Posted by BRIGGS:

I just wanted to see what others felt after five years of this war? IMHO the leaders of this country have FORGOT about their own people and continue to drain massive resource with what I perceive as unnecessary usgae of a large part of our military. I listened to John Mccain today and that is all he could talk about. How about all of the American citizens facing foreclosure/housing problems rising inflation massive structural breakdowns to our bridges levee systems highways roads schools. After 5 years I don't want to hear about Iraq possibly taking care of it's own problems at home--I want to See them do it. Over 4k Americans dead 20K wounded--we borrow billions of dollars every month to finance the war and for what? Whatever happens in the Democratic primary doesn't change the reality that there is NO WAY in heck that I'm voting for McCain. I know we had a huge responsibility starting this war and creating havoc in that country--but at this point it should be an Iraqi issue. I don't want to see one more soldier killed uneccessarily00we are straining our military to the point where it puts our own National security here at home at peril--it's just enough. I want to re-invest in America--I want to take that money they are using for the war to help fix our rather large problems domestically. Enough is enough.

It's Called the "ENDGAME"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."


- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

Posted by martin:

Posted by izybx:

I support the war, I support the troops.

why do you support the war?

And why do you feel the need to tell us you support the troops? We all do. There's nothing to debate or discuss on that topic.

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. The best way to hurt the troops is to send them to war.

Posted by izybx:

I support the war, I support the troops.

Wars are sort of a natural extermination mechanism when you really think about it. We all live on a planet of 6.something billion people. When the planet starts to become over populated, especially with life forms that pollute, then eventually, a lot of people have to die. Either by natual-natural cuases or a natural cause like going to war. It's human nature and un-avoidable. It's sad, but it's something that has to be done. We are some of the fortunate few who aren't directly affected by the tragedy's on a world level. At least not yet, so count your blessings and pray for those who don't make it.

That's what I think of war. Who voted for it or who didn't vote for it doesn't really matter, when you think of it in these terms. Because to me, when you try to make it political, it becomes futile.

[Edited by - 4949 on 03-27-2008 12:28 PM]

Posted by martin:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by izybx:

I support the war, I support the troops.

Wars are sort of a natural extermination mechanism when you really think about it. We all live on a planet of 6.something billion people. When the planet starts to become over populated, especially with life forms that pollute, then eventually, a lot of people have to die. Either by natual-natural cuases or a natural cause like going to war. It's human nature and un-avoidable. It's sad, but it's something that has to be done. We are some of the fortunate few who aren't directly affected by the tragedy's on a world level. At least not yet, so count your blessings and pray for those who don't make it.

That's what I think of war. Who voted for it or who didn't vote for it doesn't really matter, when you think of it in these terms.

tell don't tell that to our service people who are over there or have been over there.

I thought I acknowledged that, by saying we are the forutnate few and to pray for those who don't make it, no matter who they are. It's a natural occurance is all I'm saying and is useless to make it political.

Posted by martin:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by martin:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by izybx:

I support the war, I support the troops.

Wars are sort of a natural extermination mechanism when you really think about it. We all live on a planet of 6.something billion people. When the planet starts to become over populated, especially with life forms that pollute, then eventually, a lot of people have to die. Either by natual-natural cuases or a natural cause like going to war. It's human nature and un-avoidable. It's sad, but it's something that has to be done. We are some of the fortunate few who aren't directly affected by the tragedy's on a world level. At least not yet, so count your blessings and pray for those who don't make it.

That's what I think of war. Who voted for it or who didn't vote for it doesn't really matter, when you think of it in these terms.

tell don't tell that to our service people who are over there or have been over there.

I thought I acknowledged that, by saying we are the forutnate few and to pray for those who don't make it, no matter who they are. It's a natural occurance is all I'm saying and is useless to make it political.

fair enough, but this war could have been avoided, no?

We don't know what Congress was told--they could've been told something that prompted almost everyone of them to vote for action. But that was then and this is now--and I think that the American people most members of Congress and the rest of the wrold know that our top officers laid down the BS very thick.

I would have supported this war if we would have just bombed the hell out of Iraq from a distance. There was no need to get suckered into this disaster of a guerrilla war. There was no need to put 160,000+ troops in harms way going on it's sixth year now resulting in the death of 4,000 of them and the destruction of their families. There was no reason to spend 600B+ fighting this war while watching our own economy go down the crapper.

Seriously, we made sophisticated long range weapons for this VERY REASON. So if there's a threat? We can deal with it from a distance.

This has been an epic joke the moment they put boots on the ground and it should never have played out that way.

I'm in Iraq right now...and you all would flip if you knew how much of OUR money is being wasted here.

and although I do believe that our presence here is what's preventing the Iraqis from killing each other for control of the countries oil (not to mention Turkey from invading), I think its time we start letting these people fend for themselves.