And more came out of that trial. The CIA testified it could tap any call Bin Laden made on a cell phone. Shortly thereafter, Bin Laden gave up using cell phones for good.
I'd be most interested, Mr. Gonzalez, if you could mutter more than a "humma humma" over the fact that the liberal application of the Bill of Rights that you are advocating is the kind of thing that can help a US arch-enemy destroy the WTCs. The 6th Amendment required this trial to be public, for him to have a lawyer who managed to wrench out national security secrets from the system, and for our enemy to hear everything including our advice on how to do it better the next time. This all happened under the Clinton administration. He should have declared a state of emergency back then when the terrorists bombed our embassies in Africa.
Bush is trying to prevent the same thing from happening again with these tribunals, and people who try to defend him get accused of being stupid!!! It's an upside down world.
Continuuing states of emergency have kept us on a false war-footing and has "excused" a variety of abuses over the years, and no president has any intention of giving up those dictatorial powers, nor will they ever "come clean" on what's going on with them. It goes back to when the people of this nation became collateral for debts, so-called "debts" that were artifically induced by *some*.
Way too complicated for a single post, but that's sort of a quick gist of it.
What's going on now is really nothing new, he's just making it official that from here on out any pretense of civilian constitutional law is suspended for the duration, the duration publically identified by bush and cheney to be generations long. Perpetutity in other words. All they are doing is saying it outloud in a clearer but still obfuscated fashion. And this "message" is being purposely dumbed down to the professional advertisers 12 year old level of the US "norm", about the same as most speeches out of washington.
You are a desperate man, grabbing at any piece of debris that floats by to save yourself from drowning. But I will not allow you to lie.
Our argument here is that you claim that the Bill of Rights only "covers" people "of the United States"...whatever that means, and that people need to pay taxes to have those rights. I have posted your words to that effect several times.
Now, all you have to do is try to support your lie that I advocate open trial by jury of Usama bin Laden, I support military tribunals, which is WHY I posted the articles by Dean, and Rinquist (they have a lot of big words, you may need to get some help reading them), but the very fact that President Bush has seen need to issue an EO to make military tribunals for accused terrorists happen, is an acknowledgement that those rights exists for foreign nationals in the US...otherwise, why issue the EO?
"That's about the most liberal thing I've ever heard...- does he (Barr) want to extend American rights to people who don't pay American taxes?? Posted by H.Akston
No Hugh, THAT is the most liberal thing I have ever read.
America according to H.Akston: "You pay your taxes, the government gives you your rights."
So then, Bill Gates has way more rights than either one of us?
Hey! I have an idea! Why sell rights to citizens? I mean, how much money can there be in that? We could sell secrets to the Chinese! I like your ideas Hugh!