Hello Cappies!

[LOTFW]

Let's say you're a cappie. Now let's say you're an idiot, completly unaware of what's going on. But I repeat myself. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm such a riot!

Okay. One of the things you all pride yourself on is the requirement of writ of habeas. If you didn't know, it's one of the things listed in Art I, Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution, expressly stated as something Congress CAN NOT suspend (unless there were an invasion, or rebellion).

So WHAT happened!???!???

If the executive can secretly suspend it without reporting its conduct to Congress, why not 4th Amendment rights? Why not other contitutional protections?

I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by the terrorsts who killed thousands of our people. No problem hunting him and his ilk down and killing him and them. (Yeah, commies can believe that; we're allowed to support killing people who kill us.)

But I don't think 9-11 meant the Constitution is in the toilet.

What's up w/ Habeas?

[Publius]

Last I heard we traded it in for a McDonald's franchise -- we made it out like bandits.

[Dros]

Bourgoisie rights are rather meaningless. These rights need to be viewed in the context of the system they are set up to purpetuate. The Bourgoisie can do whatever the fuck they want to preserve their capitalist system. I think Bush was a dumbass doing what he did and it is kinda scary to think of the U.S. government deteriorating into fascism but that seems to be where we're headed.

[LOTFW]

Publius: you made me laugh.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:13 pm
I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by the terrorsts who killed thousands of our people. No problem hunting him and his ilk down and killing him and them.
It was just "chickens coming to roost," and I don't see why exactly a Leftist of any branch would support the imperialists hunting down and executing anyone. Not to mention some of the above quote seems rather nationalist, imo.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This isn't a capitalist vs. anti-capitalist issue. Everyone who lives in the United States, regards of their politics, should be disturbed by the erosion of the rights of the citizenry. Habeus Corpus dates all the way back to feudalism, for goodness sake.

Like one poster previously stated, it's part of a general trend in the direction of Fascism. Some think this is alarmist, but the signs are there: Nationalism, corporatist piracy, fear of "the Other" (in this case, Islamic extremists), etc.

[MT5678]

All right, you have no problem with getting bin Laden. Then you should know that the U.S. should have taken up the Taliban on their extradition offer before the bombings began (Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, documented, but you won't hear it in the bourgeois news :lol: ), rather than barged in and screwed over the economic situation of a country and killed tens of thousands.

And also, you should know that America's policies are the reason for quite a bit of terror and discontent. The influential Muslim Brotherhood is a good example. It is based in Egypt, who is full of people fed up with U.S. backed de facto dictators like Mubarak et al. Throughout the 1990's, bin Laden appealed to U.S. backed injustice, like the murderous sanctions in Iraq, support for the Saudi Monarchy, and unconditional backing of Israel. Right up to the onset of the bombing (and after, of course), many Arabs were against military action against Afghanistan, instead favoring extradition. And the U.S. still invaded! It doesn't care about security at all. As Michael Scheuer, a (correct but misguided) senior CIA analyst on bin Laden put it, "our policies are radicalizing the Middle East". He is correct in this regard.

Don't use the word American to describe youself, except as a colloquial, and use "estadounidense" and "a world citizen" instead. Unless you are a cappie.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 12, 2007 09:40 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 12, 2007 09:40 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 04:13 pm
I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by the terrorsts who killed thousands of our people. No problem hunting him and his ilk down and killing him and them.
It was just "chickens coming to roost," and I don't see why exactly a Leftist of any branch would support the imperialists hunting down and executing anyone. Not to mention some of the above quote seems rather nationalist, imo. [/b]
Very true. I would like LOTFW to explain what he thinks the definition of 'terrorist' is. Arguably every member of every imperialist army in the world is a terrorist - in a time of relative peace why would you sign up other than to establish your country as dominant over others or just to plainly murder - both are disgusting motives. The American army doesn't just kill 'terrorists' it kills innocent people too; I would the USA is creating a mirror image of 9/11, but they have gone too far. The Taliban are monsters I agree, but it is key to remember they were made monstrous. Bin Laden is effectively Bush's Minotaur.

[pusher robot]

I have no idea what point the OP was trying to make. The serious answer to the question of what happened to habeus is that it still exists for all but a tiny number. Are there concerns about this? Yes, of course. What does this have to do with capitalism?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 12, 2007 03:53 pm
The serious answer to the question of what happened to habeus is that it still exists for all but a tiny number.
That's not the point.

