Olbermann:There needs to be… an apology from the President of the United States.

[Yonivore]

Eh, good read. He went a little too far with his "4 little words" shpeel, but all in all good, imo.

I just cant remember any president who looked so offended and almost angry that there are people in his own country who disagree with him....amazing really because I cant get everyone I know to agree with me and I am not the single most powerful man in the world with more TV airtime than most reality shows.

Yeah, well the survival of your nation probably isn't riding on you convincing others of your position.

I think it is more frustration, on his part, than anger.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni,

maybe bush us wrong? it seems in your world bush has been 100% right and if anyone disagrees they are are wrong. I've never heard of anyone ever being 100% correct? on everything? iraq COULD turn into a disaster for our country or it COULD turn into a history making event. iraq MIGHT become a country that leads to the middle east becming more democratic or it MIGHT destablilize the region and make the region worse.. my point is just because bush says we need to do something a certain way doesn't mean he's right. let's be honest his planning of the iraq war was less than desirable and even he has admitted that we have made mistakes..which leads me to believe he's not perfect...

OH, I KNOW THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL US OK? you respond with this everytime someone points out problems with bush's idea of fighting terror. bush doesn't get a free pass just because there are people trying to kill us.. he is accouantable to 100% of the country and not just his base!!

[cherylsteele]

Well gee golly whiz, Yoni...I don't personally know any of the detainees at Gitmo. I guess If I don't have a direct personal relationship with someone who's rights are violated then they don't actually exist.

This might be a new one to add to the fallacy list.

I know several Muslim-American CITIZENS....a couple where I work who have not seem any of there "rights" violated. They have done nothing wrong except struggle like many others in this country. They woukld not agree with you at all. These detaintees' actions make the Muslim religion look bad.

None of my rights have been violated since the patriot act was put in place. I don't agree with many of the things Bush and his administration have done but that does not mean I lose my rights.

[cherylsteele]

funny these laws were made because the british government was too over-reaching, over-bearing, inconsiderate of the rights of their subjects to due process, and just plain tyrannical...........have we become that??????
sure does sound like it.

I have never had this happen to me personally.....have you?
How about some examples tyranny?

[DarkReign]

Yeah, well the survival of your nation probably isn't riding on you convincing others of your position.

I think it is more frustration, on his part, than anger.

Also very true. Truman for example.

[xrayzebra]

Well I see the village Idots and Fools are still in full
voice. Bush hates American and is taking away all its
rights and the Terrorist are good guys and should be
protected. Don't you just love their way of thinking. Thank God we have Bush as President and not them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well I see the village Idots and Fools are still in full
voice. Bush hates American and is taking away all its
rights and the Terrorist are good guys and should be
protected. Don't you just love their way of thinking. Thank God we have Bush as President and not them.

what took you so long? i was beginning to miss your 'protecting the terrorists' posts (if you disagree with bush)... ! you represent karl rove's dream citizen..

[xrayzebra]

what took you so long? i was beginning to miss your 'protecting the terrorists' posts (if you disagree with bush)... ! you represent karl rove's dream citizen..

Hey just calling it as I see it. The terrorist are
always the ones to be protected, citizens are losing
their rights and it is all Bush's fault. And oh, yes,
lest we forget Carl Rove gave the "secret" information about Valerie "flame". Don't want
to forget that.

[clambake]

I don't want to protect the terrorist. I want them dead. I don't want terrorist to have any due process. I don't want them to have any rights at all.

I want to make sure they are terrorist, then procede. I don't want another Abu Gharib(sp) where if your not a terrorist when you go in, you will be by the time you get out.

I'm also tired of hearing bush whine like a baby. God, what a wuss. He is an embarrassment to all of us. The rest of the world hates our leader. What are the prospects for your company if everybody hates the owner?

[George W Bush]

I don't want to protect the terrorist. I want them dead. I don't want terrorist to have any due process. I don't want them to have any rights at all.

I want to make sure they are terrorist, then procede. I don't want another Abu Gharib(sp) where if your not a terrorist when you go in, you will be by the time you get out.

I'm also tired of hearing bush whine like a baby. God, what a wuss. He is an embarrassment to all of us. The rest of the world hates our leader. What are the prospects for your company if everybody hates the owner?

I want to warn all Americans and put them
on FULL ALERT from posts such as the one above.

