Bush-Cheney-Rove DEMAND that US adopt Fascism

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<table border="4" width="440" id="table2" bordercolorlight="#FF0000" bordercolordark="#FF0000" height="400" bgcolor="#000000" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/Republiklan.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10028/Republiklan.jpg"></td><td width="243">
<img src="http://www.theangrybuddhist.com/BUSH.Angry.jpg"></td> </tr></table>

<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
Anyone of you peeps still confused???....about the bush junta’s arrogant insistence that the United States Congress abrogate the US Constitution and US law and implement fascism???

The apostate troika of Bush-Cheney-Rove arrived at the US capitol last week with the express purpose of intimidating a United States Senate committee into shredding the US Constitution, Congressional Statues, and the Geneva Convention, and to codify the United States as a fascist nation, into immutable law.

Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of US citizens slept and worried about the death of Anna Nicole Smith’s son. This is AmeriKKKa in September 2006. </font>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

<table border="8" width="500" id="table2" bordercolorlight="#800080" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#800080" bgcolor="#000000" height="400"><tr><td><center>[wm]http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Turley-DetaineeTreatment.wmv[/wm]</center></td></tr></table>



<table border="5" width="700" id="table1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" bordercolorlight="#FF0000" bordercolordark="#FF0000" bgcolor="#D5F7FB"><tr><td>
l.washingtonpost.png



<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">A Defining Moment for America</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture.</b></font>
<font face="times new roman" size="4" color="#000000">

<img src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/wpcom_logo_feb.gif">
<b>Friday, September 15, 2006; page A18</b>

<font face="arial black" color="#ff0000" size="4">EDITORIAL</font>

PRESIDENT BUSH rarely visits Congress. So it was a measure of his painfully skewed priorities that Mr. Bush made the unaccustomed trip yesterday to seek legislative permission for the CIA to make people disappear into secret prisons and have information extracted from them by means he dare not describe publicly.
<blockquote><span style="background-color: #FFFF62"><b>
Of course, Mr. Bush didn't come out and say he's lobbying for torture. Instead he refers to "an alternative set of procedures" for interrogation. But the administration no longer conceals what it wants. It wants authorization for the CIA to hide detainees in overseas prisons where even the International Committee of the Red Cross won't have access. It wants permission to interrogate those detainees with abusive practices that in the past have included induced hypothermia and "waterboarding," or simulated drowning. And it wants the right to try such detainees, and perhaps sentence them to death, on the basis of evidence that the defendants cannot see and that may have been extracted during those abusive interrogation sessions.</b></span>
</blockquote>
There's no question that the United States is facing a dangerous foe that uses the foulest of methods. But a wide array of generals and others who should know argue that it is neither prudent nor useful for the United States to compromise its own values in response. "I continue to read and hear that we are facing a 'different enemy' in the war on terror," retired Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) this week. "No matter how true that may be, inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to enemies we have faced in the past. . . . Through those years, we held to our own values. We should continue to do so."

Another former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and one more intimately familiar with the war on terrorism, also weighed in this week: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," former general and secretary of state Colin L. Powell wrote to McCain. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts."

Mr. Powell was referring to an article of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits cruel and degrading treatment of detainees. Mr. Bush, with support from most Republican congressional leaders, wants to redefine American obligations under the treaty. Three Republican senators -- John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina; and Mr. McCain -- are bravely promoting an alternative measure that would allow terrorists to be questioned and tried without breaking faith with traditional U.S. values. The Armed Services Committee approved their bill yesterday and sent it to the Senate floor.

The doubts of which Mr. Powell spoke are impeding the U.S. war effort. A president who lobbies for torture feeds those doubts even if, as we hope, Congress denies him his request.

</font>

</td></tr>
</table>
 
Last edited:

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Greed said:
now why would you go there?

It was a purely an impuse question and I don't expect to get anything other than maybe some name calling and maybe a few additional clippings from other websites.

-VG
 

So What?

Potential Star
Registered
I would suggest that they do it like they have been in the past. Torture but dont tell anyone and dont leave any witnesses. Only a dumbass would believe we have never tortured before. It has its place. Just dont tell us about it.
 

oneofmany

Star
Registered
My solution would be to simply follow the rules and not torture people, to uphold human dignity, and shut down torture facilities in an effort to move away from fascism.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
oneofmany said:
My solution would be to simply follow the rules and not torture people, to uphold human dignity, and shut down torture facilities in an effort to move away from fascism.

The rules of the geneva convention?

Question:

If I sign a contract with Ford Motor Company to give them 400 bucks a month until my 15,000.00 loan is paid off, and that debt is a hardship for me causing me undue stress, should you be required to pay that 400 dollars?

Second question:

Should a person who is not a citizen of this country be allowed to vote?
If not, why not?

-VG
 

oneofmany

Star
Registered
VegasGuy said:
The rules of the geneva convention?

Common Article 3 of The Geneva Convention is the source of this issue. Some want to redefine/rewrite/revise it. I'd rather it simply be.

Question:

If I sign a contract with Ford Motor Company to give them 400 bucks a month until my 15,000.00 loan is paid off, and that debt is a hardship for me causing me undue stress, should you be required to pay that 400 dollars?

What exactly is the "undue stress" you are talking about? Where are you going with that (knowing this might or might not effect one's answer to the question).

Second question:

Should a person who is not a citizen of this country be allowed to vote?
If not, why not?

-VG

I'm not sure.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
VegasGuy said:
Should a person who is not a citizen of this country be allowed to vote?
If not, why not?