The point is that that tiny number does not have habeas corpus, and once it is removed for a few, that calls into question its position as a fundamental human right, i.e. the right to petition against unlawful detainment.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1195161.htm

They aren't even allowed lawyers, for Christ's sake.


What does this have to do with capitalism?

That its claim to represent the principles of liberty and freedom can be discarded when necessary.



But I don't think 9-11 meant the Constitution is in the toilet.

Who cares about the Constitution? The Fourteenth Amendment is the ultimate entrenchment of corporate "rights".

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 12, 2007 02:40 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 12, 2007 02:40 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 04:13 pm
I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by the terrorsts who killed thousands of our people. No problem hunting him and his ilk down and killing him and them.
It was just "chickens coming to roost," and I don't see why exactly a Leftist of any branch would support the imperialists hunting down and executing anyone. Not to mention some of the above quote seems rather nationalist, imo. [/b]
At the same time, it was an instance of American civilians being killed on the basis of them being American, so I think it's pretty logical to think the subsequent invasion was in self-defense.

No one in mainstream society ever raised the question of withdrawing American troops from Saudi Arabia and American funds and weapons from Israel, which were the two primary motivators for the attack.

[Robert]

My heart soars like a hawk on reading of your affection, dear commy, for Art. I, sec. 9. Pusher is correct that it has nothing to do with capitalism. Never mind. Since you claim to honor the constitution, you also support my private right to enter into contracts. I can work for you for $5, $50, or $500 per hour. And you'd better pay or I'll sue. And you won't go crying to your mommy or to some commy legislator to say it's prohibited capitalism. Cause it ain't:

"Article I, section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, expost facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Interstate and foreign commerce are also contemplated by the document. And you want to eliminate money without throwing out the existing Constitution? Good luck. You'll need it.

p.s. I looked for "socialism" in the document but didn't find it. I did try.

[pusher robot]

That its claim to represent the principles of liberty and freedom can be discarded when necessary.

Well that's only true if you are operating on the assumption that the United States government is the definition of capitalism. Which is about as valid as my assumption that China is the definition of communism.

In case you haven't noticed, actual capitalists have a lot of beefs with the U.S. government.

[Lynx]

Time for Cuba to seize the colonialist relic known as Guantanamo Bay!

[LOTFW]

So Much to Write!!!

I wrote this at another thread.


It is impossible for me NOT to be a citizen of the United States. The Constitution says I am, and if I were to sue the state for violating my rights, I'd HAVE to claim I am a citizen of the U.S. and the state wherein I reside, which is the language of the 14th Amendment.

While I like you (I presume) am an international, it would be absurd to pretend the USA doesn't exist, nor 50 state constitutions as well.

I had an on air conversation with Sonali Kohlatkar, who has had a couple of shows on Pacifica Radio. That's a leftist radio organization that has many affiliates and attracts socialists and Marxists of many stripes. She made the comment on a previuos broadcast that she "has never accepted the 'honor' of being an American." I discussed this with her because 1) she comes from Texas*, and has no problem telling of her origins. She's anti-capitalist, but makes money various ways she can; she has important degrees in physics, and has used them in ways that have indirectly benefitted the military. She has used the courts for protection, and has (had to) state in such documents, that she is a citizen of California. I could go on.

I don't believe living in fantasy. As I have written several times, I am an internationalist. However, I cannot escape being an American. I am also proud of the American Revolution, and its contribution to revolution. (Here's where I differ w/ many here, I suppose, who ONLY view the American Revolution as a transfer of wealth, with no contribution to the betterment of society. This is a mistake. But I won't bore people with this too much here. Let's just say that as much as I can argue about Art. I, Sec. 9's betrayal by the current executive, I can argue against those who believe the Constitution was ONLY about property rights. An extreemly invalid argument.)

I support the demobilization of the United States forces world-wide, but support all nations having some defensive military ability, to repel invasion. Obviously I'm against the war in Iraq, but support the U.S. killing those who attacked the U.S. All people have this right, just as the Vietnamese (hardly Marxist in reality) had the right to fight the U.S. in the 60s and 70s.

For those who argue 9-11 was a long time in coming "world reaction" against America, this argument is crap. It was launched by truely evil people, who's tiny religious point of view would stand against ANY or Marx's or Che's goals and ideals.


pusher robot:

The point I'm making is far more frightening than capitalism v. socialism. One of the great cornerstones of Anglo-American law, differing it from pre-WWI Europe and Latin America, and China, is that in the UK and the USA, people generally do not "disappear". This is because of the expansive Habeus Corpus law.

