U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
posted by EarBucket
on Jul 29, 2006 -
72 comments
War on Drugs - Do you remember it? A call for support of this amorphous war has been trumpeted by every American President from
Nixon through
Clinton. The current guy, has associated himself (at least a little bit) with the
Drug War in the previous campaign but current policy,
not so much. What I’m curious about is the actual phrase, the concept of War on Drugs. It looks like we still dedicate
large sums of money to the effort. It seems to me that we just don’t use the phrase much anymore. Did we
win? Did we
lose? Do we just want to
forget about it? Or, did we repackage the endeavor under a
new name? I tend to think we are not capable of waging more than one war against
the nameless other at a given time. It would just be too scary. So, I think maybe we're bundling the
War on Terror and the
War on Drugs under a
new brand name.
posted by Crackerbelly
on Dec 8, 2004 -
31 comments
«Clearly, one of the most critical questions of the twenty-first century concerns why the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not prevented. As I outline below, there are numerous aspects regarding the official stories about September 11th which do not fit with known facts, which contradict each other, which defy common sense, and which indicate a pattern of misinformation and coverup. The reports coming out of Washington do very little to alleviate these concerns.»
22 questions to chose from and decide which ones are nightmares of a conspiracy theorist and which ones must be answered.
posted by acrobat
on Sep 4, 2003 -
70 comments
The Push For War (by Anatol Lieven). "The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration....The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless....What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind."
Excecutive summary:
Lord Acton foretold all fruit of "military superiority".
posted by fold_and_mutilate
on Oct 4, 2002 -
44 comments
Bush Makes a Pitch for Teaching Patriotism At a Washington, DC area high school—whose mascot is the Patriot—President Bush spoke on the supposed importance of patriotism.
"The Bush administration has backed a series of initiatives aimed at boosting children's patriotism and enlisting the young in the effort to counter anti-American propaganda abroad."
Is this how the
Hitler Youth started?
posted by terrapin
on Nov 2, 2001 -
44 comments
From a piece in the NYTimes today,
Home Front Is Minefield for President:
"The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff
on Oct 25, 2001 -
12 comments