-VG
I don't care where this one is going -- the answer is absolutely, unequivocally and emphatically: <u>NO</u>. Such a person is not secured that right under the Constitution of the United States, hence, he/she/it has no right whatsoever to vote. Only stakeholders, as defined in the Constitution, should have a say in the stakes.

QueEx
 

Greed

Star
Registered
I don't know why most of you are posting in this thread.

this is for the reality based community.

i figured i should say it since it slipped muckraker's reality based mind.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
QueEx said:
I don't care where this one is going -- the answer is absolutely, unequivocally and emphatically: <u>NO</u>. Such a person is not secured that right under the Constitution of the United States, hence, he/she/it has no right whatsoever to vote. Only stakeholders, as defined in the Constitution, should have a say in the stakes.

QueEx

No question about it. When there was a hedge about either question, I knew there was no point in continuing. Again, just an impuse response on my part. Thx QueEx.

My first question was to open a dialog about what those articles are and WHO is bound by them and when we believe they should be followed. If I sign an agreement with Ford, that doesn't expose outsiders to financial liability. As it should be with the articles within the Geneva Convention. Seems to me some expansion of the articles is going on and is being applied to those NOT clearly specified under the GC. I could be wrong but lets dialog about it. I'm still learning too.

-VG
 

neo_cacos

Potential Star
Registered
WELL...DON'T FORGET THAT ...

- IT GOES BOTH WAYS.(if you don't respect basic human rights, how can you expecte anyonelse to respect them).

- ALSO, SOME OF YOU brothers, for some unexplained reasons, Believe that you are ABOVE these legislations. Keep in min that the word 'terrorists' can be easily broaden to include your black asses.

Think for a minute WHAT WOULD HAPPENED if Timothy McVeigh was BLACK??

I already mentioned in one of my previous posts, that all our battles should be push out of US jurisdiction? As you can see, the government is trying to do the exact opposite. The reasons are quite obvious. Let me give you an example. I'm making this up, but read further.

"I (U.S.) declare formally that all men are equal"
I interpret this however I want, it could mean that you just the right to be alive. I can create a bunch of other laws to to make this completely untrue in reality (NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY).

Now let's say, you take this to court ( A U.S. COURT) to contest the fact that you have no equal opportunity which is supposed to be implicit in the statement that " all men are equal".

WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL BE THE OUTCOME ??

Now assume that you take this to an INTERNATIONAL BODY and that article is covered under international law to which the U.S. must abide. And it goes in front of an organization compose of 10, 15 or whichever number of countries OTHER THAN the U.S.

Now you see the difference. All of a sudden, your changes of winning just improved. To which extent ? I don't know ? But they are certainly better.

Neo
 
Last edited:

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
neo_cacos said:
WELL...DON'T FORGET THAT ...

- IT GOES BOTH WAYS.(if you don't respect basic human rights, how can you expecte anyonelse to respect them).

What did Daniel Pearl say when you asked him about respecting human rights?

- ALSO, SOME OF YOU brothers, for some unexplained reasons, Believe that you are ABOVE these legislations. Keep in min that the word 'terrorists' can be easily broaden to include your black asses.

Nahh wrong! This isn't a foriegn land and brothers and sisters are a bit smarter and better equipped not to mention accomplished for any bullshit like that to go down. We are not all weak as your comments suggests. Secondly, what "legislations" are you talking about? Legislation is something done by elected officials.

Think for a minute WHAT WOULD HAPPENED if Timothy McVeigh was BLACK??

Last time I checked, Timmy is dead.

-VG
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
oneofmany said:
My solution would be to simply follow the rules and not torture people, to uphold human dignity, and shut down torture facilities in an effort to move away from fascism.


<font face="arial unicode ms, helvetica, verdana, tahoma" size="3" color="#000000">

The solution is - simple!!<b>
FOLLOW EXISTING US LAW.
FOLLOW THE US CONSTITUTION.
RESPECT & ABIDE BY THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS THAT THE US SIGNED.</b>

• John McCain,
• Colin Powell,
• Lindsay Graham,
• John Warner,
• Former Secretary of State George Schultz,
• The entire military (JAG) Judge Advocate General's,
• Henry Kissinger,
• Brent Scowcroft,
• All former CIA directors excluding James Woolsey & Porter Goss BUT including George H.W. Bush
• The entire US diplomatic core excluding Condi & Bolton
• All former pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff
• .....And all persons who don't believe in fascism
<b>AGREE.</b>

Bush is an incorrigible liar, and he ain't lying about a Ho giving him a blowjob under his desk.
Bush has committed felonies. Bush has ordered others to commit felonies, violating US law & International law. This is why Bush-Cheney-Rove made that rare trip up to Capitol Hill last week.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF5E"><b>
Included in the legislation they want passed is retroactive and future immunity from criminal prosecution for themselves and those individuals that they ordered to commit felonies. </b></span>

All of the CIA, military, & private contractors that implemented torture & death at Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the dozens of secret US prisons worldwide, would be immune from any prosecution,If the legislation bush wants is passed.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF5E"><b>Not only will the torture & death of "enemy combatants" continue BUT bush's legislation says that that those imprisoned HAVE NO RIGHT to go before an 'impartial' judge and have the charges against them adjudicated!
In other words,
<h3>NO HABEAS-CORPUS.</h3>
This is FASCISM which is antithetical to the DEMOCRACY that bush cynically professes is his desire for the world.</b></span>

Listen to bush LIE!! To an audience on April 2004, watch the video or read the transcript

<table border="8" width="500" id="table2" bordercolorlight="#800080" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#800080" bgcolor="#000000" height="400"><tr><td><center></center></td></tr></table>

<blockquote>

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." [President Bush, 4/20/04]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#
</blockquote>

Bush knew he was lying when he said the statement above. He knew as he said the lie above that he was committing a felony, which was violating the FISA laws. 20 Months later ( SEE BUSH'S STATEMENT BELOW) he admitted he committed a felony, on national television. In fact he admitted to breaking the law more than 30 times and he told us that he would continue to commit felonies. In other words, FUCK YOU American people & FUCK THE US CONSTITUTION.

