'Fortress America'

[Argus]

The notorious Fifth Amendment is still not fully effective against States.

Your history lesson of when this or that was applied in the US is beside the point given we are talking about today, not long ago. As to the 5th - at least they have one. We do not posess any such protection.

McCarthyism showed how weak the protection for Freedom of Expression was and still is since nothing in law prevents another such age.

Nor anything in our law. At least they have a 5th Amendment.

The American Supreme Court has always been stacked for political purposes. Every Court has been termed either a liberal Court or a Conservative Court according to the political loyalties and persuasion of its majority members. There are no checks and balances in the appointment of members who are there on any President's whim. A confirmation proces that cannot prevent the appointment unless a scandal that is so public that the President cannot maintain his choice is brought to light is the only check.

The American process is open. Every appointment is very closely scrutinized and questioned. His or her credentials are checked, as are all of their decisions. Knowing this, the administration is quite careful about who they appoint, staying away from people who are too radical, or whose past might be checkered, or who simply don't have any credentials. It's true that unless congress has a majority of the other party they can't prevent an appointment, but they delay it and cause a hell of a lot of trouble and bad publicity. Canada's opposition can do nothing.

In Canada, we have a Constitution, dated 1867, that imports all the British freedoms.

Which are generally less than those in the US.

The Canadian Supreme Court has never been allied to a presidency or a political culture.

It is firmly allied to the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is appointed not by the Prime Minister, but by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Attorneys General of the Provinces and with the Bar Association. Every appointment since the first Court has had no taint of political affiliation.

It is appointed by the Prime Minister at his whim. He can feign consultation, but he makes the decision himself and doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. There is nothing and no one who can stop him from appointing, say, a member of the Nazi party of the Supreme Court, if he so chooses. As for there being "No taint of political affiliation" that's utter nonsense. When you get right down to it, the only qualification for appointment is political affiliation. Nothing else counts for much of anything. It is the prime factor in every appointment.

For the BDC, what about Whitewater or a raft of others?

What about them? Were the security services abused?

The Security services in the US are certainly not at a greater distance than in Canada.

Yes, they are. At least to some degree. Their leaders are responsible to Congress and their budgets are decided by congress. Meanwhile, they get their orders through the executive branch. Parliament has no say in any of our security services because parliament is normally made up of a majority of tame seals who vote for the government without question.

[Guest eureka]

That is pretty pathetic, Argus. I thought you really wanted to argue this not just make some silly assertions.

Let me give you one very recent example of the lack of checks and balances in the American Constitution.

On the very first day of the sitting Congress, a rule change was madethat rendered the House Committee on Standaeds and Official Conduct toothless. The committee is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and, henceforth will not investigate a charge of moral or financial wrongdoing unless at least one of the Republicans provides the enabling vote. No impeachment for Bush or Cheney!

That could not happen in our system. I can give you these tidbits until your beard is as long as Santa's. Democracy is dead in America and blind haters of Canada and its heritage of British Freedoms - the widest in the world - still rattle on in their ignorance about the broadcast American mythology.

[Trial-and-Error]

I don't get it! Why do the people on the left--the thinkers if you will--continue their efforts to try and educate those on the right of whom only a fraction it could be said have traces of a brain; namely, those who benefit from U.S. fascist policies. The remainder are hopeless. Utterly, utterly hopeless. Followers, the lot of them--and all without an iota of just plain common sense.

Many times of late I've been tempted to weigh in on the "debates," but have refrained realizing the futility of it all. Let me give you guys on the right a bit of advice. Never mind your bloody sources and your ability to parrot and paraphrase opinions of flaming right "leadership." Try to reason things out on your own based on your own observations and basic facts--not the OPINIONS of others. Think motivation. Think who has the most to gain from a particular policy. Size up the words of a politician to his deeds and actions. Why are the stakes so high in politics? Why does a Bush rise to the Presidency of the U.S.? How did he get there? Why is he there? What are his qualifications? What is his history? Who put him there (and for gawd's sakes, don't tell me it's cuz he was elected). Hell, the questions are endless. Start asking yourselves some. Go on, I dare you. Tell me why YOU feel that Bush is fit to lead. What are his qualifications for leadership? Get down to the basics. You guys on the right aren't fit to discuss politics or government policy until such time as you sort out the fundamentals. And hell, you've made it patently clear that you are building your arguments on a swampland foundation. You haven't the foggiest notion of what's really going on or where American foreign policy is leading to. Not the foggiest!! Dupes!

