by ThiChi 51 Replies latest social current
HS:
Who stated this and when? I would like to read the entire transcript. I believe you probably took what was said out of context.
Secondly, it has been proven that Iraq has banned weapons under UN Resolutions. Plus, I bet you have not read Inspector Blix' final report to the UN issued last Friday....
This is a “case in point” to #1
Mustang:
Mustang:
Who said anything about war protesters? You should read who have been prosecuted under this Act,
As is the case with many laws, their intent and use is as important as the exact wording. Knowing the intent and use of the Sedition Act, would make it difficult to trust anyone promoting its use. The premise is that we should stop being American and stop trusting Democracy during a period of war. All the necessary precautions for handling sedition during war are already in place without the Sedition Act. For that reason alone the act should be looked upon suspiciously as an act of sedition against America and democracy. It supposedly gives the United States the legal right to act (during war) in the same manner that Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and others have acted in the face of opposition.
The following might be of interest. It was a comment about US Senate Bill 1510.
This bill is similar to the one Adolf Hitler pushed through the Reichstag after the Reichstag fire in the early 1930's. German Jews, horrified by the chaos in Germany after the fire, supported Hitler's legislation - then found he could (and planned to) use it against them.
This is worse legislation than the Sedition Laws of the 1790's, later declared unconstitutional and leading to the end of John Adams' presidency.
Gamaliel
Here are the premises I support:
“This is worse legislation than the Sedition Laws of the 1790's, later declared unconstitutional and leading to the end of John Adams' presidency. “
1. This did not end Adam's presidency. In fact his helped his "numbers" go up!
2. The Sedition Act has never been declared unconstitutional. In fact,durning the 1800s, it was not yet established that the High Court could declare federal acts unconstitutional…..
ThiChi,
Here are the premises I support:
- Deliberate misinformation and lies are wrong
- Civil obstruction, beyond speech, after the war has started should be addressed.
- Any act that compromises the safety of our troops should be addressed.
I thought you supported Bush!?!?!?
Gamaliel
???? WHo said I don't? And who said that Bush supports this Act?
It's funny how things can be used, depending on who has the most power. Govt reps lied about iraq's weapons: aluminim tubes, uranium acquisitions from africa, iraqi connections to al queda-
Deliberate misinformation and lies are wrong
War (excuse me, military action) based on false premises is now seeing young american soldiers killed, in extreme fatigue, and likely in danger-
Any act that compromises the safety of our troops should be addressed.
Puzzled SS
""Govt reps lied about iraq's weapons: aluminim tubes, uranium acquisitions from africa, iraqi connections to al queda- ""
Not true! Did you read Blix's final report to the UN? Or Iraq's POW fingering al queda? Or the many reports that fly in the face of your claims?
missinformation and lies are wrong
If so all countrys how go out in war are lier, as we all now the truth is the first wicktim in war.
We se this evry evning in the news,if you dont I rekomend you to putt on better glasses.
Missinformation is a bigg part of modern war taktik, grow upp my friend.
widh love from HM
