This is some scary shit and it is getting no media attention what so ever. Please take a minute to read this article, and perhaps email the link to family, friends, etc.
Here it is.
Printable View
This is some scary shit and it is getting no media attention what so ever. Please take a minute to read this article, and perhaps email the link to family, friends, etc.
Here it is.
I don't see what it has to do with 9/11, but that is some disturbing shit, if only that a convicted perjurer is running such a powerful office.
Somebody moves up higher on my list...
I'm sure they're using 9/11 as an excuse for it. It makes sense that they would.
And the US continues to go to shit....
Aah, the Homeland Security power-grab.
This won't fly in the Senate/House -- whichever gets to vote on it. It's just too much all at once. Tell your representatives that if they vote for it, you'll start a drive to recall them from office.
EDIT: Jimmy Carter tells me this is only going to apply to suspected terrorists. I still don't agree with the concept, but it may be needed to some extent. Do some research on it and decide for yourselves.
Holy Shit thats scary, i'm gonna have to move to canada
<a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3431075.html">The Homeland Security Department at a glance</a>
Alrighty, if (<b>if</b>) what the man from NY Times says is true, it is a very scary bill indeed, however, as far as I know and from everything I have read, the bill has nothing in it to indicate such sweeping power.
If you click on the above link, you get a good idea what the department is. Nothing major. No major powers. I believe that a) the NY Times man is Chicken Little in disguise or b) he's talking about a completely different bill that will <i>never</i> be passed. The kind of powers that he talks about are totally and completely wrong and violate human rights.
The only thing that I know of is that the government has more power to spy on terrorists or those involved with terrorists.
I never would have guessed a guy with a username like "MrKasualUltra2000" would be obsessed with conspiracy theories.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
I believe that a) the NY Times man is Chicken Little in disguise...
Ding, Jimmy wins the door prize. Safire needs to stick to writing on etymology. He's the NY Times' token 'conservative', which for them equates to a conspiracy-theorist libertarian (or simply just contrarian). He's often a bit like Hitchens. Safire has a tendency to get worked up over stuff like this, and then drop it weeks later.