[Black Dog]

"Thousands" of people, eh? Let's see a reasonably respectable cite to back that up. I want names, and not the names of people who are detained because they are in the US illegally and are fighting deportation or extradiation.

'One huge US jail'

Washington likes to hold up Afghanistan as an exemplar of how a rogue regime can be replaced by democracy. Meanwhile, human-rights activists and Afghan politicians have accused the US military of placing Afghanistan at the hub of a global system of detention centres where prisoners are held incommunicado and allegedly subjected to torture. The secrecy surrounding them prevents any real independent investigation of the allegations.

Prisoner transports crisscross the country between a proliferating network of detention facilities. In addition to the camps in Gardez, there are thought to be US holding facilities in the cities of Khost, Asadabad and Jalalabad, as well as an official US detention centre in Kandahar, where the tough regime has been nicknamed "Camp Slappy" by former prisoners. There are 20 more facilities in outlying US compounds and fire bases that complement a major "collection centre" at Bagram air force base. The CIA has one facility at Bagram and another, known as the "Salt Pit", in an abandoned brick factory north of Kabul. More than 1,500 prisoners from Afghanistan and many other countries are thought to be held in such jails, although no one knows for sure because the US military declines to comment.

Since September 11 2001, one of the US's chief strategies in its "war on terror" has been to imprison anyone considered a suspect on whatever grounds. To that end it commandeered foreign jails, built cellblocks at US military bases and established covert CIA facilities that can be located almost anywhere, from an apartment block to a shipping container. The network has no visible infrastructure - no prison rolls, visitor rosters, staff lists or complaints procedures. Terror suspects are being processed in Afghanistan and in dozens of facilities in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the British island of Diego Garcia in the southern Indian Ocean. Those detained are held incommunicado, without charge or trial, and frequently shuttled between jails in covert air transports, giving rise to the recently coined US military expression "ghost detainees".

Most of the countries hosting these invisible prisons are already partners in the US coalition. Others, notably Syria, are pragmatic associates, which work privately alongside the CIA and US Special Forces, despite bellicose public statements from President Bush (he has condemned Syria for harbouring terrorism, for aiding the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime, and most recently has demanded that Syrian troops quit Lebanon).

...

The floating population of "ghost detainees", according to US and UK military officials, now exceeds 10,000.

[Argus]

"Thousands" of people, eh? Let's see a reasonably respectable cite to back that up. I want names, and not the names of people who are detained because they are in the US illegally and are fighting deportation or extradiation.

'One huge US jail'

The discussion was on freedom in the United States vs freedom in Canada. I don't believe freedom in Afghanistan ever entered into the discussion, nor should it. I'm quite sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people being held prisoner in Afghanistan. That really doesn't relate to freedom in the United States. Or are you presuming that if one says bad things about George Bush one will be arrested by the secret police and shipped to Afghanistan?

I continue to wait for information on the thousands of people being held, no doubt in concentration camps, in the US.

[Argus]

That is pretty pathetic, Argus. I thought you really wanted to argue this not just make some silly assertions.

Let me give you one very recent example of the lack of checks and balances in the American Constitution.

On the very first day of the sitting Congress, a rule change was madethat rendered the House Committee on Standaeds and Official Conduct toothless. The committee is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and, henceforth will not investigate a charge of moral or financial wrongdoing unless at least one of the Republicans provides the enabling vote. No impeachment for Bush or Cheney!

That could not happen in our system.

Where ALL committees are toothless and controlled by the government. And you somehow derive evidence from this that Canada has more freedom than the US?

I can give you these tidbits until your beard is as long as Santa's.

Well, try limiting them to ones which are valid.

[Argus]

I don't get it!  Why do the people on the left--the thinkers if you will--continue their efforts to try and educate those on the right of whom only a fraction it could be said have traces of a brain; namely, those who benefit from U.S. fascist policies.

Do you know what a fascist is? Can you provide examples which show the US is a fascist state or has fascist policies?

