why has the Bush administration suspended our fundamental liberties? anyone?

Question

The Bush-Cheney administration has been an administration that has used fascist-like, McCarthyite tactics and suspended fundamental liberties at home, including the nearly millennium-old Right of Habeas Corpus.

When President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to proceed with warrantless domestic wiretapping, he knew he was establishing an illegal wiretapping program to spy on Americans, and that he was placing himself in a situation of illegality. If this had not been illegal, his attorney general would not have felt obliged to cover up the entire affair in order to protect the administration. In fact, under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. department of Justice has lost its long-held tradition of independence, and embarked upon a long list of politicized operations.

Once a politician embraces illegality, there are no limits. For instance, George W. Bush has paved the way for exercising martial law powers, first by de-facto repealing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that forbids the deployment of soldiers on American soil for domestic law enforcement, and, second, by signing last October (2006) the Military Commissions Act of 2006(MCA: HR 6166). Under this act, the president has granted himself almost-dictatorial powers to arrest and detain indefinitely any American citizen, without constitutional protections.

To top things off, President George W. Bush has relied on signing statements to assert that he has the power to disobey newly enacted laws in a manner that no previous president would have ever thought of doing.

Answer 1

because they can. case closed.

Answer 2

Because there has been a concerted effort since the end of WWII to maintain the US economy on a war footing. Our military industrial complex became masters of the world after they "saved" the world from fascism to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in war profits.

Since the end of WWII, these interests have invested heavily in both the democratic and republicans parties. Eisenhower warned of the growing power of these corporate interests and actually coined the phrase "military industrial complex." It is ironic that the boogeyman of the far left these days was first identified by a republican president who presided over America's last "Age of Consensus."

Clinton was the first to begin to significantly divest from military spending in almost twenty years. When Bush was elected, it was time to make up for lost profits from the 90's. However, everyone knew that in order to drag America into a prolonged, useless, stupid conflict there was going to have to be a little arm-wringing.

Fortunately for those corporate interests, Osama Bin Laden (a former CIA operative from the Soviet war in Afghanistan) orchestrated a massive attack on US soil giving the Administration the very justification it needed to get its benefactors from the Military Industrial Complex paid in full. Though there was no direct connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration succeeded in forming the perception of connection by utilizing tried-and-true propaganda techniques that Goebbels himself would have blushed at in terms of their bravado, shamelessness and utter effectiveness.

Of course, the farmers and peasants would see the glitzy media spin and stare headlong like deer in the headlights. "Shock and Awe" is what they called it; and it was that. Yet, on the coasts, it takes a little bit more to pull a fast one; New Yorkers and Los Angelenos have seen it all, done it all and have the social problems to prove it. So, to pacify them, Bush Co. has engaged the politics of division like no other band of criminals the world has ever known.

They won too. The country is divided. Soon, it will be neccesary to repress the most vocal dissenters because soon the level of corruption and criminality will be impossible for even the cowardly "opposition" party to ignore. When that day comes, it will have been neccesary to gradually eliminate freedoms and liberties if the powers expect to wield effective totalitarian control.

This is why liberal calls for gun control are misguided...when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

I hope that answered your question.

Answer 3

You're still free to spout out liberal ideology, so what's the problem? Perhaps you should look at a real fascist regime to understand the difference between passive surveillance of international communications with known terrorist safe-havens and a true denial of liberties. If you're looking for fascist regimes google "Communist nations" and I'm sure you'll find a few. Venezuela? Cuba? China? Of course, if you're in one of those countries, more than likely you won't get the full, uncensored result.

Do you even know who McCarthy was? Do you remember any White House press conferences where the President called members of Congress or other individuals "Communists" or even terrorists? McCarthy went overboard, but you might want to remember that he got a few bad guys too.

The US Military cannot take the lead on local law enforcement. They can, at any time with the express consent of their commanders and at the request of local civilian authorities, assist in enforcing laws or securing areas.

Answer 4

I don`t know about your state but here in Michigan, we have state police sitting on the side of the road with their radar guns ,just waiting for someone to come by speeding. Let me ask you, Is this a fascist-like tactic against your civil liberties. People who are law abiding citizen are glad they are there They are there to protect and serve. They stop jerks (maybe like you) that that are driving out of control putting us all into harms way. If they can stop just 1 terrorist attack on our country by listening in for Al Qaeda phone call, I say it`s fine with me. I along with most law abiding Americans will let the local law enforcement the intelligent agency do their jobs. Only left wind kooks or people who have something to hide have a problem with it. You don`t like it try moving to a heavy Al Qaeda country. You can tell them about your civil liberties as they cut off your damn head witch by the way no one will care about. Have a nice day

Answer 5

WOW! Obsess much?

Pretty much everybody knows what you wrote here. Even though you failed to mention that Bush is not the first to do ANY of this and that Bill Clinton was guilty of MOST of these things himself, including warrentless wire taps.

You hate Bush, I get it. Look at his approval rating and you'll realize most of the country is disappointed in his performance.

Have a glass o koolaid and relax. we're about to turn the page!

Answer 6

I'm quite sure the Terrorists appreciate your concern for their privacy. Kwitcherbellyakin! No one in the FBI cares about what you think or say anyway.

Answer 7

And this has effected you how?
I personally have no issue with any of this nonsense - it has not effected me in the least. But if it makes for a seemingly good argument for hating Bush, I suspect the liberals will continue to regret that they can no longer call known terrorists or terrorist supporting countries with the confidence that their call will not be monitored.

Answer 8

Good cut and paste and just exactly what liberties as a law abiding citizen have you lost? You've got the rant and computer functionality down pat, now try using that thing in between your ears for more than just a hat rack.

Answer 9

The people can't make these choices, we will have to make it for them.
Hillary Clinton


We will have to take this away from them for the "common good."
Hillary Clinton

Answer 10

Wow! Just think,if the Dems didn't vote yes on those things, Bush couldn't do them!

Answer 11

Name one thing that has impacted you directly, except for the fact that no more lives have been lost inside this country due to terrorist acts.