration has arbitrarily placed terrorism
suspects into a category that does not even exist in our legal system.
There has been some recent discussion of the Congress possibly creating
an appropriate legal category for these suspects in order to balance the
ethical duty for our government to operate within the law with the perceived
need for more stringent arrangements to protect the public, avoid
compromising ongoing investigations of additional terror suspects, etc.
However, it is unfortunate that it required that the Supreme Court declare
the administration's approach unconstitutional before the administration
would even consider this course of action.
Justin A. Cobb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
07 Jul 2006 02:42:22 PM |
|
|
Justin A. Cobb wrote:
<snip top>
Churchill never intended to apply this to enemy combatants. U.S. and
British military have always tossed captured enemy personnel into
prisoner of war camps without formulating any charges against them.
Liberal attempts to apply that to captured terrorists is disingenuous.
There was no such term as "enemy combatant" in Churchill's day. The
problem with our current government placing individuals SUSPECTED--have not
been tried yet and convicted (presumed innocent until proven guilty,
remember)--of terrorism into Gitmo is that our legal system recognizes only
three categories of individuals which it gives our government the power to
detain: criminal suspects awaiting trial, POWs, and convicted prisoners.
Suspects held in Gitmo are not given the rights of criminal suspects,
such as habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc. POWs are simply enemy
soldiers captured in combat, who are not suspected of committing any acts
for which the criminal legal system can pursue charges. However, POWs are
granted certain rights by the Geneva Conventions, and our government has not
been willing to do this, either. Convicted prisoners have had their day in
court and either plead or were found guilty of the charges leveled against
them. Thus, the current administration has arbitrarily placed terrorism
suspects into a category that does not even exist in our legal system.
There has been some recent discussion of the Congress possibly creating
an appropriate legal category for these suspects in order to balance the
ethical duty for our government to operate within the law with the perceived
need for more stringent arrangements to protect the public, avoid
compromising ongoing investigations of additional terror suspects, etc.
However, it is unfortunate that it required that the Supreme Court declare
the administration's approach unconstitutional before the administration
would even consider this course of action.
Justin A. Cobb
Oddly, no one ever points this out, but when the Bush regime snatches
one of these "terrorists", the Bush regime denies humane treatment and
the protections of the Geneva Conventions because the regime claims
that they are not "prisoners of war". But, when the regime wants to
trample on American citizens rights, it's because they say we're in a
"war", which gives them the power to do so. When the regime wants to
trample on Muslims rights, it's because they say we're not in a "war",
which gives them the power to do so.
Most of what this regime says is a lie... meant to distort, mislead,
confuse or deny... so that they can abuse someone, somewhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
10 Jul 2006 08:08:43 PM |
|
|
Kevin wrote:
Justin A. Cobb wrote:
<snip top>
Churchill never intended to apply this to enemy combatants. U.S. and
British military have always tossed captured enemy personnel into
prisoner of war camps without formulating any charges against them.
Liberal attempts to apply that to captured terrorists is disingenuous.
There was no such term as "enemy combatant" in Churchill's day. The
problem with our current government placing individuals SUSPECTED--have not
been tried yet and convicted (presumed innocent until proven guilty,
remember)--of terrorism into Gitmo is that our legal system recognizes only
three categories of individuals which it gives our government the power to
detain: criminal suspects awaiting trial, POWs, and convicted prisoners.
Suspects held in Gitmo are not given the rights of criminal suspects,
such as habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc. POWs are simply enemy
soldiers captured in combat, who are not suspected of committing any acts
for which the criminal legal system can pursue charges. However, POWs are
granted certain rights by the Geneva Conventions, and our government has not
been willing to do this, either. Convicted prisoners have had their day in
court and either plead or were found guilty of the charges leveled against
them. Thus, the current administration has arbitrarily placed terrorism
suspects into a category that does not even exist in our legal system.
There has been some recent discussion of the Congress possibly creating
an appropriate legal category for these suspects in order to balance the
ethical duty for our government to operate within the law with the perceived
need for more stringent arrangements to protect the public, avoid
compromising ongoing investigations of additional terror suspects, etc.