<blockquote>
"I Authorized Secret Wiretap Program Without Going Through the Courts to save American lives. We must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks. So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. ... This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda. I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our nation is -- for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens."
[President Bush, 12/19/05]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
</blockquote>

So now Bush-Cheney-Rove wants congress to give them blanket retroactive immunization for the felonies & war crimes they have committed -- God forbid the Democrats take over in January 2007 and start issuing subpoenas and holding hearings.

Finally, all the professional law enforcement, clandestine service, military & special operations individuals from our government and international governments conclude that TORTURE DOESN'T WORK. The detainee will tell you whatever you want to hear (lies) in order for the pain to stop. Do your own homework. The universality of this conclusion world-wide is irrefutable.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove are just common thugs who inexplicably, using fear mongering , continue to have too much sway over the US military-industrial-political-media-complex. Hopefully they are in their death throes. The coming 50 days will tell.

If you want the factual minutiae, that thoroughly debunks the white house’s and their sycophants amateurish propaganda, regarding their quest to trash Geneva, read Glenn Greenwald’s comprehensive dissection of their lies.

Bush-Cheney-Rove realize, sad-to-say correctly, that the majority of US citizens do not engage in critical thinking. Their strategy has always been K.I.S.S. –Keep It Simple Stupid. This is why they have so much disdain for fact-based intellectualism.
Global Warming, Oh No, we don’t believe it, we don’t believe in science :confused: :confused:
Evolution, Oh No, don’t you know that the earth is only 6000 years old. :confused: :confused:
Terrorism, Oh No, we got to torture & kill all the Arabs, those Islamo-fascist, if we don’t fight them over there, were going have to fight them on K street, right here in DC. :confused: :confused:
This is kindergarten stuff. Such is the condition of most AmeriKKKans minds in 2006.

Here is the link for Glenn Greenwald’s comprehensive dissection of their lies.

<font size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>Bush Followers Distort History to Justify Their Radical Changes</b></font>

</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="14"></hr>

 
Last edited:

neo_cacos

Potential Star
Registered
VegasGuy said:
What did Daniel Pearl say when you asked him about respecting human rights?

Somehow, you are objecting to what I said...but I fail to see your position. - - So are you saying it's ok to torture ?
- Are you saying because someone else did it , the US should do it too ?
- Are you saying we should do it when applicable ?
STATE CLEARLY YOUR POSITION.


I tried to be clear, the U.S. proclaimed itself 'defender of freedom and protectors of human rights'. This is policy, the rethoric has been used to justify many interventions. Again, if you cannot see the contradiction this policy and the current deliberate effort to circumvent international laws and its interpretations, I cannot do nothing about this.




Nahh wrong! This isn't a foriegn land and brothers and sisters are a bit smarter and better equipped not to mention accomplished for any bullshit like that to go down. We are not all weak as your comments suggests.

All I'm saying is that when the negative attention is focused on another group. There's a false sense of immunity that installs itself in the group where that attention was previously aimed at.

Secondly, what "legislations" are you talking about? Legislation is something done by elected officials.

You obviously did not read my comments. I have made a fictitious example to illustrate why this kind of approach to basic human rights should not be encouraged.


Last time I checked, Timmy is dead.

The point about Timmy was shown to illustrate a simple double standard.
Most of the measures taken in the name of the 'war on terror' are obviously targeted at a certain group of people.
When a white person or group does something horrific, the measures taken are restricted to that individual or group of individuals.
But when non-whites perpetrates questionable acts. The measures are usually drastic and target the whole non-white community in general.....



-VG


Neo
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
neo cacos said:
The point about Timmy was shown to illustrate a simple double standard.
Most of the measures taken in the name of the 'war on terror' are obviously targeted at a certain group of people.

When a white person or group does something horrific, the measures taken are restricted to that individual or group of individuals.
But when non-whites perpetrates questionable acts. The measures are usually drastic and target the whole non-white community in general.....
Can you give more concrete "real" examples of this disparate treatment? If Timmy had been Black, I don't think that he would be anymore dead.

I'm not saying that what you are saying is untrue, but I want to know exactly which laws that you are referring to and what has been the disparate treatment under the specific law.

QueEx
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">

<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">The Kafka Strategy</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>Sep 18, 2006. pg. A.27

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-herbert-75.jpg">

by Bob Herbert</b>

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...7hQ5CQ272Q5Cj1Q5CkQ2F@G@kGQ5Cj10_zP_ztQ250tBI

The president seemed about to lose it at times last week. He was fighting with everybody -- tenacious reporters frustrated by the absence of straight answers about the treatment of terror suspects; key Republican senators who think it's crazy for a great country like the U.S. to become a champion of kangaroo courts and the degradation of defendants; even his own former secretary of state, Colin Powell, who worries that the world is coming to ''doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.''

It seemed that the only people the president wasn't fighting with were the Democrats, who have gone into a coma, and the yahoos who never had much of a problem with such matters as torture and detention without trial.

As Marvin Gaye once sang, ''What's going on?''

