This was more than one dog set on fire and one horse having its leg tendons slashed. Don’t trivialize the issue, I tend to expect better from you. Downtown Seattle was trashed by “peaceful” protesters against globalization.
They need a judge to ok these actions.
Keep the shrill sounding bits about John Ashcroft out of this. If you’re going to slander a man for something, you better be damn sure he actually did something to deserve besides existing and being a Republican.
Peaceful anti-war/globalization protesters have shown themselves to be anything but peaceful. Cities expecting WTO or President Bush normally have the cops doing overtime weeks in advance(with considerable help and info from the Seattle police) to keep the situation under control to protect normal people with normal businesses trying to make an honest living versus some career protesters and what Lenin referred to as “useful idiots.”
The situation is very similiar to World War 2 when there was a very vocal minority against joining the war and even some people advocating joining the war on Germany’s side. “Yertle the Turtle” by Dr. Seuss and “The Little Dictator” by Charlie Chaplin were considered cutting edge and a bit rude. I believe that history has shown them to be somewhat visionary.
Once again, we find ourselves brought into yet another war that we really would like nothing to do with by an attack on American soil. Once again certain liberties and gov’t. powers are expanded to deal with this emergency. When this is over those powers will rescend. Our country is currently at war and will be for some time. That is a plain fact. There is nothing we can do about it, except kill and incapacitate those trying to inflict harm on us. If we do nothing then we have failed miserably. The next 9/11 might be a nuclear attack on American soil thanks to Iranian nuclear ability.
As a friend, I would recommend putting down those pesky liberal magazines and start reading some factual history. I’m sure Cold Front could help you pick out some good titles.
psst…after 911 the president declared a state of emergency. every american knows what happens in such a time: the constitution gets suspended and the president gets a free hand. remember lincoln and habeus corpus? it was unconstitutional but he got away with it. why? because in a “state of emergency” (such as todays) the constitution goes out the window.
Why?? So far he hasn’t put forth any reasonable arguments whatsoever, just the usual shrill screeching of the Left: “Ashcroft bad! Saddam good! Kim Jong-Il nice little boy!” Ah, those lovely screams from the pigs being gelded.
On the plus side, he’s a dying breed. Look at the “antiwar” human shields who went to Iraq – they turned around and ran tail. One even went public and said that the group was wrong.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the old “liberal” media is losing market share and is being publicly humiliated at every turn – the NYT with Jayson Blair and the 1932 Pulitzer scandal, CNN with their admission that they slanted their coverage on Iraq so that they wouldn’t get thrown out. The ALA shut up real fast after Ashcroft announced that the feds had never even used the “library history” provision of the Patriot Act, and that it required a subpoena from a judge anyway – “due process” and all that.
Oooh, the FBI might investigate me at random for terrorist connections? Well, shit-fire, Billy Bob, they’ve got my fingerprints on file from my CCW permit application. Besides, they’re too busy investigating MT’s buddies in the ELF/ALF/EAC for the many arsons, bombings, and property crimes that they’ve engaged in over the years.
So Bush is doing away with Constitutional rights? Really?? Which ones? Isn’t MT the one who said that no Constitutional right is absolute, and that reasonable gun controls were entirely Constitutional, just as “freedom of speech” could be infringed by prohibiting people from yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater?
Not that I expect much of a response – MT is clearly trolling with all of these nonsensical topics. :moo:
But, fred, unless I’m mistaken, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you. Thats’ just one more reason for the need to preserve the 2nd Amendment.[/quote]
Are not obligated to protect us? Oh, please explain more. This sounds quite interesting. The Hong Kong wife has not, until now, been able to understand why I want to teach her how to shoot a pistol the next time we visit the States.
Respondents’ failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father’s violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 194-203.
(a) A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.
Arguably the most famous case was the multiple rape case in Washington D.C., “Warren et al vs. D.C.”: outlawslegal.com/friendly/scam.htm
This site is a little outre’ in its presentation, but since it includes a list of other cases which also “affirm” that the police have no duty to protect you as an individual, I’ll use it rather than a more serious one.
The case of these women also bears directly on why your wife should learn to shoot. If you’re heading to the western Washington (Seattle, etc.) area, let me know, and I’ll dig up some instructors’ contact info.
hmmm…military tribunals for non-military personnel (civilians) is called “martial law” is a spin free society.
someone, please provide information on how the US works within the parameters of a “state of emergency”. when bush declared such on about 9/14 he invoked U.S.C. 50. i am not a lawyer and won’t even try to be. hopefully someone here is already well-versed in this vital but obscure niche of american jurisprudence.
[quote=“Peter King and Ed Koch regarding criticisms of the ‘Patriot Act’”]All this for a law that two years ago passed both houses overwhelmingly, with only one dissenting vote in the Senate… Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who recently said she hadn’t found a “single abuse of the Patriot Act” - and when she asked the ACLU for any instance of abuse, was told, “they had none.” Similarly, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said criticism of the Patriot Act “is both misinformed and overblown” and the Justice Department has “done a pretty good job in terms of implementing” the law… We are also well aware that all police powers are susceptible to abuse. That risk exists, however, every time we give a law-enforcement office a loaded weapon. It is the job of the Legislatures and the courts to guard against such abuses.
Having raised these concerns, we commend President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft for the superb job they have done over the past two years. Our liberties have been protected and our country has not been attacked. Unlike their critics, George W. Bush and John Ashcroft have had to face the hard choices and make the hard decisions. And they have made them well.