http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=8&u=/ap/20040127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/hutchinson_interview
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > This Is Starting To Border On Tyrany |
| Posted by: scottish2 27-Jan-2004, 05:36 AM |
| Now it seems the government has it's hands in our private airline records. Are they issueing search warrants to obtain such records? Nope. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=8&u=/ap/20040127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/hutchinson_interview |
| Posted by: andylucy 27-Jan-2004, 06:28 AM | ||
Bordering on tyrrany? I'd say it's pretty much there. I loved that quote...
Nope, no choice whether to participate. Turn it over or suffer the consequences. Sounds like the sort of thing that would have made old Brezhnev proud.  And who really believes that it will only be used for the stated purposes? Anyone? Anyone? Didn't think so. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 27-Jan-2004, 06:31 AM |
| Well I put borderline but you don't really want to know my true feelings even in a protected forum is too string |
| Posted by: andylucy 27-Jan-2004, 06:36 AM |
Well, I might not REALLY know, but I have a pretty good idea.  Shades of Robespierre!!  Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 27-Jan-2004, 06:39 AM |
I wish we still had it but awhile back we had a smilie being shot from a cannon.  |
| Posted by: maisky 27-Jan-2004, 05:11 PM |
Aw common, we can trust Big Brother, can't we?  |
| Posted by: scottish2 27-Jan-2004, 05:19 PM |
Uha  |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 27-Jan-2004, 06:34 PM |
| Fortunately, I am seeing an increasing awareness by a wide variety of people from diverse backgrounds that the Bush regime needs to be removed. IMHO, the only real questions at this point is whether the Democrats will offer a candidate who is palatable to the general electorate, and if so, whether the Bush regime will allow an honest election. Unfortunately, I have no real confidence that the answer to either question will be yes. Assuming Bush is "re-elected," I see ever-increasing tyranny. YMMV |
| Posted by: scottish2 28-Jan-2004, 07:51 AM |
| Well he should have never been given that office in my view. I mean how tainted was the election and why was he so afraid of letting Florida be recounted in full and properly with all votes being accounted for my those instate and those abroad such as military personel who reside in the state when in country. But I have had problems since day one with Bush and since 911 I can't help but wonder how much he really knew. I know there are theories going around that he let it happen just so he'd have an excuse to push the middle east issue but then it's just hear say and conjecture so don't have any real proof of these statements but I still have to wonder.  |
| Posted by: maisky 28-Jan-2004, 10:18 AM |
| Our government lie to us? No way (looking around fearfully). We can ALWAYS trust them. |
| Posted by: kevsen 28-Jan-2004, 12:52 PM | ||
It wouldn't be too much different with a Democrat in office. President Clinton wasn't above using the powers of his office in ways that could be considered tyrannical. The whole lot of 'em need to be tossed out. However who would take their place? No one that would use the office well runs anymore because they don't want to get "tainted" by having to raise money or some such. |
| Posted by: kevsen 28-Jan-2004, 12:57 PM | ||
You do not have your facts straight on the Florida Fiasco. I am a resident of Florida, in a county that knows how to use voting machines, and you have misrepresented what happened. Gore and his supporters only wanted the two most liberal counties recounted, the ones around Miami and West Palm Beach. He did not want the whole state counted. In recount after recount done by newspaper organizations after the election it was found that President Bush did indeed win Florida, in fact his margin of victory grew. As far as the military absentee ballots go it was Gore and his operatives that moved to have as many of those votes thrown out as possible. |
| Posted by: scottish2 28-Jan-2004, 01:00 PM |
| Well at the same time as tossing them out we'd have to amend the constitution to lay out procedures for punishment for certain cases in regards to rogue politicians. |
| Posted by: scottish2 28-Jan-2004, 01:04 PM |
| Either way it should have been recounted and not left for the candiates to debate if it should or not. A recount was and is the only fair way to determine a winner. |
| Posted by: kevsen 28-Jan-2004, 01:17 PM | ||
I'm all for it!  |
| Posted by: kevsen 28-Jan-2004, 01:19 PM | ||
Recounts were done past the legislated cut-off date. All of them showed Bush the winner. It had to stop eventually, which was the purpose of the legislatively prescribed cut-off date. |
| Posted by: scottish2 28-Jan-2004, 03:39 PM |
| As I understand it though there was never a full recount. I mean there were partials then the courts got involved and put and end to it. And since when do the courts have the right to decide the outcome of an election??? That's congresses job to decide issues like that. |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Jan-2004, 08:08 AM | ||
That's why the current administration is so adament about not subscribing to the world court: Mr. Bush has committed war crimes under international law. I don't think he is interested in sitting in the Dock on trial.... |
| Posted by: scottish2 29-Jan-2004, 08:43 AM |