The people at the top are getting scared, that's what's going on. The fog of secrecy is lifting, and the Bush administration is frightened to death that it will eventually have to pay a heavy price for the human rights abuses it has ordered or condoned in its so-called war on terror.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the prisoners seized by the administration, which means that abusing those prisoners -- as so many have said for so long -- is unquestionably illegal. And there is also the possibility that the Democrats, if they ever wake up, may take control of at least one house of Congress, giving them the kind of subpoena power and oversight that makes the administration tremble.

Bush, Cheney & Co. are desperately trying to hold together a house of cards that is ready to collapse because their strategy and tactics for fighting terrorism were slapped together with no real regard for the rule of law. What we've seen over the past few years has been a nightmare version of the United States. Torture? Secret prisons? Capital trials in which key evidence is kept from the accused? That's the stuff of Kafka, not Madison and Jefferson.

The reason President Bush has been trying so frantically to get Congressional passage of his plan to interrogate and try terror suspects is that he needs its contorted interpretations of the law to keep important cases from falling apart, and to cover the collective keisters of higher-ups who may have authorized or condoned war crimes.

There's no guarantee that the administration can properly bring to justice even the worst of the bad guys, people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 13 other high-profile prisoners who were recently transferred from a secret C.I.A. program to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These are men accused of the most heinous of offenses, crimes that would subject them to the death penalty.

But it's widely believed that some or all of them were tortured. In civilized countries, evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in a court of law.

The Bush administration would also like to deny terror suspects, even those facing the death penalty, the right to see evidence against them that is classified. This is a concept that is so far beyond the pale it makes most legal scholars gasp.

''We don't charge people -- particularly in capital offenses, but in minor offenses, as well -- without letting them see the evidence that is being offered against them,'' said Scott Horton, a prominent New York attorney and Columbia law professor who has done extensive human rights work.

''Let's imagine you're a prosecutor,'' said Mr. Horton. ''Are you going to seek the death penalty against someone and convict them and let them be sentenced to death without letting them know what the evidence is against them? No way. What prosecutor wants that?''

One of the biggest concerns of the administration is the possibility of evidence emerging that could lead to charges of war crimes against high-ranking officials. The president and others in the administration have argued that they are seeking changes in the law in order to protect soldiers and ordinary interrogators in the field against war crimes accusations.

But there are already clear guidelines -- short of war crimes prosecutions -- for dealing with soldiers and civilian interrogators who abuse prisoners. The Abu Ghraib prosecutions are a good example.

The people who would have to worry, if war crimes were found to have been committed, would be those at the top of the command structure who crafted policies that were illegal and ordered them carried out -- or who turned a blind eye to atrocities.

''Those are the ones,'' said Mr. Horton, ''who are vulnerable.''
</font>


<hr noshade color="#333333" size="6"></hr>

<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">

<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">
King Of Pain</font>

<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>Sep 18, 2006. pg. A.27

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-krugman-75.jpg">

by Paul Krugman</b>

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...Q60CQ20kbRQ3DRkQ3DQ20Q60CQ5Ds-2wWQ3DoQ51Q7Ew!

A lot has been written and said about President Bush's demand that Congress ''clarify'' the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the use of torture under any circumstances.

We know that the world would see this action as a U.S. repudiation of the rules that bind civilized nations. We also know that an extraordinary lineup of former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have spoken out against the Bush plan, warning that it would further damage America's faltering moral standing, and end up endangering U.S. troops.

But I haven't seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture?

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. According to an ABC News report from last fall, procedures used by C.I.A. interrogators have included forcing prisoners to ''stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours''; the ''cold cell,'' in which prisoners are forced ''to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees,'' while being doused with cold water; and, of course, water boarding, in which ''the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet,'' then ''cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him,'' inducing ''a terrifying fear of drowning.''

And bear in mind that the ''few bad apples'' excuse doesn't apply; these were officially approved tactics -- and Mr. Bush wants at least some of these tactics to remain in use.

I'm ashamed that my government does this sort of thing. I'd be ashamed even if I were sure that only genuine terrorists were being tortured -- and I'm not. Remember that the Bush administration has imprisoned a number of innocent men at Guantanamo, and in some cases continues to imprison them even though it knows they are innocent.

Is torture a necessary evil in a post-9/11 world? No. People with actual knowledge of intelligence work tell us that reality isn't like TV dramas, in which the good guys have to torture the bad guy to find out where he planted the ticking time bomb.

What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi -- who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding -- told his questioners that Saddam Hussein's regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This ''confession'' became a key part of the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq -- but it was pure invention.

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration -- more fundamental than any particular policy -- has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president's power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it's a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they're asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is poised to vote in favor of the administration's plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood with the Democrats in opposing the administration.

Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he's willing to do what's necessary to protect America, and they aren't. But the record says otherwise.

The fact is that for all his talk of being a ''war president,'' Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause -- even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.
</font>
 

neo_cacos

Potential Star
Registered
QueEx said:
Can you give more concrete "real" examples of this disparate treatment? If Timmy had been Black, I don't think that he would be anymore dead.

I'm not saying that what you are saying is untrue, but I want to know exactly which laws that you are referring to and what has been the disparate treatment under the specific law.

QueEx


A. This is not about Timmy. this is the relationship I was tryin go illustrate
1 person do a terrible crime = 1 person feel the repercussion
1 black person do a terrible = probably MORE than 1 black person would feel the repercussions.

B. Mississippi Black Code


The status of the Negro was the focal problem of Reconstruction. Slavery had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, but the white people of the South were determined to keep the Negro in his place, socially, politically, and economically. This was done by means of the notorious "Black Codes," passed by several of the state legislatures. Northerners regarded these codes as a revival of slavery in disguise. The first such body of statutes, and probably the harshest, was passed in Mississippi in November 1865. Four of the statutes that made up the code are reprinted below.

