<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/</a></p>
<p>If Keith Olbermann truly cared about the fate of America, he would stop being such a flaming liberal.</p>
<p>In order to care about America, it doesn't matter what political party they are.</p>
<p>And if you actually read the speech, you would realize that what seperates Olberman from other foaming-at-the-mouth liberals and conservatives, is that he is criticizing people from both parties, not just the one he is not part of.</p>
<p>I love Oberman but, he misrepresented the bill.</p>
<p>darnit, lealdragon, I told you not to post until you had taken your medication.</p>
<p>I think the bill was totally wrong but i do believe that bush thinks its in the best interest of the people.</p>
<p>the bill really is not as bad as oberman made it sound</p>
<p>Think about what's happening here: we have a 'president' who says he wants to spread democracy & freedom, but then he takes away our own freedoms.</p>
<p>I think Americans have taken their freedoms for granted. We don't know what it's like to not have those freedoms.</p>
<p>I think this is appropriate here:</p>
<hr>
<p>First they came is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (18921984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.</p>
<p>An early supporter of Hitler, by 1934 Niemöller had come to oppose the Nazis, and it was largely his high connections to influential and wealthy businessmen that saved him until 1937, after which he was imprisoned, eventually at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. He survived to be a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the phenomenon of social chaos, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.</p>
<pre><code>They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
</code></pre>
<p>Anglijc:</p>
<p>Here's what makes it 'as bad' as Keith says it is:</p>
<p>The 'president' can decide, at his sole discretion, that he just doesn't like somebody, and look him/her up indefinitely, with no evidence and no charges against him/her.</p>
<p>I think that's pretty bad, don't you?</p>
<p>The bill is sugarcoated to appear to apply only to terrist aliens, but there is a clause in there that says it also applies to any American citizen as well.</p>
<p>Now comes the true test of patriotism: way more important than reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is to actually DO something to protect the very liberties that plege represents!</p>
<p>Here's the thing, the President is allowed to repeal Habeas Corpus in times of invasion, rebellion, or when the public safety is endangered. The Constitution doesn't say who actually has the power to repeal it, but Lincoln repealed Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, thereby making precedence. This time the Congress repealed Habeas Corpus. They had to give the power to enforce the bill to someone, and, as in many bills, the power of enforcement was granted to the President or some executive office. So, depending on your definition of public safety, we're legal. I don't like it, but we're still legal. The question is whether the President can be trusted to use his newfound power correctly and only jail terrorist, and not, say, Barrak Obama. Thus far, the President has successfully managed to not imprison anyone without trial for no real reason, and even if he did, there are mechanisms in the form of the courty system and public interests groups that allow for people to seek redress, so as of now we're still good. However, I do agree with you on the fact that this is an unessicary expansion of Presidential power, it's far better for us to limit the power of any branch of the government. This act puts allows for too much power. and potentially, someone could someday use it inappropriately.</p>
<p>Exactly! Well said, cheese. And that is precisely my point. Bush has repeatedly abused 911 to grab more power.</p>
<p>exactly what I think</p>
<p>Yea, basically the President is legally within his right, but I still think it's an unnecessary expansion of executive power, and the worst thing is that it's not going to accomplish anything; however, thus far the President has not abused his new powers, so hopefully things will turn out alright.</p>
<p>Not abused his powers? he started a war under false pretenses!</p>