<p>golani89, as much as I may be frustrated by the positions taken by driver and ff; I can appreciate a position that has been thought out and honed over a period of years. I could be way off here, but this board is called “Parent Cafe” and your comments are youthfully naive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read:
for those all drunked-up on caffeine and crumpets with latter-day visions of world conquest and revolution (oh yeah, and having make believe drinks in a make believe cantina with virtual friends).</p>
<p>…it’s called “aging gracefully.” [insert BIG, BIG smiley face here (…parent-speak for “don’t hit me back, I’m wearing glasses”)]</p>
<p>Sure when you have no logic to back your ideas up with, resort to saying that. But honestly speaking none of you are arguing whther this will work against terror because it sure as hell will, but instead you take the time to compare america to totalitarian countries.</p>
<p>unsoccer-mom a member of the John Birch Society? Who knew?</p>
<p>golani,</p>
<p>OK. I’ll lighten up a bit. But take a look at the difference between your posts and FF’s. To me, it appears you are just parroting the standard conservative PR lines. I’ve heard them already. FF at least takes the PR lines and twists them a bit! 
It makes for a more engaging discussion. </p>
<p>Take FF’s most recent post, for example. There is actually material in it that I could agree with, not that I’d give FF the pleasure of knowing what parts…</p>
<p>BTW, I do NOT compare America to totalitarian countries. I compare the policies you, golani, seem to favor, and your justification of those policies, to the policies of totalitarian countries, who use similar policies to a much greater degree than we do, achieving much more of the effect you seem to want. If you don’t see the parallel, just ponder the previous sentence a bit. Then tell me the difference. Maybe it is where one draws the line, and that’s a slippery slope.</p>
<p>Howbout you explain to me what is so dangerous about this new bill.</p>
<p>There has been ample discussion as to why some of us feel the bill is dangerous and many points made for and against it. If you read the posts you would see that.</p>
<p>No, not a member… LOL. I was going to mention JBS, but then I decided to use it as a way to determine who actually read the links. Yeah, Driver!</p>
<p>No i read them and all i so far understand is that it is dangerous( a meaningless and loaded word) and that it will make us a tyrannical state( another meaningless and loaded word) In school they always say show not tell. So show, explain to y its dangerous. Who knows you might change my mind. What specifically will happen. I really am curious to no</p>
<p>golani89, my 81 year-old MIL stands on a bridge in Maine several times a week carrying a sign of protest against the war. My 75 year-old mother and lifelong Repulican called the White House dozens of times to protest the war in Iraq beginning in Feb. 2003. I am not saying that Mr. Bush will have either one of these ladies arrested for being an “unlawful combatant”, but I see nothing in this law that prevents that and that is what makes it dangerous. A bit of “hyperbole”? Yes, but factually speaking there is nothing keeping this administration or any other future administration from arresting them if they decide that there is a threat and proof is no longer required when it comes to national security. That makes me feel less secure not more secure.</p>
<p>For starters, as long as your elderly relatives are citizens, they are immune. But why not protest rape laws? There is a far greater chance that your son or other male relative is unjustly charged with rape than being charged as an unlawful combatant.</p>
<p>hmm that might be the possibly dumbest thing i have ever heard in my life. Ofcourse this law will not prevent your 75 yr old mother from being arrested. But this law has nothing to do with 75 yr old ladies. We both no as far as bush is concerned he doesnt care about your mother and others that protest and call the whitehouse.</p>
<p>But in case you havent been able to find the law that allows them to do that, i suggest you look at the first ammendment in the constitution. You might find your answer there.</p>
<p>Re: #70
UN, it’s not unlawful, and it’s not being a combatant. That’s what protects your old ladies from Bush storm troopers.</p>
<p>Off to the Purple Valley Invitational Ultimate tournament for me.</p>
<p>Actually, under MCA each could be arrested. They are US born so they could not be held indefinately. I feel so much better now, knowing that I and most of my relatives while subject to this law can not be held without charges indefinately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when has that stopped anyone from writing bad laws that imprison people? 
</p>
<p>Noone is going to arrest your old ladies. You really are being ridiculous</p>
<p>unsoccer-mom said: I am not saying that Mr. Bush will have either one of these ladies arrested for being an “unlawful combatant”, but I see nothing in this law that prevents that and that is what makes it dangerous. </p>
<p>You’re the idiot, either you can’t read or you are unable to process information. I’m done responding to you.</p>
<p>Geesh, golani,</p>
<p>We tried being civil, and you respond with profanity. You would have had to have been alive in the 1960s and 70s, during the civil rights and vietnam war eras to see that the Govt. has no qualms about arresting “old ladies” for exercising the right to free speech.</p>
<p>To many of us, it is not a leap of faith, but rather a reasonable extension, to imagine similar things takeing place now under “terrorism safety” fears. After all, in other places in the world, all kinds of people are terrorists (not joking).</p>
<p>This discussion is broader than just the recently passed law, but even regarding the law, how would we know if GWB executed one of his many “signing statements”, classified of course, allowing the law to be applied to citizens, for those that had doubt?</p>
<p>Apparently no one has heard of the case of Jose Padilla? You think they can’t use this bill to imprison a US citizen? Think again.</p>
<p>"José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now charged with “conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas.”</p>
<p>The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention."</p>
<p>I am floored to hear the conservatives supporting this sort of government action. What happened to the smaller, less intrusive government mantra? What a bunch of hypocrites. </p>
<p>How do you justify these actions (torture, suspending habeas corpus, secret prisons, etc) with “suspected” terrorists any more than you’d justify it with, say, a “suspected” serial killer? </p>
<p>You conservatives are chickens. Throwing away our free way of life cause you’re scared silly. </p>
<p>So instead of defeating the terrorists we just turn out country into one like their’s. Great plan. If we can’t beat 'em, join 'em. </p>
<p>Unpatriotic FOOLS.</p>
<p>Well, as long as you are throwing around words like “fool”, only a “fool” would think that a law that was just signed had anything to do with the Padilla case. Take off your “foolish” blinders and recognize that this law DOES NOT APPLY to people like Padilla; in fact this law woud be Padilla’s best friend since he would now be treated as any US citizen having all the rights of habeas corpus.</p>