| I agree fully with this and I think this is one area we need to amendment is that when dealing on the international level our leaders are responsible to the international arena for their actions. This might just help prevent some abuses like the Iraq War. Which by the way is a crime against Peace which according the Nuremberg charter is a crime. |
| Posted by: Swanny 29-Jan-2004, 09:36 AM |
| I have no problem with an amendment to punish abuses of power, but I would oppose any amendent giving authority to any nation or national organization other than our own. I feel we need to protect our sovereignty to the fullest. Swanny |
| Posted by: scottish2 29-Jan-2004, 10:41 AM |
| Internally yes but when we deal with external forces we have to hold ourselves accountable for our actions. Based on your theory you'd let the criminal prosecute him/herself. How likely do you think it would be that they would find themselves guilty? |
| Posted by: Swanny 30-Jan-2004, 12:14 AM |
| Would any sort of world court be any less biased than an American court? EVERYONE has an agenda and every nation has it's own internal and external political agendas. My own agenda is that I already feel alienated by a government that is based 3,000 miles away and doesn't have a stinkin' clue or give a single care about how the laws they create impact my neighbors and I. If I can't trust my own allegedly representative government, how the heck could I be expected to trust a court made up of various governments, all with their own political agendas? Any international court would have representatives either wishing to curry favor with the U.S. or wishing to discredit the US. Do you really think politicians from other nations are any more honorable or trustworthy than our own? You frequently complain of the US courts going well beyond their authority to write as well as interpret law, for example determining the outcome of a presidential election. Is there any reason at all to believe that an international court would not presume to do the same things? Finally, if indeed our president is guilty of crimes then it is our responsibility to charge, hear, try and punish the president, not the responsibility of the world, or the UN or anyone else. OUR responsibility. Asking some higher power that doesn't even exist to do so for is is just another example of trying to make someone else responsible for our own decisions. President Bush will be on trial in November, 2004. I'm betting the whole darned democratic party campaign will be aimed at trying the president for his alleged crimes. If they can make him look bad they certainly will. We put our presidents on trial every four years, each time we hold a presidential election. If we aren't willing to vote him out of office we certainly shouldn't be crying to some world court to do what we are unwilling to do ourselves. Swanny |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 12:27 AM | ||
A wise man once said that a real man will shoot his own dog when necessary, not let someone else who might bungle the job do it. Well said, Swanny. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 05:14 AM |
| Swanny Answer this question as I noticed you didn't Would you let a criminal prosecute him/herself? If your answer is no then why the double standard with regards to a country? A criminal is a criminal no matter the size. Why would you let a US court try the US for a crime the US committed say in Iraq as that's the current main issue at hand today. I would never believe the US was properly punished for said crime with a not guilty verdict unless it was from sources that we not part of the guilty. Like it or not if the USA is really guilty of a war crime then we all are guilty of that crime. Does that mean we should all be sent to Jail? No because it is those who control government that have to take responsibility for their illegal action made in our name and it is the government who should be the ones that take the fall for our country when government commits a crime on the international level. |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 06:15 AM | ||
I'm not Swanny, but can I take a swing at it? Can I? Please? Can I?  The point of your argument seems to be that the entire country is to be held responsible for the deed, and therefore can't be trusted. Isn't that what happened at Versailles in 1918-19? Remember where that led? The person responsible is the one responsible, not the nation at-large. If it is a lowly butter-bar in the field or the commander in chief, there are measures in place for dealing with an alleged perpetrator. If the offense is heinous enough for the commander-in-chief to be held personally responsible for its implementation, he may be tried (after impeachment, of course). For your purposes, a good charge would be under 18 USC 1091 (a)(1), to wit, for violating the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987. It would be a real trial with judges, lawyers, the press and everything. And it would be just as fair as an international trial. Jurists are jurists the world round. No need to compromise our nation's sovereignty to appease other countries, and the alleged perpetrator gets tried. You may not agree with the verdict, but that's life. As I said, a real man shoots his own dog when necessary. He doesn't delegate it to someone who might mess it up. Just my tuppence. Andy Here is a link to the http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 06:50 AM |
| But at least state side the courts are appointed and remain appointed at the grace not of the people but really now a days especially at the grace of government. They have an ax hanging over their head to support the government whenever possible. This is why I say they could never really rule fairly and impartially in cases like this. But face it if there was no crime this would be a moot issue now wouldn't it??? |