Source, Laws of the State of Mississippi, Passed at a Regular Session of the Mississippi Legislature, held in Jackson, October, November and December, 1965, Jackson, 1866, pp. 82-93, 165-167,

Apprentice Law

Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that it shall be the duty of all sheriffs, justices of the peace, and other civil officers of the several counties in this state to report to the Probate courts of their respective counties semiannually, at the January and July terms of said courts, all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes under the age of eighteen within their respective counties, beats, or districts who are orphans, or whose parent or parents have not the means, or who refuse to provide for and support said minors; and thereupon it shall be the duty of said Probate Court to order the clerk of said court to apprentice said minors to some competent and suitable person, on such terms as the court may direct, having a particular care to the interest of said minors:

Provided, that the former owner of said minors shall have the preference when, in the opinion of the court, he or she shall be a Suitable person for that purpose.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, that the said court shall be fully satisfied that the person or persons to whom said minor shall be apprenticed shall be a suitable person to have the charge and care of said minor and fully to protect the interest of said minor. The said court shall require the said master or mistress to execute bond and security, payable to the state of Mississippi, conditioned that he or she shall furnish said minor with sufficient food and clothing; to treat said minor humanely; furnish medical attention in case of sickness; teach or cause to be taught him or her to read and write, if under fifteen years old; and will conform to any law that may be hereafter passed for the regulation of the duties and relation of master and apprentice:

Provided, that said apprentice shall be bound by indenture, in case of males until they are twenty-one years old, and in case of females until they are eighteen years old.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, that in the management and control of said apprentices, said master or mistress shall have power to inflict such moderate corporeal chastisement as a father or guardian is allowed to inflict on his or her child or ward at common law:

Provided, that in no case shall cruel or inhuman punishment be inflicted.

Section 4. Be it further enacted, that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue and recapture said apprentice and bring him or her before any justice of the peace of the county, whose duty it shall be to remand said apprentice to the service of his or her master or mistress; and in the event of a refusal on the part of said apprentice so to return, then said justice shall commit said apprentice to the jail of said county, on failure to give bond, until the next term of the county court; and it shall be the duty of said court, at the first term thereafter, to investigate said case; and if the court shall be of opinion that said apprentice left the employment of his or her master or mistress without good cause, to order him or her to be punished, as provided for the punishment of hired freedmen, as may be from time to time provided for by law, for desertion, until he or she shall agree to return to his or her master or mistress:

Provided, that the court may grant continuances, as in other cases; and provided, further, that if the court shall believe that said apprentice had good cause to quit his said master or mistress, the court shall discharge said apprentice from said indenture and also enter a judgment against the master or mistress for not more than $100, for the use and benefit of said apprentice, to be collected on execution, as in other cases.

Section 5. Be it further enacted, that if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress, of shall sell or give said apprentice ardent spirits, without such consent, said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof before the county court, be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes, or mulattoes.

Section 6. Be it further enacted, that it shall be the duty of all civil officers of their respective counties to report any minors within their respective counties to said Probate Court who are subject to be apprenticed under the provisions of this act, from time to time, as the facts may come to their knowledge; and it shall be the duty of said court, from time to time, as said minors shall be reported to them or otherwise come to their knowledge, to apprentice said minors as hereinbefore provided.

Section 7. Be it further enacted, that in case the master or mistress of any apprentice shall desire, he or she shall have the privilege to summon his or her said apprentice to the Probate Court, and thereupon, with the approval of the court, he or she shall be released from all liability as master of said apprentice, and his said bond shall be canceled, and it shall be the duty of the court forthwith to reapprentice said minor; and in the event any master of in apprentice shall die before the close of the term of service of said apprentice, it shall be the duty of the court to give the preference in reapprenticing said minor to the widow, or other member of said master's family:

Provided, that said widow or other member of said family shall be a suitable person for that purpose.

Section 8. Be it further enacted, that in case any master or mistress of any apprentice, bound to him or her under this act shall be about to remove or shall have removed to any other state of the United States by the laws of which such apprentice may be an inhabitant thereof, the Probate Court of the proper county may authorize the removal of such apprentice to such state, upon the said master or mistress entering into bond, with security, in a penalty to be fixed by the judge, conditioned that said master or mistress will, upon such removal, comply with the laws of such state in such cases:

Provided, that said master shall be cited to attend the court at which such order is proposed to be made and shall have a right to resist the same by next friend, or otherwise.

Section 9. Be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for any freedman, free Negro, or Mulatto having a minor child or children to apprentice the said minor child or children as provided for by this act.

Section 10. Be it further enacted, that in all cases where the age of the freedman, free Negro, or mulatto cannot be ascertained by record testimony, the judge of the county court shall fix the age.

II.

