Comments on: Americans Are Hell-Bent on Tyranny

By: jack bailey

jack bailey — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:40:07 +0000

#12. It can't be for the lack of trying. It's not about Bush anymore. Your man the "big O" is going down.

By: Edmond

Edmond — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:07:28 +0000

And Bush originally intended the Military Commission's Act to apply to US citizens also. That would have taken care of domestic terrorists such as anti-abortion activists who give material support to terrorism by their articulation of their opposition to abortion, or anti-interventionists, etc,including the editors of this magazine. And curiously, the legal commentator of Chronicles, Stephen Presser (is he still associated with Chronicles, I stopped my subscription because Presser so defended Bush's tyranny), testified alongside Bush administration lawyers before Congress, defending such tyranny.

By: Geronimo

Geronimo — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:14:03 +0000

The powers that be need hostages of their own past. If they released one and all of those unfortunates, what would it all have been about?!

By: McCallum

McCallum — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:01:20 +0000

Did anyone see the presser where the gov of Illinois was talking up how good this would be for his state? Dick Durban was behind him nodding his head in agreement and giving the most pompous grin I've ever seen. Durban is a modern version of Judge Smails from Caddyshack.

Its all a very bad movie getting worse.

Hanging is too good for 'em.

McCallum

By: CS

CS — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:56:42 +0000

What has the USA become? We're a Banksta Banana Republic, with a Congress of Whores under the Queens Barry, Barney, Harry and Nancy - a farce in one un-natural act. Welcome to Snatcherland!

By: CorkyAgain

CorkyAgain — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:48:16 +0000

... and if our justice system has decayed to the point where they fear they won't get a fair trial from their successors, whose fault is that?

By: CorkyAgain

CorkyAgain — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:43:19 +0000

The only reason I can see why Obama would be unwilling to set the precedent of prosecuting members of the previous administration is that he plans to commit (or has already committed) similar crimes himself.

Otherwise, I fail to see why such prosecutions would set a bad precedent. It would tell all future officeholders that they *will* be held accountable and would therefore act as a deterrent. How is that a bad thing?

By: Andrew Stanton

Andrew Stanton — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:55:06 +0000

You can't seriously expect Obama to hold the prior administration accountable when he expects the same protection from the next.

By: Derek Leaberry

Derek Leaberry — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:42:43 +0000

Dr. Wilson is right to the point. I won't even try to add to it.

By: Miles Gloriosus

Miles Gloriosus — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:35:40 +0000

FTA: "The hapless prisoners had a better chance of obtaining release from Guantanamo. Now the prisoners are up against two U.S. senators, a U.S. representative, a mayor and a state governor who have a vested interest in the prisoners’ permanent detention in order to protect the new prison jobs in the hamlet devastated by unemployment.

Neither the public nor the media have ever shown any interest in how the detainees came to be incarcerated. "

This is how representative government and a free people die.