U.S. Attorney Gets 28 months Prison For Aiding terrorist.

[sirs]

1700 or 1900 people attempting to protest against Bush (can't remember the exact number) thrown in the slammer for "blocking the sidewalk" in a BLATANT case of police lying, and here is sirs still asking for a single example of this happening anywhere in America.  "Seriously though"  I can't believe I'm even engaging in a dialogue like this.

See Tee, this is where yours (& Larry's) rants & reality go their seperate ways.  Your perseverating "claims" keep getting torpedoed by reality.   People who're protesting and getting completely out of control by blocking traffic or getting "non-peaceful" is NOT having their 1st amendment rights attacked when they get arrested.  Local cops who lie when they believe that folks are unlawfully protesting & obstructing is NOT the Bush administration "attacking free speech"  Is Danny Glover behind bars?  Harry Belafonte?  Al Franken & the entire contingent of Air America?  You?  THERE would be your example

Seriously though . . . I'm gonna get some sleep.

Probably the best train of thought you've had all night, Tee

[Michael Tee]

<<People who're protesting and getting completely out of control by blocking traffic or getting "non-peaceful" is NOT having their 1st amendment rights attacked when they get arrested. >>

No, of course not.  But then I was never talking about those people.  Why are you talking about them?

<<Local cops who lie when they believe that folks are unlawfully protesting & obstructing is NOT the Bush administration "attacking free speech" >>

Uh, I believe your challenge was to find one single example of somebody locked up for "Bush bashing."  I found you almost 2,000 examples from one single day in New York City.   

So now you want to change your own challenge?  Make that "Locked up BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ITSELF for Bush-bashing?"  Sorry, that's not how I play the game.  I like a game where the goal-posts stay in the same place all the time. 

If I found guys locked up by the Bush administration, you'd just move the goal posts again - -  ask me to find one locked up by Bush personally - - physically grabbed off the streets by Bush with his own two hands, physically locked in his little cell by Bush, who puts the key in his own pants pocket and takes it back to the White House with him.

Thanks, but no thanks, sirs.  You issued your challenge, I met your challenge.  Thousands of people have been locked up for Bush-bashing.  Few if any of them were blocking anything.  End of story.

[Michael Tee]

I want to be fair to sirs.  My last reply was kind of tongue-in-cheek.  sirs could say (he won't, though, because he can never admit to a mistake) that he worded his challenge incorrectly, he MEANT to say, "Show me where the Bush administration has locked up somebody for criticizing Bush," so I'll say it for him.

OK, that's a little bit harder to do.  Primarily because the Bush administration doesn't have the responsibility for keeping the streets of America clear of riff-raff such as "Bush-bashers."

Also it's actually a red herring.  If political dissent is imperilled, it won't be all forms of political dissent.  Bush-bashing, for example, would be something that the new laws would tend to leave alone because it's too much of a red-flag issue, too OBVIOUS a loss of a political right. 

What would most likely be punishable by law would be the type of free exchange of opinions that we see in this group, for example - - the right to say that Osama bin Laden's actions might have some justification, that America's attack on Iraq was criminal, that North Korea has the right to arm itself against America.  THOSE are the opinions that I would expect would be endangered by the Bush program, not the opinion that Bush is a lying little shit with an apalling amount of innocent blood on his hands.

[sirs]

Good thing I didn't hold my breath.  Nice back pedaling BTW

[The_Professor]

"...Last week, I stood in my front yard and watched the helicopters buzzing overhead. I could see dozens of police cars parked on the road. I watched a swat team perform its military maneuvers. They were after one man. They fired 110 rounds at him and hit him with 68 rounds. The man had killed a cop and the Gestapo mentality was put on parade as a result. "

Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not. I see nothnig wrong with drawing a line in the sand on cop killing. I believe this approach has been condoned for years, well before GWB as born. How is this Gestapo-like?

[Michael Tee]

<<Good thing I didn't hold my breath.  Nice back pedaling BTW>>

Fair's fair, sirs. 

Although your question, as I rephrased it, is really bullshit.  The administration can pass legislation penalizing free speech, but the enforcement in most cases will fall to local police forces - - as for example, street demonstrations.  ANY street demonstrator will be arrested by local police, so no matter what the Bush legislation does to restrict free speech, if you ask me to find someone arrested by the Bush administration for exercizing freedom of speech, it's a useless search.

