<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br><div><div>On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> Personally I find all this talk about "tyranny" to be little more than hyperbole.<br> <br> The Supreme Court said that Congress needed to establish the rules for treatment of terrorist suspects being detained by the United States, and so Congress did. <br> <br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>Read the rules and think through the implications. That should be enough. If it isn't then nothing I or anyone else says is likely to reach you.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> It was not tyranny when thousands of Japanese and Germans (yes, Germans too) were interred during World War II. Was it illegal and misguided? Arguably so. But not tyranny. Not a usurpation of the government. Not an unconstitutional suspension of rights of American citizens (nothing in the article originally referenced supports the notion that ordinary Americans can be detained under this bill as far as I can tell). <br><br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>Actually this bill allows anyone at all, including you and I, to be declared an "enemy combatant" by government fiat and many of our rights and protections removed simply on that basis. This is leaving the barn door wide open to unspeakable abuse.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> The right of Habeus Corpus, according to the Constitution, cannot be suspended except in times of invasion or insurrection. We have seen both of those things. Foreign terrorists attacking our shores on 9-11. Americans going to join their cause in armed militancy supporting Al Quaeda and the Taliban. I think there's a case to be made that the conditions for the suspension of Habeus Corpus have been met. Others may disagree, but it's hardly the case that it's an open-and-shut "no." If the Bush administration were determined to overthrow the rule of law, they would have started with the first Supreme Court ruling that said the military tribunals as originally composed were illegal. <br> <br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>There is no invasion. 9/11 was no invasion. There is no limit in this bill that will cause it to only pertain to those who join actual terrorist groups. It is an open and shut no. The Bush administration has admitted to acting outside the rule of law and now seeks (and gets) retroactive law approving those illegal acts such as mass warrantless wiretaps. The administration has no been given new laws that allow it to do more of what it pleases outside of judicial review or any meaningful constraints. Do you not see this as dangerous?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><br><blockquote type="cite"> Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only </blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Bush ossibly over-zealous but nothing more? I am rendered speechless. We are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few nutcase terrorist groups. If you care about preserving our way of life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><br><blockquote type="cite">incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the 13th Century. <br> <br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"> The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be avoided at all costs.<br> <br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>What a silly fantasy this is. Besides, in this most powerful nation on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all to live under Old Testament law. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>- samantha</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> Joseph<br> <br> spike wrote: <blockquote cite="mid200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bounces@lists.extropy.org">bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">There should be massive demonstrations over this. Why isn't there?!
</pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->...
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Those who don't care about impeaching a criminal don't care
about their country turned into a dictatorship...
</pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->My understanding is that it was congress that did this, not the executive
branch. I would interpret it as empty electioneering: the congressmonsters
do not want to appear soft on terrorism right before the election.
Legislative branch grandstanding is done all the time, but it is still
meaningless. What counts is if the supreme court upholds it. I predict
that the court will knock it down without a second thought.
Regarding massive demonstrations, we have congressional elections in a few
weeks. We will see what happens there.
spike
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre> </blockquote> <br><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">_______________________________________________</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">extropy-chat mailing list</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a></div> </blockquote></div><br></body></html>