The term literally means something like, "produce the body", and uses a series of writs (judicial orders) to move a prisoner from point A to point B. Without it, nearly every other protection of the Constitution has no meaning.

Unlike some of my colleagues here, I do not believe the Constitution is a sham. America is filled, for the most part, with reasonable people attempting to succeed at their system the best they can on a day to day basis. Most Americans who hold power, from judges to marshalls, do not get out of bed thinking to themselves,

"What can I do today to continue the pretense that America is a free country? At the same time, though I know it's all a sham, how can I raise my kids not to question authority, and hand over to corporations all of their wealth as they grow older. And finally, how can I preserve the American Empire and exploit the people of the world outside of America."

No one does this. If such a thing did occur, American would die from a cancer within by 2015. No free people could live with themselves, and they would die inside.

But it is disappointing not seeing massive protest over this one issue. It may become the death of the political soul of the United States.

Now pusher: on to your question of the link between the violation of Habeus Corpus and capitalism. Here's where my colleagues at Rev Left will agree with me 100 %.

It's easy for most in America to go to bed at night thinking, "Well, it's alright for Habeus Corpus to be suspended illegally to search for Bin Laden and Co."

The problem is that as America has moved toward a society of private organization protecting civil rights, we are very close to having our Fourth Amedment rights determined by a private organization. Better people than I here at the forum have documented the rise of private organizations paid in the aftermath of emergencies; work normally done by local militias or the like. Once it becomes the norm for Blackwater to determine for society what a search is versus what a frisk is under Terry v. Ohio, we'll be one step away from "Robocop", where OCP arrests people on the basis of not whether they break the law, but whether they are a threat to capital. This is the fascism too many here talk of as it's already happened. But it is definately heading in that direction. Not because of Bush, but because no one is exercising the vigilence that Jefferson spoke that was necessary to maintain our democratic institutions.

My reasons for abandoning Constitutional principles for Communism:

As someone who is not versed in Marx, my views are based on a more primal interest: THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANY SOCIETY SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE A CIRCUMSTANCE OF SO FEW PEOPLE OWNING SO LITTLE PROPERTY. One third of our society rents. Capitalism has created a circumstance INVERSE to its own principles. Simply put: It won't do what it promises.

Many here on the O.I. board continue (ad nausium) to ask the question, "Who will do the shit jobs in a Marxist society?" Well who does them in America? According to basic capitalist ideals, you raise the pay until you have the workers. But in America, what you do is you import people to do it, instead of pay people. I have a radical CAPITALIST notion. Why not increase the pay of farmers, and toilet scrubbers, and hotel workers to WHAT THE MARKET WILL SUSTAIN?

pusher: We now have a society that refuses to house, clothe, and feed people, but will create a regime change in a region of the world where we have no business being. That can't be explained. Not by you or anyone else. Sorry for going on pusher, perhaps I should have stopped after I discussed the Habeus Corpus and Robocop analogy.

Lynx:
Were Cuba to attempt to seize control of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba woud be the Fifty-first United State within two years after the attempted seizure.

Robert the Great:
Please allow me to respond to your comments later on today.

[pusher robot]

pusher: We now have a society that refuses to house, clothe, and feed people, but will create a regime change in a region of the world where we have no business being. That can't be explained. Not by you or anyone else. Sorry for going on pusher, perhaps I should have stopped after I discussed the Habeus Corpus and Robocop analogy.

No, it's okay. Believe me, I share your liberal concerns. I am certainly not going to allow myself to be boxed into the position of defending everything the United States does, because the U.S. is sometimes wrong, and I reserve the right to disagree with anybody.

I think the answer to the question about why people aren't up in arms over this, though, is directly related to the fact that the "danger" is still almost entirely theoretical. While there have been one or two high-profile cases, there isn't yet any realized threat. For the average law-abiding person, there are many more problems that have much larger impacts on their day-to-day lives. There's only time to worry about so much at once.

Trust me, though, if large numbers of Americans started being detained without cause, you will see some shit go down, and I'll be a part of it.

[Robert]

if large numbers of Americans started being detained without cause

I doubt that any sane person on the board (there is a handful) has the slightest suspicion that this will happen in our or our children's lifetimes. It's just exciting to think that tin soldiers and Nixon are coming and "we're finally on our own."