These are what I call "my dissenters" or "opposers" or "evil doers" or "truthsayers",
and their only interest is spreading facts about me
and my administration!

And we can't have facts told to the American people
because we would only make the enemy stronger, the Democrats.

So, the facts stop now, so that we can focus on the
"War to End the World.....err..err,

I mean, the "War on Terror".




God Bless America

[xrayzebra]

I don't want to protect the terrorist. I want them dead. I don't want terrorist to have any due process. I don't want them to have any rights at all.

I want to make sure they are terrorist, then procede. I don't want another Abu Gharib(sp) where if your not a terrorist when you go in, you will be by the time you get out.

I'm also tired of hearing bush whine like a baby. God, what a wuss. He is an embarrassment to all of us. The rest of the world hates our leader. What are the prospects for your company if everybody hates the owner?

Bush is not an embarrassment to "all" of us. He
is someone I am proud of. Quit trying to speak
for "all" of us. Speak for yourself! He is doing a
job that needs to be done.

You want terrorist dead, huh? But you just
don't want anyone to come out of a prison as
a terrorist. Now how do you know they weren't
before they went in? You physic?

Remember one small fact. The terrorist want
you dead too. And the sooner the better and
they really don't mind if they kill a few thousand
women, children and men who are just trying
to do a little everyday shopping. Now there
is a thought for you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Bush is not an embarrassment to "all" of us. He
is someone I am proud of. Quit trying to speak
for "all" of us. Speak for yourself! He is doing a
job that needs to be done.

You want terrorist dead, huh? But you just
don't want anyone to come out of a prison as
a terrorist. Now how do you know they weren't
before they went in? You physic?

Remember one small fact. The terrorist want
you dead too. And the sooner the better and
they really don't mind if they kill a few thousand
women, children and men who are just trying
to do a little everyday shopping. Now there
is a thought for you.

AND IT'S POSSIBLE BUSH HAS F*CKED THINGS UP BY INVADING IRAQ

JUST A THOUGHT

[xrayzebra]

AND IT'S POSSIBLE BUSH HAS F*CKED THINGS UP BY INVADING IRAQ

JUST A THOUGHT

You are authorized to think. Just remember you
can be wrong too. Might want to think about
that, while you are thinking.

Is it also possible he did the right thing, which I
THINK that he did. I may be wrong, but I don't
think so.

Seems he (Bush) hit a nerve in the terrorist
little world by invading Iraq. They seemed to be
expending a whole bunch of resources in fighting
to get us out of there. I wonder why?

[ChumpDumper]

Seems he (Bush) hit a nerve in the terrorist
little world by invading Iraq.

Actually, he almost wiped out the terrorists after invading Afghanistan. He did so with the cooperation of IRAN. Think about that for awhile, along with all the other goodwill and cooperation that evaporated when Bush decided to quit chasing the terrorists from Afghanistan and invaded the place the terrorists weren't.

[gtownspur]

Actually, he almost wiped out the terrorists after invading Afghanistan. He did so with the cooperation of IRAN. Think about that for awhile, along with all the other goodwill and cooperation that evaporated when Bush decided to quit chasing the terrorists from Afghanistan and invaded the place the terrorists weren't.

Yep, that SHiite Iran giving a damn about Sunni and arch foe Iraq. As if we didn't do them a favor.

[Zunni]

Yep, that SHiite Iran giving a damn about Sunni and arch foe Iraq. As if we didn't do them a favor.

Actually, Iraq is primarily Shi'ite. Saddam was part of the Sunni minority that was running the country, and yes, Bush DID do a huge favor for Iran, removing the only counterbalance in the area that would oppose them. Dumb .

[PixelPusher]

So you mean there is a system of checks and balances in our form of government? Interesting.

So did Bush abide by the decision, ignore it, or dissolve the Supreme Court?

I don't believe Hamdi is a valid case on which to rest your premise the President is disregarding cons utional rights.

Hamdi was captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan, a foreign country. It is my understanding that no other person, in the history of the country, that has been so incarcerated has ever been afforded fourth amendment protections or rights.

It was perfectly reasonable for the Commander in Chief to attempt to get this s bag designated as an enemy combatant and to treat him as such.

But, that your argument rests on such a cir stance is reassuring to me. After all, I know of no case where an American citizen has had any rights or protections negated and, as Extra Stout pointed out in this case, the matter was settled in court -- as it is supposed to be.

