Why do I love George Bush?

Well, I'm not going to refight the Vietnam War with you, UG. I won't argue that the number of deaths in that part of the world, Cambodia's killing fields, included, has not been a great human tragedy. However, Pol Pot might never have siezed power but for the US invasion which destabilized the country.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And Ted Rall is as much a walking embodiment of wrongness as Michael Crook. Emetic, the both of them.

Rall is a walking embodiment of violent opinion. When he's right he's devastating, and when he's wrong he's disgusting.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

HM, it's the disgusting that leaves the lasting taste. Ptui!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

HM, I'd call three thousand dead of a Tuesday morning sufficiently oppressive,wouldn't you? They're trying to coerce us with murders. Let us kill them instead.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

They're trying to coerce us with murders. Let us kill them instead.

We're killing a lot more than "them".

[Skunks]

UG, I disagree.

Although 9/11 was tragic, and killed a lot of people in a manner that is very rare in America (hostile, dramatic, large-scale, and relatively sudden), people here die all the time to other causes. <A href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792158/">Some 42,636 people died on the nation’s highways in 2004</a>.

What has been oppressive, however, are the actions afterwards. The PATRIOT Act is a very clear-cut case of oppressive legislation, threatening as it does freedom of speech, of the press, & simple privacy. There are other, more debatable examples: Iraq. (I have done no research.)

Oppression in my mind is something more omnipresent than one Tuesday morning. A regime, a way of life. A single act of terrorism is oppressive only if its shock value is milked for fear and, in turn, one allows him or herself to be oppressed & controlled by it--to <i>live</i> in fear of it. One is, I believe, still under the control of someone else if, regardless of how long after the fact, they act only for revenge & retribution.

The best way to fight terrorism is not to be afraid: to continue to live.

[Undertoad]

The Patriot Act is peanuts. Nothing. Zip.

Women made up 7 percent of all inmates in state and federal prisons last year and accounted for nearly one in four arrests, the government reported Sunday.
...
"The number of incarcerated women has been growing ... due in large part to sentencing policies in the war in drugs," The Sentencing Project, a group promoting alternatives to prison, said in a statement.

The group said the number of drug offenders in prisons and jails has risen from 40,000 in 1980 to more than 450,000 today. According to FBI figures, law officers in 2004 made more arrests for drug violations than for any other offense - about 1.7 million arrests, or 12.5 percent of all arrests.

Those sentenced for drug offenses made up 55 percent of federal inmates in 2003, the report said.
...
The Sentencing Project said the continued rise in prisoners despite falling crime rates raises questions about the country's imprisonment system. The group said the incarceration rate - 724 per 100,000 - is 25 percent higher than that of any other nation.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Patriot Act is peanuts. Nothing. Zip.

The government has not revealed the total number of people detained by the Department of Justice since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but immigration advocates believe that it is between three and five thousand. It is known, however, that this group is almost entirely Arab, South Asian, or Muslim and most have been deported or allowed to leave the country. None of the detainees has been charged with any terrorism-related crime. These secret detentions exemplify the dramatic erosion of constitutional rights under the Bush administration.

No, 3,000 or so arrests in comparison to all those drugs arrests ain't much, but the arrests of 3,000 who were NEVER charged with a crime is NOT "Nothing."

Let's summarize a few of the fun things the government can now do:

Conduct “sneak and peek” searches, which allow law enforcement to enter people’s homes and search their belongings without informing them until long after;

Direct a library, bookstore or newspaper to produce “tangible things,” e.g, the titles of books an individual has purchased or borrowed or the identity of individuals who have purchased or borrowed certain books;

Authorize the use of devices to trace the telephone calls or e-mails of people who are not suspected of any crime;

Investigate American citizens and permanent legal residents and seek information on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment (e.g., writing a letter to the editor or attending a rally).

The government’s investigative powers extend to people not suspected of any terrorist activities and those ordered to provide information are barred from mentioning the investigation to anyone.

But, gee, the government would NEVER mis-use these powers, now would it? This is the US of A, after all and every single civil servent, elected official, FBI agent, cop, CIA operative, etc. is a pure, shining angel from heaven.

Oh, ye of little faith!

Its inspiring to read your posts sometimes, UT. Your child-like innocence is so - refreshing.

[Happy Monkey]

Don't worry, the Patriot Act will be used to boost those drug arrests, too.

[Undertoad]

Please point to a non-moonbat site with proof of the 3-5000 detainees.

Is the ACLU a moonbat outfit? If not, I'll give the link.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Is the ACLU a moonbat outfit?

Yes.

The few shreds of credibility they retained fluttered away in the wind generated by their defense of the child molesters.

They defended child molesters?!? Really? What was THAT all about? YUCK! I can't believe the ACLU would do that. Tell me more about the case.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Khaled Albitar, Khaled, Naeem, Khurram, Khaled K. Abu-Shabayek, Husain Raza, Sadek Awaed, Sadwar Yamen, Benamar Benatta, Anser Mehmood.......

Look at those names.......they must be guilty.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by marichiko

They defended child molesters?!?

They defend rights. Other parts of society are most likely to let rights slide in the case of scum like child molesters, but if you let them slide in one place, that becomes precedent.

When the ACLU takes a case, it's not about the individual, but the point of law.