Now, when the Commies do take control, which will also not happen in our or our children's lifetimes, my answer will change.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:21 pm
For those who argue 9-11 was a long time in coming "world reaction" against America, this argument is crap. It was launched by truely evil people, who's tiny religious point of view would stand against ANY or Marx's or Che's goals and ideals.
Ah, I see, so apparently, these 'evil devils spewed from the mouth of tarnation' just came out of now where and were motivated by 'religion.' This analysis of 9/11 (along with being anti-Marxist and anti-materialist) is ridiculous considering that nothing comes 'out of now where'; there must be a cause to each effect.

[Robert]

You need to read Mohammed aka "murderous neurotic asshole" Atta's last will and testament.

He was a religious lunatic, the kind I though all good commie's condemned.

Atta's last will & testament (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/will1.htm)


And he was among the smarter of the hijackers.

[LOTFW]

nothing comes 'out of now where'; there must be a cause to each effect.

Yeah. No shit. 9-11 was done because of specific U.S. policies: treaties w/ Saudi Arabia; U.S. forces on Saudi "sacred" soil"; and support of Israel.

This was made very clear by Bin Laden and his ilk.

It didn't come from "out of no where".

Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was based on boycotting sales of oil to Japan after the Japanese invasion of China.

Federal Bldg in Oklahoma due to the government "getting to big".

Cause and effect.

I'm supposed to give into the various scum of the earth and their complaints?

[Lynx]

large numbers of Americans
How large do those numbers have to be?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 13, 2007 05:00 pm
You need to read Mohammed aka "murderous neurotic asshole" Atta's last will and testament.

He was a religious lunatic, the kind I though all good commie's condemned.

Atta's last will & testament (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/will1.htm)


And he was among the smarter of the hijackers.
Err, the last will and testament doesn't mention a single thing about the motivation for the attacks.

That link is down, so here it is:



Mohammed Atta's Last Will & Testament

In the name of God all mighty

Death Certificate

This is what I want to happen after my death, I am Mohamed the son of Mohamed Elamir awad Elsayed: I believe that prophet Mohamed is God's messenger and time will come no doubt about that and God will resurrect people who are in their graves. I wanted my family and everyone who reads this will to fear the Almighty God and don't get deceived by what is in life and to fear God and to follow God and his prophets if they are real believers. In my memory, I want them to do what Ibrahim (a prophet) told his son to do, to die as a good Muslim. When I die, I want the people who will inherit my possessions to do the following:

1. The people who will prepare my body should be good Muslims because this will remind me of God and his forgiveness.

2. The people who are preparing my body should close my eyes and pray that I will go to heaven and to get me new clothes, not the ones I died in.

3. I don't want anyone to weep and cry or to rip their clothes or slap their faces because this is an ignorant thing to do.

4. I don't want anyone to visit me who didn't get along with me while I was alive or to kiss me or say good bye when I die.

5. I don't want a pregnant woman or a person who is not clean to come and say good bye to me because I don't approve it.

6. I don't want women to come to my house to apologize for my death. I am not responsible for people who will sacrifice animals in front of my lying body because this is against Islam.

7. Those who will sit beside my body must remember Allah, God, and pray for me to be with the angels.

8. The people who will clean my body should be good Muslims and I do not want a lot of people to wash my body unless it is necessary.

9. The person who will wash my body near my genitals must wear gloves on his hands so he won't touch my genitals.

10. I want the clothes I wear to consist of three white pieces of cloth, not to be made of silk or expensive material.

11. I don't want any women to go to my grave at all during my funeral or on any occasion thereafter.

12. During my funeral I want everyone to be quiet because God mentioned that he likes being quiet on occasions when you recite the Koran, during the funeral, and when you are crawling. You must speed my funeral procession and I would like many people there to pray for me.

13. When you bury me the people with whom I will be buried should be good Muslims. I want to face East toward Mecca.

14. I should be laying on my right side. You should throw the dust on my body three times while saying from the dust, we created you dust and to dust you will return. From the dust a new person will be created. After that everyone should mention God's name and that I died as a Muslim which is God's religion. Everyone who attends my funeral should ask that I will be forgiven for what I have done in the past (not this action).

15. The people who will attend my funeral should sit at my grave for an hour so that I will enjoy their company and slaughter animals and give the meat to the needy.

16. The custom has been to memorialize the dead every forty days or once a year but I do not want this because it is not an Islamic custom.

17. I don't want people to take time to write things on paper to be kept in their pockets as superstition. Time should be taken to pray to God instead.

