2007-11-13 11:43:19 · 15 answers · asked by Pierce 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
"BUD= bush admin is corrupt"
YOUR INSANE!
Do you really believe that?
2007-11-13 12:05:49 · update #1
Yes, under HR 1955 the "homegrown terrorism prevention act" the state can designate any individual or group to be terrorists and thereby stripped of their constitutional rights on the grounds that they were planning on using force or coersion to benefit themselves politically or socially. They wouldn't need to be tried they could be sent directly to G-bay. There are clauses that say that the individuals in question are protected by the the consitution but these are auto-nullified if they're already concidered terrorists. This bill applies to all US citizens and residents. The constitution is still alive but has AIDS. This coincides with the creation of "freespeach zones" wherein freespeach is banned from public and only allowed in designated areas where its practice is ineffective.
2007-11-13 11:47:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's legally possible but essentially impossible due to political concerns - it would be crushing freedom of speech, and political opponents would quickly jump on that. But under the terrorism protection act(s), the definition of a terrorist is very broad - someone who plans or attempts to use force or coercion to achieve social or political aims. Basically anyone could fall under that. A union holding a strike could fall under that. Even a peaceful protest could be considered "coercion" in some way.
However, it would be very unpopular politically, and most likely the courts would have something to say about that act if it ever got to court in a case where an ordinary citizen got taken away just for taking part in a protest.
Nevertheless, I think a lot more people should be aware of these acts and other terrorism related legal matters, as they are really more shocking than most people think. It's sad that basically anything can be done in the name of fighting terrorism.
2007-11-13 19:55:17 · answer #2 · answered by The Camel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. The war protesters are the patriots. definition of a patriot is someone who stands up to a corrupt government. This bush admin is corrupt. I think I could defend myself better than bush has. Example his intelligence agency hired a terrorist has been working there for about 4 years. Next the 20,000 + it cost a family of 4 for this war has done nothing to protect us. I do think bush and his supporters are the enemies of the USA. bush has vetoed two things positive for America and in return requested more money for his illegal war.
2007-11-13 19:57:43 · answer #3 · answered by Bud W 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This question reflects the meaning of "The loss of Habeas Corpus". With that loss the government is actually empowered to imprison & prosecute an individual or group at will, for any reason, without the imprisoned to have any recourse or protection from said government. Most people do not realize the importance of this loss!!! Our founding fathers were very astute in the ways of government (coming from England ,where at that time in history, the government ran roughshod over it's citizens), and the possibilities that people are capable of when they acheive power over others. Habeas Corpus was the common peoples protection from those empowered in the government. Every citizen has the right to disagree with the government, this loss could very well lead to incarceration of those that do not agree with it!!!! Think about it!!!
2007-11-14 05:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by peepers98 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not unless they are directly giving aid to an enemy. General war protesting is not giving aid to an enemy.
Now, if they were giving bullets to the enemy and painting white targets on the helmets of soldiers, then yes they could be tried under that law.
2007-11-13 19:47:08 · answer #5 · answered by alaisin13 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Lets be real even those of us that detest the war protesterswould hate to see the day when we can no longer express our opinions. There are many people who I think need to shut up and go away like sean penn, bill mahreand al franken, but I will always support the fact they have a right to say what they want the same as I have the right to ignore them.
2007-11-13 19:51:40 · answer #6 · answered by phil9_28208 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No they can't. The ability to protest the actions of our government is a cornerstone of our constitution. Someone would have to be proven to have provided material aid to an enemy we were at war with to be charged with treason.
2007-11-13 19:53:12 · answer #7 · answered by redphish 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, this is Freedom of Speech if they are simply protesting. If they do something to help/aid the enemy, then they can.
2007-11-13 19:47:35 · answer #8 · answered by kiddkosmic 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Has anyone ever considered just how brave the peace activists are in regard to speaking unpopular opinions?
I would most certainly hope that they would not be tried like enemies of the State--it could only make the country look foolish.
2007-11-13 19:50:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. Freedom of speech. Enemy of the state requires "material support".
2007-11-13 19:47:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