The remainder are hopeless.  Utterly, utterly hopeless.  Followers, the lot of them--and all without an iota of just plain common sense. 

Unlike.... you?

Many times of late I've been tempted to weigh in on the "debates,"

I'm gathering that weight would be minimal.

Why does a Bush rise to the Presidency of the U.S.? 

Because he has a folksy charm and a simple message, and the Democrats ran an atrocious campaign with a charisma free candidate?

  Tell me why YOU feel that Bush is fit to lead.

Well... he's been doing it, and people aren't calling him Mr. Dithers.

  You haven't the foggiest notion of what's really going on or where American foreign policy is leading to.  Not the foggiest!!  Dupes!

We're just not as clear thinking as you and, uh, articulate. Yeah, that's the thing, articulate.

[caesar]

QUOTE 

  Tell me why YOU feel that Bush is fit to lead. 

Well... he's been doing it, and people aren't calling him Mr. Dithers.

No, Bush is not called something as simple as Mr Dithers. He is a more shoot now ask questions later. No need to get the fact straight before you order the murder of thousands. I think he has been refered to more like a hitler.

[Trial-and-Error]

Do you know what a fascist is? Can you provide examples which show the US is a fascist state or has fascist policies?

Please do your own research. I refuse to get caught up in the exercise of trying to edify anyone from the political right. I claim the U.S. is fast becoming a fascist state; in fact, I claim the transformation is just a smidge short of complete. Prove me wrong. Once I get an inkling that you have the slightest idea of what you're arguing against, I'll communicate with you further. I state as evidence that you're not quite ready for prime time the infantile responses you gave to my original post.

The remainder are hopeless. Utterly, utterly hopeless. Followers, the lot of them--and all without an iota of just plain common sense.

Unlike.... you?

Exactly!

Many times of late I've been tempted to weigh in on the "debates,"

I'm gathering that weight would be minimal.

Sad to say but "gathering" anything is an exercise which is presently beyond your reach.

Why does a Bush rise to the Presidency of the U.S.?

Because he has a folksy charm and a simple message, and the Democrats ran an atrocious campaign with a charisma free candidate?

Tell me why YOU feel that Bush is fit to lead.

Well... he's been doing it, and people aren't calling him Mr. Dithers.

Alas, your vaccuous responses reflect precisely my point; namely, that with the exception noted in my original post, only the (choose one or more of the following:) ill-informed, the non-informed, the easily led, the mentally challenged can comfortably reside on the political right.

You haven't the foggiest notion of what's really going on or where American foreign policy is leading to. Not the foggiest!! Dupes!

We're just not as clear thinking as you and, uh, articulate. Yeah, that's the thing, articulate.

No, dear Argus, you got it right the first time. Clear thinking enables one to be articulate, but cute try.

And now, Argus, please allay my fears and tell me that your responses to my post were a put on. Hell, I'm giving you an out. For gawd's sakes, grab it!!

[Black Dog]

I'm quite sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people being held prisoner in Afghanistan. That really doesn't relate to freedom in the United States.

Why not? I think it's fair to judge a country's committment to freedom by how they act towards those outside their borders. If anything, the Afghan gulags Gitmo, Abu Ghrirab typifiy the current administration's attitude towards individual freedoms.

In any case, sure, let's look at the U.S. at home. Let's start with the bloated prison system, a system full to bursting with vitcims of an archaic and ineffective drug war, which has evolved into a network of for-profit labour camps. Then let's move on to the war on dissent, which began with the expanded powers of the Patriot Act and is typified in the use of "free speech ziones" that push public expression to the margins. Let's talk about the widespread disenfranchisement of minority voters, and the use of easily corrupted electronic voting machines built by partisan companies. Let's talk about the vehement denial by this adminsitration to release information about th epeople it holds captive in its world-wide prison network, let alone actually charge them.

The list goes on.

[Guest eureka]

And let's talk about the visits by State Police to black voters before the election to query them as to their intentions while fingering their guns.

Let's talk about Democrat Congressman who are having to bring lawsuits against the administration in order to get information that they are entitled to.

Let's think about a whole lot of things that are going on in these United States that would have the founders begging to go back to colonial government.

[Argus]

Do you know what a fascist is? Can you provide examples which show the US is a fascist state or has fascist policies?

Please do your own research. 