18. All the money I left must be divided according to the Muslim religion as almighty God has asked us to do. A third of my money should be spent on the poor and the needy. I want my books to go to any one of the Muslim mosques. I wanted the people who look at my will to be one of the heads of the Sunna religion. Whoever it is, I want that person to be from where I grew up or any person I used to follow in prayer. People will be held responsible for not following the Muslim religion. I wanted the people who I left behind to hear God and not to be deceived by what life has to offer and to pray more to God and to be good believers. Whoever neglects this will or does not follow the religion, that person will be held responsible in the end.

[Robert]

My link works. The problem is on your end.

[synthesis]

Here is one very basic thing most people do not understand about what is called "Islamism."

Islam perceives itself not only as a religion but also as a nation of believers. Therefore, political Islam is not about Islamic hegemony over dar al-Harb, but resistance to non-Muslim control over dar al-Islam, or the Islamic nation.

In other words, it is totally useless for anyone, Marxist or capitalist, to view "Islamism" as the attempt to establish a fundamentalist theocracy.

"Islamism" is inherently nationalist in character, not fundamentalist.

It is vital to recognize that any form of terrorism, secular or religious, is totally rational in its atrocities in that it is the final stage of resistance when all other means have been totally depleted.

Historically, it is the means by which an oppressed nation attempts to force the dominant nation experience the same atrocities that have been committed by the latter upon the former.

The consequence of correctly viewing "Islamism" as nationalism rather than fundamentalism is this:

Although it takes a religious character today, terrorism is always used to accomplish one particular secular goal - resisting foreign hegemony over the "nation". Until we correctly perceive Islamism for what it is, this discourse will get us nowhere.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:53 pm
It didn't come from "out of no where".
Glad to see we agree, though I am a bit confused considering you said the "it was a long awaited reaction," argument was 'crap'.


I'm supposed to give into the various scum of the earth and their complaints?

Who said anything about giving into anyone? This isn't a "you're either for me or against me," type of bag. I'm neither for US imperialist expansion or reactionary groups carrying out wanton destruction upon civilians. Saying that it was 'effect' doesn't mean you instantaneously support bin Laden, whether you live in America or not is irrelvant over-all because workers see no borders comrade.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 13, 2007 07:31 pm
My link works. The problem is on your end.
Yeah, it works now. I was getting a 400 error.

Anyways, I think it's funny that you consider this last will and testament to be indicative of a "religious zealot" and a "murderous neurotic asshole," considering that it's composed of normal cultural and religious customs for Islamic funeral processes.

He says he wants to be buried with good Muslims, that the dude who's cleaning his body shouldn't touch his dick without wearing gloves, that people he never liked shouldn't pretend they were homies with him, and that his money should go to the poor after he's dead.

And you think strong religious beliefs automatically make someone a "murderous neurotic asshole" just because you don't understand their culture or customs. Telling.

[Robert]

It is the final stage of resistance when all other means have been totally depleted.

Fortunately for the rest of us, it is only a small minority on the extreme lunatic fringe of the Islamic world, which included your neurotic friend, who endorse your murderous world view. As for this:

"I don't want a pregnant woman or a person who is not clean to come and say good bye"
. . . .
I don't want women to come to my house to apologize for my death.
. . . .
I don't want any women to go to my grave at all during my funeral or on any occasion thereafter. "

Yes, he was in my opinion a complete asshole, and a murderous one. I do not care what culture champions this brainless misogyny. You may pretend that you do, but I don't believe it.

[synthesis]

I do not care what culture champions this brainless misogyny. You may pretend that you do, but I don't believe it.

It is misogynist, but it has nothing to do with terrorism. The misogyny existed long before "Islamic terrorism" was in the American vocabulary, in fact long before America even existed. I admire your attempts to divert attention to irrelevant issues, but it's not working on me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 13, 2007 03:08 am
My heart soars like a hawk on reading of your affection, dear commy, for Art. I, sec. 9.
For some reason, American capitalists always seem to forget that the US Constitution is not the only constitution in the world, and some countries seem to be holding on to capitalism just fine with no written constitution at all - see the United Kingdom for example.

Holding the US Constitution to be some kind of holy text that is to be worshipped and respected to the letter would be an extremely reactionary opinion even among mainstream bourgeois ideology. There is no place for it among revolutionary leftists. Yes, we wish to abolish the US Constitution. Big fucking deal. Most capitalist countries have abolished numerous old constitutions already.

[Robert]

Yes, we wish to abolish the US Constitution. Big fucking deal.