Besides which, the laws are relatively new.  There won't be any examples of their abuse until further on down the road.  It's like being present in the first few years of the Third Reich, when Hitler has just passed the Nuremburg Racial Laws, and Hitler's apologists, just like you today, are asking, "So, show me one case of a Jew who has been arrested and tortured because of these laws."  Well of course, in the beginning, just after the laws were passed, there were NO cases.

sirs, those laws aren't passed for nothing.  They provide powers and those powers, presumably, are meant to be used.  So nobody is going to fall for your phony bullshit challenges of "Show me who was arrested."  The laws speak for themselves.  Unless you would like to admit that Bush is a clown who wastes the time of Congress passing legislation that is never intended to be used.

[sirs]

Facts are facts Tee.  My apologies when they keep getting in the way of a good predisposed Bush is Evil, America is evil rant.  As it's been made painfully clear, perhaps when you (or Larry) can actually demonstrate how Bush is "attacking free speech", complete with the Gestapo-like rounding up of the likes of Air America, Soros and Streisand, then you might actually enter the age of credibility once again.

We shall all wait patiently

[Amianthus]

Well of course, in the beginning, just after the laws were passed, there were NO cases.

Actually, within days of the announcement of the racial purity laws in 1935, a number of jewish businesses were seized for "aryanization".

[Michael Tee]

<<Facts are facts Tee.  My apologies when they keep getting in the way of a good predisposed Bush is Evil, America is evil rant.>>

Well, sirs, it's been abundantly proven how Bush has lied America into a war and kept it in the war by piling more lies onto the original.  The "reasons" for being there, for example, seem to change from month to month - - as each "reason" is exposed for the pitiful absurdity that it is, and the smirking chimp's credibility is no longer maintainable, a new lie is invented to hold onto as much as remains of his rapidly shrinking base.  If war is evil and lies are evil, then lying to get a country into a war is evil and so Bush is evil.  If torture is evil and Bush seeks laws that permit him to torture his prisoners, once again, Bush is evil. This is so basic that it really requires little exposition, except to those who are bent on denying the obvious.

So I don't think you need to apologize for your "facts" getting in the way of a good "Bush is Evil" rant - - first of all, they aren't facts (quite the contrary) and they don't get in the way of a painfully obvious truth, much as you wish they could.

As far as my alleged "America is Evil" rants, I don't think I ever said America is evil.  All I did was shine a little light on what your great country has been up to since the end of the Second World War, so people can draw their own conclusions as to how those actions should be characterized.

<<As it's been made painfully clear, perhaps when you (or Larry) can actually demonstrate how Bush is "attacking free speech">>

Larry has done a fine job of posting a link to the text of a statute that attacks freedom of speech.  If you can't read or understand that text, if you can't figure out how that statute can inhibit or penalize the exercise of free speech, then I would say that is your problem, there is nothing that I or anyone else in the group can do to get you to admit that - - in all simplicity - - the statute says what it says and permits what it permits.

<< . . .  complete with the Gestapo-like rounding up of the likes of Air America, Soros and Streisand, then you might actually enter the age of credibility once again.>>

Well, once again, it is not for you to establish the highest possible bar for attacking freedom of speech (Gestapo round-ups) and then claim that any action falling short of that is not an attack on freedom of speech.  That is an absurd argument and probably no adult mind would fall for it.  I really don't think even you yourself are stupid enough to be convinced by it.  Obviously there can be infringements of freedom of speech that fall short of the Nazi "gold standard" for shutting down freedom of speech, but are nevertheless genuine infringements of freedom of speech, just as there can be football players who will never win the Heisemann Trophy but are nevertheless football players.

<<We shall all wait patiently>>

For what?  For you to start making serious arguments in support of your ludicrous positions, and abandon the bullshit and the cheap tricks that don't even fool a 12-year-old?  That takes a LOT of patience.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, within days of the announcement of the racial purity laws in 1935, a number of jewish businesses were seized for "aryanization".>>

That's nit-picking par excellence. 