Vagrancy Law

Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that all rogues and vagabonds, idle and dissipated persons, beggars, jugglers, or persons practising unlawful games or plays, runaways, common drunkards, common nightwalkers, pilferers, lewd, wanton, or lascivious persons, in speech or behavior, common railers and brawlers, persons who neglect their calling or employment, misspend what they earn, or do not provide for the support of themselves or their families or dependents, and all other idle and disorderly persons, including all who neglect all lawful business, or habitually misspend their time by frequenting houses of ill-fame, gaming houses, or tippling shops, shall be deemed and considered vagrants under the provisions of this act; and, on conviction thereof shall be fined not exceeding $100, with all accruing costs, and be imprisoned at the discretion of the court not exceeding ten days.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, that all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes in this state over the age of eighteen years found on the second Monday in January 1966, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves together either in the day or nighttime, and all white persons so assembling with freedmen, free Negroes, or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free Negroes, or mulattoes on terms of equality, or living in adultery or fornication with a freedwoman, free Negro, or mulatto, shall be deemed vagrants; and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined in the sum of not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, 150, and a white man, $200, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court, the free Negro not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, that all justices of the peace, mayors, and aldermen of incorporated towns and cities of the several counties in this state shall have jurisdiction to try all questions of vagrancy in their respective towns, counties, and cities; and it is hereby made their duty, whenever they shall ascertain that any person or persons in their respective towns, counties, and cities are violating any of the provisions of this act, to have said party or parties arrested and brought before them and immediately investigate said charge; and, on conviction, punish said party or parties as provided for herein. And it is hereby made the duty of all sheriffs, constables, town constables, city marshals, and all like officers to report to some officer having jurisdiction all violations of any of the provisions of this act; and it shall be the duty of the county courts to inquire if any officers have neglected any of the duties required by this act; and in case any officer shall fail or neglect any duty herein, it shall be the duty of the county court to fine said officer, upon conviction, not exceeding $100, to be paid into the county treasury for county purposes.

Section 4. Be it further enacted, that keepers of gaming houses, houses of prostitution, all prostitutes, public or private, and all persons who derive their chief support in employments that militate against good morals or against laws shall be deemed and held to be vagrants.

Section 5. Be it further enacted, that all fines and forfeitures collected under the provisions of this act shall be paid into the county treasury for general county purposes; and in case any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto shall fail for five days after the imposition of any fine or forfeiture upon him or her for violation of any of the provisions of this act to pay the same, that it shall be, and is hereby made, the duty of the sheriff of the proper county to hire out said freedman, free Negro, or mulatto to any person who will, for the shortest period of service, pay said fine or forfeiture and all costs:

Provided, a preference shall be given to the employer, if there be one, in which case the employer shall be entitled to deduct and retain the amount so paid from the wages of such freedman, free Negro, or mulatto then due or to become due; and in case such freedman, free Negro, or mulatto cannot be hired out he or she may be dealt with as a pauper.

Section 6. Be it further enacted, that the same duties and liabilities existing among white persons of this state shall attach to freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes to support their indigent families and all colored paupers; and that, in order to secure a support for such indigent freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes, it shall be lawful, and it is hereby made the duty of the boards of county police of each county in this state, to levy a poll or capitation tax on each and every freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, between the ages of eighteen and sixty years, not to exceed the sum of s I annually, to each person so taxed, which tax, when collected, shall be paid into the county treasurer's hands and constitute a fund to be called the Freedman's Pauper Fund, which shall be applied by the commissioners of the poor for the maintenance of the poor of the freedmen, free Negroes. and mulattoes of this state, under such regulations as may be established by the boards of county police, in the respective counties of this state.

Section 7. Be it further enacted, that if any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto shall fail or refuse to pay any tax levied according to the provisions of the 6th Section of this act, it shall be prima facie evidence of vagrancy, and it shall be the duty of the sheriff to arrest such freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, or such person refusing or neglecting to pay such tax, and proceed at once to hire, for the shortest time, such delinquent taxpayer to anyone who will pay the said tax, with accruing costs, giving preference to the employer, if there be one.

Section 8. Be it further enacted, that any person feeling himself or herself aggrieved by the judgment of any justice of the peace, mayor, or alderman in cases arising under this act may, within five days, appeal to the next term of the county court of the proper county, upon giving bond and security in a sum not less than $25 nor more than $150, conditioned to appear and prosecute said appeal, and abide by the judgment of the county court, and said appeal shall be tried de novo in the county court, and the decision of said court shall be final.

Civil Rights of Freedmen

Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded in all the courts of law and equity of this state, and may acquire personal property and choses in action, by descent or purchase, and may dispose of the same in the same manner and to the same extent that white persons may:

Provided, that the provisions of this section shall not be construed as to allow any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto to rent or lease any lands or tenements, except in incorporated towns or cities, in which places the corporate authorities shall control the same.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, that all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes may intermarry with each other, in the same manner and under the same regulations that are provided by law for white persons:

Provided, that the clerk of probate shall keep separate records of the same.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, that all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes who do now and have heretofore lived and cohabited together as husband and wife shall be taken and held in law as legally married, and the issue shall be taken and held as legitimate for all purposes. That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto to intermarry with any white person; nor for any white person to intermarry with any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto; and any person who shall so intermarry shall be deemed guilty of felony and, on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life; and those shall be deemed freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes who are of pure Negro blood; and those descended from a Negro to the third generation inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation may have been a white person.

Section 4. Be it further enacted, that in addition to cases in which freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes are now by law competent witnesses, freedmen, free Negroes, or mulattoes shall be competent in civil cases when a party or parties to the suit, either plaintiff or plaintiffs, defendant or defendants, also in cases where freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes is or are either plaintiff or plaintiffs, defendant or defendants, and a white person or white persons is or are the opposing party or parties, plaintiff or plaintiffs, defendant or defendants. They shall also be competent witnesses in all criminal prosecutions where the crime charged is alleged to have been committed by a white person upon or against the person or property of a freedman, free Negro, or mulatto:

Provided, that in all cases said witnesses shall be examined in open court on the stand, except, however, they may be examined before the grand jury, and shall in all cases be subject to the rules and tests of the common law as to competency and credibility.