The Bush Admin violated Hamdi's cons utional rights. Getting swatted down by the Supreme Court doesn't change or erase what was done.

Therefore, even though he didn't deserve it, Hamdi was afforded his fourth amendment protections and rights.

Next?

That's just it, according to the Supreme Court Hamdi DOES deserve cons utional protections. This might be news to you, but matters of cons utionality are decided by the Supreme Court, not the handpicked, like-minded lawyers at the White House and Justice Department.

[Yonivore]

The Bush Admin violated Hamdi's cons utional rights. Getting swatted down by the Supreme Court doesn't change or erase what was done.



That's just it, according to the Supreme Court Hamdi DOES deserve cons utional protections. This might be news to you, but matters of cons utionality are decided by the Supreme Court, not the handpicked, like-minded lawyers at the White House and Justice Department.

I'm still comfortable with the fact you chose to use Hamdi and that you have no other -- clearly discernible -- cases of where the President has violated anyone's rights.

Many argued that Hamdi didn't deserve cons utional protections. No one, similarly situated in prior conflicts has ever been afforded those protections. The administration relied on precedent. The argument was heard and settled in court -- the cons utional way. And, the administration asceded to the ruling.

Now, can you find me another of the 300 million American citizens the president's blatant disregard for the law has negatively affected?

[FromWayDowntown]

The fact that some haven't discovered that their liberties have been trampled or that such individuals haven't brought suit based on such deprivations doesn't strike me as persuasive proof that this Administration has toed the line and adhered to the law in all cir stances. The on-going litigation concerning the NSA Surveillance program will shed some light on that issue, if it ever reaches a merits-based disposition. And given the secrecy with which the Administration has attempted to operate to this point, who knows if there are other programs in operation that are routinely violating the civil liberties of American citizens.

I understand your point, but I'd hardly say that there's conclusive proof that this Administration feels bound by the Cons ution.

[Yonivore]

The fact that some haven't discovered that their liberties have been trampled or that such individuals haven't brought suit based on such deprivations doesn't strike me as persuasive proof that this Administration has toed the line and adhered to the law in all cir stances. The on-going litigation concerning the NSA Surveillance program will shed some light on that issue, if it ever reaches a merits-based disposition. And given the secrecy with which the Administration has attempted to operate to this point, who knows if there are other programs in operation that are routinely violating the civil liberties of American citizens.

Haven't discovered? I know when my rights and liberties are taken.

Well, gee, do we have a bunch of American citizens that have gone missing and are unable to hire the ACLU to sue the government on their behalf?

Jeeze, there are nearly 300 million people in this country. You'd think that if the administration were wholesale throwing the cons ution out the window a good percentage of those people would have an actionable cause by now. It's only been six years since the left started screaming this nonsense.

I understand your point, but I'd hardly say that there's conclusive proof that this Administration feels bound by the Cons ution.

I think, in this case, and considering the obvious lack of injured parties -- that absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence.

Your proposition suggests the administration should expose sensitive and effective counter-terrorism measure just so you can be comfortable that no one's civil rights are being violated.

I say come up with a clear cut -- deliberate -- violation and, then, we'll talk.

You know, something along the lines of say perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice just so you can deny a litigant their due process rights. Something like that.

[valluco]

Actually, he almost wiped out the terrorists after invading Afghanistan. He did so with the cooperation of IRAN. Think about that for awhile, along with all the other goodwill and cooperation that evaporated when Bush decided to quit chasing the terrorists from Afghanistan and invaded the place the terrorists weren't.

b i n g o.

[Yonivore]

b i n g o.

So, valluco, exactly when did Zarqawi flee Afghanistan and go to Iraq?

[temujin]

What this signals is an increasing sense of loosing the grip of power by The Son.

Poor Colin Powel was just saying OBVIOUS things.

[temujin]

Russians "wiped" out terrorists in Afganistan for 10 years.

British also wiped out some more back then.

It's all a wiping up there.

With some 5 millions mines left behind.

[temujin]

A couple Interior ministry guys are been prosecuted here for helping CIA law-abiding (American laws-abiding) officers kidnap a presumed islamic terrorist, that vanished from the very city where I live.

Apparently, there is no denial.

I don't know how that sells with the American Cons ution, but I am unaware of any article in the ITALIAN Cons ution where this act is possibly allowed.

Not that I care too much about this guy, actually, but the methods are VERY disturbing.
VERY.