As many times as people with the opinion that it is decide to post without reading the whole topic discussion... or as many times as people who believe it is post, who are not convinced by your argument.
The fact remains that your government imprisons people without finding them guilty of any crime. This is not about bashin Bush, its just a sad fact that your Government finds it acceptable to do this. Just being a suspect is good enough to imprison people for years without any recourse once that person has been released without being charged for a crime. The constitution clearly defines what can be defined as an invasion and the Military Commission Act 2006 was only pushed forward by the bush administration to legalise the otherwise illegal detention that is taking place in Guantanamo Bay. You are right to suggest that the Act must have been voted for by many house and senate members so it must be more reasonable than I am making out. But this act was actively pushed forward by Bush under the premise that it was linked to 9/11 and directly affected the families of the victims of 9/11. This was a very low and dirty tactic used by the Bush administartion to gain support for this Act. It was rushed through the process under the false claim that it was an urgent matter. It was also approved the same night the 'Foley scandal' came to public attention. So the biggest news story for the next two weeks was the emails of a man to a 16 yr old boy rather than the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Wether we are talking about US citizens or not shouldn't matter because the US constitution is about human rights above the influence of Governments. Also, the Government can accuse US citizens of being 'enemy combatents' at its discretion.
First of all, I was trying to address this matter merely on the matter of trying to understand what had happened, and the constitutionality of it, not whether it should or should not have happened, and was looking for confirmation of my new understanding, or a correction of it, before I continued to discuss this matter. I am sorry if I offended by trying to get my facts strait, since I had previously been in error on the matter, before I continued to discuss the matter outside of trying to get my facts strait. Secondly, I agree that foreign nationals should be treated with respect, and afforded basic human rights. I also believe that the US government should be affording them all rights granted to them while on US soil by the US constitution. Any abridgment of the rights afforded by the constitution is, in my opinion, a travesty. Third, I have long detested the tactics used to push through certain bills and measures.
It seems we are in agreement on this issue. This is one of the reasons so many people dislike Mr Bush with a passion. He does very bad things.
Gee, all this talk about if being gay is shameful (a whole 18 pages worth) has really made me feel confident about being gay! /end sarcasm
Well a fair amount of it is not directly on topic... like your post above, and this one, and my side-tracked conversation with MisterMix.
Again, I'd like to point out that while he may have pushed for the act, it is the place of congress to pass, or reject bills in the first place, so a large part of the blame rests with the congress. The reasons GW is getting so much flack is be cause, as the president, he is the one man at the head of the executive branch, and an identifiable public figure. It's much easier for a given person to blame him than to research what the senator and congressman from their district for or against. Also, since foreign nationals don't have representatives in the US government, it's usually much easier for them to point at the president, then the congress, especially since it's rare that something is unanimously passed there.
Mr Bush has done very bad things. Things that would have not happened if he was not elected. He is bad for America.
I would not vote for him a third time, even if there were no term limits, unless I loathed his opponent (read as: unless his opponent was Hillary). However I stand by my decision to vote for him the last two times, because at the time, with the data I had, he was what I felt was the best choice. Would I have voted for him, knowing what I know now? I'm not sure, but it would have been a strong possibility in the second of the two elections.
I voted for him the first time based on the fact that there were supreme court justice seats open, and that the trend of liberal judges seems to have equated to a trend of anti-constitutionalism (yes, I know that's not a real word) in the courts. While the laws bush pushed through may be un-constitutional, I am hoping that the conservative judges he appointed will hear cases based on these laws, and over turn them. As for the war in Iraq: If bush had lost the last election, we would have pulled out, leaving chaos in our wake, and raising the level of hatred towards the US in the Middle East even more.
Not saying I like Bush or anything, but if I was Bush, I think I'd be pretty unlucky to have to deal with all the things going on in the world during my time in the office. For example, the 9/11 attacks, Katrina, the nuclear experiments in South Korea, SARS, and many more. I think during Bush's time in the office, I've seen more bad events happen more than ever before, or maybe I'm just young.
His opponent was running on a ticket of a mandatory withdraw from iraq on a fixed time table, and we would have been out of Iraq by this point, unless his opponent was unable to push through this agenda, or went back on the campaign promises. An arbitrary withdrawl time would have galvanized the opposing factions in Iraq even more fiercly. I don't see any way that we could have withdrawn on an arbitrary time table wthout leaving chaos in our wake.
I think people should do what they want to do as long as they don't hurt anyone else. What I don't understand is why gays and lesbians have to introduce themselves as gay or lesbian when you meet them, and then bang on about it until they say goodbye. I don't introduce myself as being heterosexual so why on earth should I care about your sexuality?
Trisha - you must meet some odd people then. My sister in law is gay and through her I've met a huge number of gay people. At her gatherings it's always a bit of a guessing game (if you can be bothered) to work out their orientation. It usually becomes clear in conversation but only in the way people give context to events or opinions, in much the same way that I might refer to my husband, or an ex. It's no more a bragging point than being straight. I wonder if the gay people you've met are still coming to terms with their sexuality and therefore it's still "a big deal" for them personally - much like the teenage boy who goes on about screwing girls. Everyone settles down eventually.