However, it is unfortunate that it required that the Supreme Court declare
the administration's approach unconstitutional before the administration
would even consider this course of action.
Justin A. Cobb
Oddly, no one ever points this out, but when the Bush regime snatches
one of these "terrorists", the Bush regime denies humane treatment and
the protections of the Geneva Conventions because the regime claims
that they are not "prisoners of war". But, when the regime wants to
trample on American citizens rights, it's because they say we're in a
"war", which gives them the power to do so. When the regime wants to
trample on Muslims rights, it's because they say we're not in a "war",
which gives them the power to do so.
Most of what this regime says is a lie... meant to distort, mislead,
confuse or deny... so that they can abuse someone, somewhere.
I was wandering ...why we Americans are subjected to the Jews?
The answer is not the Jews.... but ourselves .Period
I guess we are going to have a fight with the Government..
We the people are not going to let some mooommmma go wild with their
Googaaa politics
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
10 Jul 2006 08:08:51 PM |
|
|
Kevin wrote:
Justin A. Cobb wrote:
<snip top>
Churchill never intended to apply this to enemy combatants. U.S. and
British military have always tossed captured enemy personnel into
prisoner of war camps without formulating any charges against them.
Liberal attempts to apply that to captured terrorists is disingenuous.
There was no such term as "enemy combatant" in Churchill's day. The
problem with our current government placing individuals SUSPECTED--have not
been tried yet and convicted (presumed innocent until proven guilty,
remember)--of terrorism into Gitmo is that our legal system recognizes only
three categories of individuals which it gives our government the power to
detain: criminal suspects awaiting trial, POWs, and convicted prisoners.
Suspects held in Gitmo are not given the rights of criminal suspects,
such as habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc. POWs are simply enemy
soldiers captured in combat, who are not suspected of committing any acts
for which the criminal legal system can pursue charges. However, POWs are
granted certain rights by the Geneva Conventions, and our government has not
been willing to do this, either. Convicted prisoners have had their day in
court and either plead or were found guilty of the charges leveled against
them. Thus, the current administration has arbitrarily placed terrorism
suspects into a category that does not even exist in our legal system.
There has been some recent discussion of the Congress possibly creating
an appropriate legal category for these suspects in order to balance the
ethical duty for our government to operate within the law with the perceived
need for more stringent arrangements to protect the public, avoid
compromising ongoing investigations of additional terror suspects, etc.
However, it is unfortunate that it required that the Supreme Court declare
the administration's approach unconstitutional before the administration
would even consider this course of action.
Justin A. Cobb
Oddly, no one ever points this out, but when the Bush regime snatches
one of these "terrorists", the Bush regime denies humane treatment and
the protections of the Geneva Conventions because the regime claims
that they are not "prisoners of war". But, when the regime wants to
trample on American citizens rights, it's because they say we're in a
"war", which gives them the power to do so. When the regime wants to
trample on Muslims rights, it's because they say we're not in a "war",
which gives them the power to do so.
Most of what this regime says is a lie... meant to distort, mislead,
confuse or deny... so that they can abuse someone, somewhere.
I was wandering ...why we Americans are subjected to the Jews?
The answer is not the Jews.... but ourselves .Period
I guess we are going to have a fight with the Government..
We the people are not going to let some mooommmma go wild with their
Googaaa politics
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cormagh" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 06:42:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
Which one are we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 07:08:51 PM |
|
|
Cormagh wrote:
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
Which one are we?
Churchhill, in his day, could never have foreseen the emergence of
another totalitarianist threat, Republicanism. But, clearly, by his
definition, Republicanism in America has breeched the line of civility
and representative government into the darkness of totalitarianism.
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government."
-- Winston Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PerfectlyAble" |
|
| Title: Re: The foundation of totalitarianism |
06 Jul 2006 06:49:44 PM |
|
|
Cormagh wrote:
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill
Which one are we?
There's really only one type of totalitarianism, the one where
you do what they say when they say it because they fear you,
don't want your sort in their neighbourhoods, usually as they
are too chickenlittle to say to your face that their cowardice
is their prime driver.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