I'll take that as a big ol NO.

I refuse to get caught up in the exercise of trying to edify anyone from the political right.  I claim the U.S. is fast becoming a fascist state; in fact, I claim the transformation is just a smidge short of complete.  Prove me wrong.

I claim that none of that matters as the aliens from Alpha Centauri are really in charge and slowly turning us into ranch animals for their giant food processing system.

Prove me wrong.

I state as evidence that you're not quite ready for prime time the infantile responses you gave to my original post.

Well, it was an infantile sort of a post so my response was quite measured. Given your further response, though, I believe I was sadly optimistic in hoping you'd at least be up to junior high level debates. And that you'd be, well, sane.

[Argus]

And let's talk about the visits by State Police to black voters before the election to query them as to their intentions while fingering their guns.

Cite please.

Let's talk about Democrat Congressman who are having to bring lawsuits against the administration in order to get information that they are entitled to.

Or we can talk about the government sueing its own privacy commisioner to keep him from having access to information he's entitled to, a government obsessed with secrecy on any and all conceivable issues.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Let's talk about Democrat Congressman who are having to bring lawsuits against the administration in order to get information that they are entitled to.

Or we can talk about the government sueing its own privacy commisioner to keep him from having access to information he's entitled to, a government obsessed with secrecy on any and all conceivable issues.

People say that X is bad.

But Y is far worse than X.

Therefore, X can't be bad.

Did I get your argument right?

I hoped this nonsense had been buried for good in the Israel thread.

:angry:

[Guest eureka]

Cite! Many sources. One is Harper's magazine in an article by an observer.

[Argus]

Let's talk about Democrat Congressman who are having to bring lawsuits against the administration in order to get information that they are entitled to.

Or we can talk about the government sueing its own privacy commisioner to keep him from having access to information he's entitled to, a government obsessed with secrecy on any and all conceivable issues.

People say that X is bad.

But Y is far worse than X.

Therefore, X can't be bad.

Did I get your argument right?

I hoped this nonsense had been buried for good in the Israel thread.

:angry:

Perhaps you dislike the introduction of context in argument, but I find it satisfying.

[Argus]

Cite! Many sources. One is Harper's magazine in an article by an observer.

That is not a cite.

[Black Dog]

I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Argus is only saying that people are free to criticize places like the U.S. if their own system of government is absolutely perfect and run to the complete satisfaction of all its citizens. Is that so hard?

If that's not what your say, Arg, what are you saying?

Looking back, I think describing Bush as a tyrant is counterproductive because its so easily debunked. Sure, his leadership is the product of two very dodgy election processes in which only a small percentage of the citizenry bothered to participate at all and of which only a tiny majority apparently voted to endose Bush's policies. And yeah, his administration has been characterized by bumbling, obvious corruption and cronyism, LCD pandering, and rank stupidity. But that doesn't make him a tyrant. It makes him a lousy president, which is the argument people who oppose him should be using. Otherwise you're just playing into the other side's hands.

[Argus]

I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Argus is only saying that people are free to criticize places like the U.S. if their own system of government is absolutely perfect and run to the complete satisfaction of all its citizens. Is that so hard?

So I understand that the other day in prison Paul Bernardo was busy criticising the guy in the next cell for smacking his wife around. "You really need to have more respect for women," he told the guy.

Canadians vote Chretien into office with huge majorities and then sneer at the US for voting in a dumb and unethical leader. <snort>

If you don't know what it's about I'll recap. It was said the US is not a free country. I asked for examples. So far the only examples given have been things which are present in Canada, too - without evident discontent on the part of most. So what are people bitching about the Americans alleged lack of freedom for?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Perhaps you dislike the introduction of context in argument, but I find it satisfying.

This "context" serves absolutely no meaningful purpose.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I don't believe freedom in Afghanistan ever entered into the discussion, nor should it.

On the contrary, it seems only fair to consider all areas that a nation controls, not just the ones that are marked on a political map as belonging to it.

The reality is that Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib are as much a part of the USA as Maui is.

[Guest eureka]

You have been given a lot more than that. Argus. So far, you have been given just a few examples of how this administration is stifling dissent and constructing a one - party state. A belligerent state at that.

We can take that much further but you obviously don't wnat to hear it