Section 5. Be it further enacted, that every freedman, free Negro, and mulatto shall, on the second Monday of January 1866, and annually thereafter, have a lawful home or employment, and shall have a written evidence thereof, as follows, to wit: if living in any incorporated city, town, or village, a license from the mayor thereof; and if living outside of any incorporated city, town, or village, from the member of the board of police of his beat, authorizing him or her to do irregular and job work, or a written contract, as provided in Section 6 of this act, which licenses may be revoked for cause, at any time, by the authority granting the same.

Section 6. Be it further enacted, that all contracts for labor made with freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes for a longer period than one month shall be in writing and in duplicate, attested and read to said freedman, free Negro, or mulatto by a beat, city, or county officer, or two disinterested white persons of the county in which the labor is to be performed, of which each party shall have one; and said contracts shall be taken and held as entire contracts; and if the laborer shall quit the service of the employer before expiration of his term of service without good cause, he shall forfeit his wages for that year, up to the time of quitting.

Section 7. Be it further enacted, that every civil officer shall, and every person may, arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto who shall have quit the service of his or her employer before the expiration of his or her term of service without good cause, and said officer and person shall be entitled to receive for arresting and carrying back every deserting employee aforesaid the sum of $5, and 10 cents per mile from the place of arrest to the place of delivery, and the same shall be paid by the employer, and held as a setoff for so much against the wages of said deserting employee:

Provided, that said arrested party, after being so returned, may appeal to a justice of the peace or member of the board of police of the county, who, on notice to the alleged employer, shall try summarily whether said appellant is legally employed by the alleged employer and his good cause to quit said employer; either party shall have the right of appeal to the county court, pending which the alleged deserter shall be remanded to the alleged employer or otherwise disposed of as shall be right and just, and the decision of the county court shall be final.

Section 8. Be it further enacted, that upon affidavit made by the employer of any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, or other credible person before any justice of the peace or member of the board of police, that any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, legally employed by said employer, has illegally deserted said employment, such justice of the peace or member of the board of police shall issue his warrant or warrants, returnable before himself, or other such officer, directed to any sheriff, constable, or special deputy, commanding him to arrest said deserter and return him or her to said employer, and the like proceedings shall be had as provided in the preceding section; and it shall be lawful for any officer to whom such warrant shall be directed to execute said warrant in any county of this state, and that said warrant may be transmitted without endorsement to any like officer of another county, to be executed and returned as aforesaid, and the said employer shall pay the cost of said warrants and arrest and return, which shall be set off for so much against the wages of said deserter.

Section 9. Be it further enacted, that if any person shall persuade or attempt to persuade, entice, or cause any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto to desert from the legal employment of any person before the expiration of his or her term of service, or shall knowingly employ any such deserting freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, or shall knowingly give or sell to any such deserting freedman, free Negro, or mulatto any food, raiment, or other thing, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than $25 and not more than $200 and the costs; and, if said fine and costs shall not be immediately paid, the court shall sentence said convict to not exceeding two months' imprisonment in the county jail, and he or she shall moreover be liable to the party injured in damages:

Provided, if any person shall, or shall attempt to, persuade, entice, or cause any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto to desert from any legal employment of any person with the view to employ said freedman, free Negro, or mulatto without the limits of this state, such person, on conviction, shall be fined not less than $50 and not more than $1500 and costs; and, if said fine and costs shall not be immediately paid, the court shall sentence said convict to not exceeding six months' imprisonment in the county jail,

Section 10. Be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto to charge any white person, freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, by affidavit, with any criminal offense against his or her person or property; and, upon such affidavit, the proper process shall be issued and executed as if said affidavit was made by a white person; and it shall be lawful for any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, in any action, suit, or controversy pending or about to be instituted, in any court of law or equity of this state. to make all needful and lawful affidavits, as shall be necessary for the institution, prosecution, or defense of such suit or controversy.

Section 11. Be it further enacted, that the penal laws of this state, in all cases not otherwise specially provided for, shall apply and extend to all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes.

IV.

Penal Code

Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that no freedman, free Negro, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk, or Bowie knife; and, on conviction thereof in the county court, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding $10, and pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed for trial in default of bail.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, that any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto committing riots, routs, affrays, trespasses, malicious mischief, cruel treatment to animals, seditious speeches, insulting gestures, language, or acts, or assaults on any person, disturbance of the peace, exercising the function of a minister of the Gospel without a license from some regularly organized church, vending spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or committing any other misdemeanor t e punishment of which is not specifically provided for by law shall, upon conviction thereof in the county court, be fined not less than $10 and not more than $100, and may be imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, not exceeding thirty days.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, that if any white person shall sell, lend, or give to any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto any firearms, dirk, or Bowie knife, or ammunition, or any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, such person or persons so offending, upon conviction thereof in the county court of his or her county, shall be fined not exceeding $50, and may be imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, not exceeding thirty days:

Provided, that any master, mistress, or employer of any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto may give to any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto apprenticed to or employed by such master, mistress, or employer spirituous or intoxicating liquors, but not in sufficient quantities to produce intoxication.

Section 4. Be it further enacted, that all the penal and criminal laws now in force in this state defining offenses and prescribing the mode of punishment for crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free Negroes, or mulattoes be and the same are hereby reenacted and declared to be in full force and effect against freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes, except so far m the mode and manner of trial and punishment have been changed or altered by law.

