castledoom.com

DarkShinji250 · Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 295 Location: Ohio

Ask yourself if it is true when you read these two articles.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20061108/cm_ucru/ourlongnationalnightmarehasjustbegun

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.html

Is liberty going to die? Should liberals everywhere start learning "Oh, Canada?"

s_stabeler · Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Posts: 2292

nope. simple as that. it's already too late unless the democrats simply rubber-stamp bush's policies.

JuntaJoe · Joined: 07 Nov 2004 Posts: 7361 Location: Texas

The assasination law is simply something we always had, until Reagan had a vision of a PR plan that actually fell through. He was listening to generals who said that their "new" smart weapons would render regular military assassins (we call them snipers or special forces) obsolete. So he tried to get a public relations brownie point by eliminating the sniper rules.

It didn't work out, nor did Reagan actually follow his own new rule. I personally knew a man on the Marine multi-sniper team that botched the job on Noriega, which then required us to invade Panama in order to grab him.

Bush simply restored a historically normal power.

The "internment camp" thing is totally bogus. It's actually a lackluster attempt to fill a critical need for INS facilities that we are sorely lacking in. Our existing INS processing centers are woefully undersized and overburdened. The result of which has ended up with the INS being forced to simply write illegal aliens a parking ticket and making them swear to see a judge within 90 days before being released on their own recognizance! Like that's working very well, eh? :roll:

We NEED those INS facilities desperately just to keep up. If anything, the budget for that bill should have been tripled.

The national guard issue is about two things. First, there are some governors threatening to not allow their units to deploy into Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, there are other governors screaming to put guard units on the Mexican border to stem the flow of illegal aliens. This act allows the president to deal with both issues.

DarkShinji250 · Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 295 Location: Ohio

The way I was reading it was that the president could, in effect, deploy the national guard anywhere he wants to, even in states that are not border states. Now why would he need to do that?

What about this whole sentence from the Yahoo news article: "He signed a secret executive order granting himself the right to declare anyone in the world, including a U.S. citizen, an "enemy combatant"--without proof--and order him assassinated." I don't know about you but the wording of that scares me. Power like this can only be abused.

Yes, we need to get tough on immigration. We need to. But on the other side of the coin is the question of who will we have work in jobs that no decent, honest, American will ever work at and at the pitiful wages that they give?

If it was up to me I'd track down these illegal immigrants and force them to either get a job and U.S. citizenship and get off welfare within a few months of coming here or be deported. Simple as that. They've been living off our tax dollars for far too long.

s_stabeler · Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Posts: 2292

enemy combatant was in legislation to re-establish military tribunals at gutenamo bay, nothing new there. national guard under president's control is long overdue in my opinion, as had the president been able to order the national guard in after katrina, it quite possibly wouldn't have descended into lawlessness for a while. and as for sniper laws, I didn't see any mention of them, son i will defer to Juntajoe's interpretation there.