When I was referring to the consequences of the Nuremburg Racial Laws, I was not referring to racially-determined property confiscation.  Canada and the U.S.A. did pretty much the same thing to Japanese-Canadians and Japanese-Americans during the war.  If confiscation of property was the worst atrocity the Germans ever committed or even the worst consequences of the Nuremburg Laws, the Nuremburg Laws would not even figure as an example in anybody's argument. 

The truly evil consequences of the Nuremburg Racial Laws (the arrests, the concentration camps, the tortures, the killings) took place in gradual stages after the laws were enacted and the worst of them only after the invasion of Russia in 1941.  Until then, it was slow, step-by-step incrementalism.  A few individuals here, a few there.  A German, unless he had personal friends who were Jewish, might not have noticed anything at all.  The sirs of Nazi Germany would have had plenty of time to ask, "So?  Where are all the horrible predicted consequences of these laws?"  And in fact, if you follow the public debate of those times, that's pretty much how it played out - - anguished Jewish accusations, "outraged" German denials.

[Michael Tee]

<<Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not.>>

Anarchy already reigns when a bunch of fucking cops take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner.  That cop-killer could have had a lawful defence (insanity, self-defence.)  NOBODY appointed those goons the right to take his life by short-circuiting all the guarantees that the rule of law provides, the guarantees that thousands of Englishmen and Americans were willing to give their lives for.

<< I see nothnig wrong with drawing a line in the sand on cop killing. >>

Well, I sure as hell do.  Why is the life of a fucking cop suddenly more important than my life or the lives of my family?  You must have a pretty low sense of self-esteem if you think your life and the lives of your family are worth less than the life of a fucking cop.  Incredible.  I bet you believe in the superior worth of military lives too.  Like the life of a Lynndie England is worth more than the life of your mother.  Good luck with that.

<<I beleive this approach has been condoned for years, well before GWB as born. How is this Gestapo-like?>>

LOL.  Better you should ask, how is this NOT Gestapo-like?  The man was a citizen, sirs.  He had certain rights.  The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  The right not to be punished for anything save in accordance with the law.  The right to a fair trial.  The right to have all mitigating factors considered prior to the imposition of his sentence. 

You guys are scary as all hell.  You obviously have no regard whatsoever for any of the basic rights enshrined in Anglo-American law since the Magna Carta and guaranteed forever in the U.S. Constitution.  You'd throw them away in a second to curry favour with the police or the military or anybody who goose-steps around in a uniform and shiny black boots.  You are exactly the building blocks that fascism needs and probably in the end will once again get. 

You are living proof of the theory that the greatest threat to freedom always comes from within.

[sirs]

Well, sirs, it's been abundantly proven how Bush has lied America into a war and kept it in the war by piling more lies onto the original.  ........ yada, rant, blather

Still fantasizing again I see.  And you don't even have the excuse of being overtly tired this time.  Pity

[Amianthus]

When I was referring to the consequences of the Nuremburg Racial Laws, I was not referring to racially-determined property confiscation.

Well, that's what the laws provided.

The other "consequences" you mention are the consequences of other laws, passed later.

[larry]

Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not. I see nothing wrong with drawing a line in the sand on cop killing. I believe this approach has been condoned for years, well before GWB as born. How is this Gestapo-like?

Professor, I wish you could have been here to witness what took place. It is a real eye opener when you see armored personnel carriers deployed into your neighborhood, and law enforcement personell from five counties. It looked like a war zone. When the swat team radio the comand center that they had shot and killed the man, a cheer from the cops went up that could be heard from blocks away.

The media coverage of the shooting was clearly intended as a threat to all citzens. The message was designed to say, " We Are The Cops" and anyone who resit us will face the same treatment. Yes, this is Nazi-style law enforcement.

[Universe Prince]

I would expect my trial , were I ever to fall into the hands of the Al Quieda, to be short and the sentance would be to shorten my stature by a head.

Do you really consider her abettment amd mine to be equivelent?

If I fell into the hands of Al Queda I would argue that those killings I have abetted were scumbags ?

This would lighten my sentence?

Are you suggesting we should base how we punish someone on how al-Qaeda would punish someone? Maybe you're not suggesting that, but I am having trouble understanding why how al-Qaeda might treat you has any bearing how the American courts should treat Lynne Stewart.