The "big deal," my inattentive friend, is that this thread is about the cappies' disgraceful indifference to that part of the constitution dealing with habeas corpus. In abolishing the entire constitution, you find yourself aligned with those in the Bush administration condemned by your comrade in post #1. These villains have eviscerated one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

You are a commie-Bushie, a rare breed. What else do you like about Bush?

[Lynx]

Bush doesn't want to abolish the constitution, he wants to pretend he's following it to the letter, just like all 'leaders'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Edric O+December 14, 2007 07:47 am--> (Edric O @ December 14, 2007 07:47 am)
Robert the [email protected] 13, 2007 03:08 am
My heart soars like a hawk on reading of your affection, dear commy, for Art. I, sec. 9.
For some reason, American capitalists always seem to forget that the US Constitution is not the only constitution in the world, and some countries seem to be holding on to capitalism just fine with no written constitution at all - see the United Kingdom for example.

Holding the US Constitution to be some kind of holy text that is to be worshipped and respected to the letter would be an extremely reactionary opinion even among mainstream bourgeois ideology. There is no place for it among revolutionary leftists. Yes, we wish to abolish the US Constitution. Big fucking deal. Most capitalist countries have abolished numerous old constitutions already. [/b]
Fascinating.

And I suppose, hypothetically, if Bush just decided to jail anyone who disagreed with him, you'd be cool with that, right? I mean, you certainly wouldn't argue that your rights had been violated. Because after all, rights like not being taken out behind the chemical sheds and made into bullet butter are merely reactionary laws passed by the bourgeious.

I don't like the state or its laws. But I realize that totally ignoring your "rights" will only lead to disasterous consequences.

[Dros]

I don't like the state or its laws. But I realize that totally ignoring your "rights" will only lead to disasterous consequences.

1.) There already are disasterous consequences.

2.) Rights are pretty much totally ignored in this system anyways.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:18 am

I don't like the state or its laws. But I realize that totally ignoring your "rights" will only lead to disasterous consequences.

1.) There already are disasterous consequences.

2.) Rights are pretty much totally ignored in this system anyways.
You're mostly correct. My point is that if we simply shrug the Consititution off as a reactionary document and ignore it, then the US will move from quasi Fascism to a full blown authoritarian regime. Basically the only "rights" people in the US have are found in that document.

I'm an anarchist, so all this jerking off over the Constitution doesn't really make my putter flutter any more than it does you. But I still recognize that taking a nihilistic attitude towards Bush whiping his ass with it won't be beneficial at the current time.

[Dros]

That is true. I hate bourgois law. But I'm scared of ruling classes who don't obey their own laws.

[MT5678]

Hey, OP. If you back the war in Afghanistan, you are restricted. We oppose imperialism in all its forms. You should know that the U.S. really doesn't give a shit about terror, or it would have been out of there by now. And its not just hindsight. Everyone knows that there is a correlation between U.S. policy and terror. Even the Dept of Defense admitted it (http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/blum_empire.cfm) Its in there somewhere.

I have given you evidence on the matter. I suggest that you read this article for more evidence.
http://www.zmag.org/shalom-confront.htm

Don't even bring up white-man's-burden arguments in favor of the war (although i don't think you will anyways...only a racist would).

[Zurdito]

I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by the terrorsts who killed thousands of our people. No problem hunting him and his ilk down and killing him and them. (Yeah, commies can believe that; we're allowed to support killing people who kill us.)

we don't belive in that kind of "us".

no way would a communist support an imperialist state tracking down and killing groups which react against said imperialism.

if you want the solution get "your" (seeing as you class Americans as "us") troops out of the Middle East, now. don't keep on doingthe same shit that got you bombed. :rolleyes:

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:13 pm
Let's say you're a cappie. Now let's say you're an idiot, completly unaware of what's going on. But I repeat myself. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm such a riot!

Okay. One of the things you all pride yourself on is the requirement of writ of habeas. If you didn't know, it's one of the things listed in Art I, Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution, expressly stated as something Congress CAN NOT suspend (unless there were an invasion, or rebellion).

So WHAT happened!???!???

If the executive can secretly suspend it without reporting its conduct to Congress, why not 4th Amendment rights? Why not other contitutional protections?

I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by the terrorsts who killed thousands of our people. No problem hunting him and his ilk down and killing him and them. (Yeah, commies can believe that; we're allowed to support killing people who kill us.)

But I don't think 9-11 meant the Constitution is in the toilet.

What's up w/ Habeas?
9/11 was a busines,nothing personal