To him, nothing can change–so one might as well just roll up into a ball. Such efforts are well suited to cows. Incidentally, just as Tim Lee was my family (great uncle), and his nephew (no friend of the Vietnam misadventure) became chairman of defense contractor General Dynamics (nuke subs), and his sister (my great grandmother, no fan of Vietnam) served as a member of the Eisenhower administration, history shows that congressional leaders are susceptible and responsive to reason and to public pressure–and can effect foreign policy change. But then, these people had larger cohones than 8Ball, who cowers before his gods on Wall Street and “Israeli businessmen.”

Take the “family” derogatory and sit hard upon it.

Tim, my argument still stands. The only way your stale examples could be valid referents would be if the change had been legislated; failing this, your contention is moot- the alterations do not merely suspend Habeas Corpus; they abolish it altogether. Before you attempt to put words in my mouth, try to identify the real issue.

Also, the law Bill Clinton signed in 1996 did in fact codify a major limitation on habeas corpus. It is still on the books and was certainly just as permanent as the Military Commissions Act. And in fact it goes much further and applies to US Citizens.

Excellent. More ammunition to use against the idiots who insist that the Democrats represent a real alternative to the Republicans.

But you only want to lambaste George Bush and pretend he is so awful.

Not in the least. George Bush is the object of our discussion and therefore the one to be analyzed and judged here. If you want to write a polemic against Bill Clinton, be my guest- the man doesn’t deserve the halo that mainstream Democrats place over his head.

Bush’s actions pale in comparison to other Presidents.

No they don’t, for reasons amply outlined above.

So go read up on history and Constitutional law, get better informed and then let’s talk.

Why don’t you follow your own advice? You’ve no idea what it is like to be an adolescent on the receiving end of utter drivel from a credentialed adult sullying a site otherwise remarkable for its cogency. What your latest fabulation proves is that you are either dishonest, dumb, or selectively cognizant.

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
–Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI

When authoritarians like the above poster use the term “conspiracy” as a pejorative, the purpose is to stifle debate and to make sure nobody veers from the official narrative of the events.

It’s an idiotic use of the term. Prisons are full of people convicted of conspiracy. History is one long string of conspiracies, including many carried out by governments in order to provide a public pretext for war. The Bush/Cheney 9/11 narrative so eagerly and unquestioningly lapped up by posters like the above is in fact a conspiracy theory. Has anybody even once heard those who are so found of throwing around the label “conspiracy theory” to enforce official narratives of events apply it to a conspiracy theory put out by the government? Are we really supposed to believe that our government never engages in conspiracies?

As for Ockham’s razor, the conspiracy theory that the above poster believes in requires that only a couple of dozen poorly trained Islamic radicals deftly maneuvered undetected through the world’s most powerful and well-funded intelligence gathering and military machine. One of these Islamic radicals, who couldn’t fly a Cessna according to his instructor and had no hours in type, pulled off an acrobatic stunt that professional pilots with many hours in type have said would be difficult even for them to pull off. This was after flying around unmolested for 90 minutes in the most defended, monitored and congested airspace on the planet and apparently sneaking up on the Pentagon. Did somebody forget to plug in the anti-missile anti-aircraft capacity battery at the Pentagon the night before?

As if the same task wouldn’t have been easier to accomplish for a similar number of people to do so, employing many unknowing others for secondary, compartmented tasks, if those handful with full knowledge of the plan also knew every aspect of the U.S. intelligence and military machine, and were in key positions governing its activities and responses. Ockham’s razor indeed.

Even if the conspiracy involved the devout Islamic radicals that the 9/11 commission would have us believe (who evidently had a penchant for alcohol, cocaine and strippers according to witnesses in Florida)–given all the many historical precedents–is it really so outside the realm of possibility that they might have had a little help from those who had a tremendous amount to gain from a “War on Terror” that “wouldn’t end in our lifetimes?”

Norman Mineta in testimony before the Warren… err.. I mean 9/11 Commission (Mineta has recently confirmed that this was in reference to the plane that hit the Pentagon):

“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”

How odd that the 9/11 commission never followed up on this testimony and neglected to mention it in their report.

Owning telecommunications and media companies (the means to consolidate and filter information) would be the logical step toward seeking to control foreign and domestic policy discussion.

“Communications” affords owners a box-seat in the codification of history.

However, many different business and private interests invest in media and telecommunications companies. And conspiracy theories (especially those based upon “racial” and religious classifications) offer little to productive debate.

To give credit to the “Israeli businessmen” referred to, if they are indeed invested heavily in American high-tech, they are some damn savvy investors–particularly considering the stakes involved.

Indeed, the president of the United States (Lincoln, Clinton, Bush) has no influence over congress, particularly in times of war, and thus could not possibly urge a departure from Habeus Corpus, whatever the Article.

Indeed, Bill Clinton did urge a permanent departure, and it pales in comparison to the erosion of rights that have been the fruit of the Bush administration. And, since Hillary seems a shrinking violet, and Bill’s been out seven years, what exactly is the relevance, except to lament the follow-on opportunism of the current regime and to urge the restoration and revitalization of the Bill of Rights prior to a permanent calamity?

But we’re not talking partisan politics here–just advocating a departure from the scourge of permanent war.

There are institutions filled with people seeking to ascertain the powers behind the Kennedy assassination, too–and there is greater credence here. However, those who haven’t been institutionalized have yet to mount a solid lasting front to stall craven state tendencies toward gunboat diplomacy and mass murder for territorial conquest.

Again, weigh the relevance. Do you think urging a US Congressman to investigate administrative complicity in destroying the world trade center will gain you a seat before a congressman actually able to de-fund the current war? Not likely.