| Posted by: maisky 30-Jan-2004, 07:21 AM | ||
Are YOU volunteering to shoot the dog?  |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 07:30 AM |
| Andy By the way missed your USC link as it was below you name signature but is my favorite law website the best one out there even better then the governments version as it oresents law so well. Even their CFR version is pretty good. But not sure that really would help as the USC applies to the US alone. Would you have wanted Germany to try itself for war crimes? Obviously at the point it was good enough for the US to have an internation court charging Nazi's with war crimes so why now should it be different for the US? If it was good enough to have an international court to try war crimes it should still be just as good even if we're the criminals meaning the US |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 08:15 AM | ||
Yep. I had to administer .40 cal therapy to an elderly dog of ours just a couple of weeks ago. He had gotten so down with dysplasia that he couldn't rise. So, I put him out of his misery. Didn't enjoy it, but it had to be done. Andy |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 08:25 AM | ||
Please to note that the Nuremburg Tribunal consisted of the winners of the war. It was not a conglomeration of nations with no stake in anything except national aggrandizement. It was victor's justice. For better or worse. I have never understood internationalist fascination with that tribunal. It was no different from many "courts" which have tried the losers of wars through history. In this one the charges were different, but the outcome was the same, except there was no financial levy on Germany. And there is the fact that the socio-political infrastructure of Germany was destroyed in the war. They had no way to effectively try the accused in German courts. Of course, there was no real legal recourse in German law at the time. There is in United States law at the current time. That is the difference. Other countries might not like it, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 08:33 AM |
| Ok am going to back out of this not because I can't debate it but after yesterday which was a long long day I just don't have the energy to debate this issue like I did in the gay thread. As it stands right now looks like this is one we will have to agree to disagree one. I personally don't feel it is right to those doing criminal activites should try themselves. |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 09:41 AM |
| Ye gods, man. Are you OK? Do you need medical help? That's cool. It is just one of those areas that makes this forum so much fun!! Get some rest, guy! It sounds like you need it. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 09:46 AM |
| No I'm fine just getting ready for a trip to Japn on Monday and one leg of that flight is 14 hours from Atlanta to Tokyo and this doesn't count the 2 shorter flighter to get to Atlana and get from Tokyo to our final destination so after yesterday just don't want to put up much of a fight as it were over an issue. Cause this trip from doorstep to hotel is roughly a 24 hour trip so wicked long. But hey i'm definately looking forward to it and the great food awaiting us |
| Posted by: andylucy 30-Jan-2004, 09:51 AM |
| Well, I hope you have a safe flight(s). Enjoy Japan. It is one of the few non-European places that I have ever wanted to visit. **Suureptitiously praying for Scottish2 and his wife on their flight(s), so as not to offend his atheist sensitivities **Bonne chance! Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 10:06 AM |
You can pray how every you wish that's your beliefs, but thank you  I'm more worried about the governments involvement with my flights then the flights themselves. Always have to wonder which flight they have chosen as the guinee pig for their next conquest |
| Posted by: maisky 30-Jan-2004, 10:17 AM |
| This is an international forum, so let's set up our own Kangaroo court right here! We can try the scalawag before we hang him, errr, we can give him a FAIR trial. |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 10:26 AM |
| Well could always use the old phrase "shoot them all and let God sort them out. (That's the phrase but you can substitute what you wish for God as you can guess that I am ) And not talking shot as in gun to clarify read maisky's thread in this forum is currently right near the top of the thread. |
| Posted by: Swanny 30-Jan-2004, 10:38 AM |
| We can agree to disagree, at least long enough for you to enjoy a wonderful time in Japan. Wishing you the very best of holidays. Swanny |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 10:47 AM |
| Thanks and I expect good behavior from you all while I am away No throwing Hot Potatos at each other LOL |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 30-Jan-2004, 03:09 PM |
| S2, Have a safe and enjoyable trip. Things'll likely be a bit quiet with our number one pot-stirrer on vacation, but we'll try to carry on as best we can. |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 03:13 PM |
| Thanks! |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 30-Jan-2004, 04:09 PM |
| hehehe... ah well.. it'll have to do *grins* have fun dear and enjoy everything that comes your way, even the flight. |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Jan-2004, 04:12 PM |
| Well at least the 14 hour flights on a Boeing 777 which is great for me as i'm 6'3" and this aircraft gives me loads of leg room. PLus an individual movie screen at my seat. |