Section 5. Be it further enacted, that if any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto convicted of any of the misdemeanors provided against in this act shall fail-or refuse, for the space of five days after conviction, to pay the fine and costs imposed, such person shall be hired out by the sheriff or other officer, at public outcry, to any white person who will pay said fine and all costs and take such convict for the shortest time. (Westport, Conn., 1972) Ark. Narr., Vol. 8, 175- 179.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/code.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Yo homes,

Where are the "Present Day" or at least "Modern Day" examples that you are referring to ??? I stopped reading right after "B. Mississippi Black Code". I also note that you said if a Black person does something terrible "probably MORE than 1 black person would feel the repercussions ..."

Don't get me wrong, shit happens to us. But saying it does doesn't make it so. If you're going to make allegations, you need to back them up. Otherwise, they sound more lack like excuse instead of statements of fact. Why is that important? I think its important that we <u>know</u> who and what might be fucking with us so that we can drop the bullshit excuses which don't help our cause -- and focus on REAL problems.

QueEx
 

gene cisco

Not A BGOL Eunuch
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
Yo homes,

Where are the "Present Day" or at least "Modern Day" examples that you are referring to ??? I stopped reading right after "B. Mississippi Black Code". I also note that you said if a Black person does something terrible "probably MORE than 1 black person would feel the repercussions ..."

Don't get me wrong, shit happens to us. But saying it does doesn't make it so. If you're going to make allegations, you need to back them up. Otherwise, they sound more lack like excuse instead of statements of fact. Why is that important? I think its important that we <u>know</u> who and what might be fucking with us so that we can drop the bullshit excuses which don't help our cause -- and focus on REAL problems.

QueEx

Que, me thinks the brother is trying to point out if laws are on the books they are enforced different to black folks AND black areas.

A brother gets a jaywalking ticket, the white lady in the suburbs doesnt even those she is jaywalking when crossing the street to talk to neighbors.

If timothy had been a crip im pretty sure all hell would have broke loose and the next day "gang bangers" would be classified as terrorists then all these laws on the books would be enforced in every hood in america.

As far as the war criminal bush goes he is covering his slosvevic madenko wannabe ass. I mean bill clinton lied about getting head and the republican controlled government gave him hell. The boy bush would be done IF the dems pull off a miracle in november, those impeachment proseedings could then lead to international charges.

And aint it american to throw a muthafucka to the wolves. I mean what better way to save face then to admit this administration had war criminals in it and clean house????

Smart muthafuckas like colin got low and got the fuck out of dodge, this is a train wreck.

I have been saying for years people EVENTUALLY will get at bush, it could be 5 years from now but he is gonna be locked the fuck up.

Its not just gonna be him either, rummy and cheney and rice gonna get it to.

I mean seriously they are either guilty of gross negligence or pre meditated murder, either way buy law they should be tried.

If I get in my car and wipe out your family in an accident cause I ran a red light, i'm going to jail. I could have not been paying attention but it still was my fault. Now if I was drunk I'm going UNDER the jail cause that is like gross negligence. If I just break into your house and kill your family I probaly will get the death penalty.

In all cases same result dead family and I am responsible in some way and broke the laws, just different ones.

Now how does a future administration handle ths war criminal bush administration? That shit will be easy has american lives keep getting lost and the economy goes to shit from increased isolation. Some of the burnt bridges will have to be built and the best way is to throw some crooked fuckers to the wolves.

I mean if they put clinton through impeachment for lying what can they do to bush for either lying or gross negligence!!!!!

If child neglect is a crime on a personal level why cannot it not be on a bigger scale. Didnt bush neglect american children by sending them to die and get maimed in a "fake ass illegal" war????????????

Sodam is on trial for some shit that happened 25 years ago with american weapons that aint half as bad as what bush has done, bush sees that shit and knows all it takes is for the right people to get in power and thats him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You, bush or I would be crazy to sign on to anything after doing all kinds of illegal shit. I dont blame bush at all for trying to change laws, he should. Signs of a guilty man.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
gene cisco said:
Que, me thinks the brother is trying to point out if laws are on the books they are enforced different to black folks AND black areas.
I can't read his mind geno. If thats what you say he said, ok.

A brother gets a jaywalking ticket, the white lady in the suburbs doesnt even those she is jaywalking when crossing the street to talk to neighbors.
Jaywalking doesn't apply to neighborhood streets does it? Of course, I live down south and we don't generally give a good one where you cross the street -- just so that you cross without getting ran the fuck over. I know, up nawth, yall probably don't care if the crosser gets run the fuckover. lol Its one of those southern gentlemanly like things down here. Po fukker. lol

If timothy had been a crip im pretty sure all hell would have broke loose and the next day "gang bangers" would be classified as terrorists then all these laws on the books would be enforced in every hood in america.
Bad analogy geno. All Black folk are not crips, nor are most Black criminals. I don't believe (though I might be convinced otherwise) that when a crip fucks up, all Black people suffer. On the other hand, us being us, we do tend to suffer a bit mentally, if nothing more than disappointment, when one of ours goes down -- you know, its that weight we tend to carry for all of us.

Again, don't understand me to say that we don't received disparate treatment. My thing is, we need to know and understand WHEN that happens. Its best addressed that way.

QueEx
 

gene cisco

Not A BGOL Eunuch
BGOL Investor
Yeah I didnt express my "crip" point right.

You know how when they do " sweeps" in the inner city they just run up on a group of young black men that could be doing nothing and tell them to get against the wall? Even though they know not all of them are gang related or drug related. They can stop you on the street and lay you down. Pull you over cause you in a "drug area".

Thats what I was trying to elude to. More of that shit probaly would have went down.

We know we are not all crips, just like we know the vast majority of arabs and muslims are not terrorists, it just can be played different in the media.

But using a crip was bad on my part, I should have said new black panters or nation of islam.

Now you know shit would not only hit the fan it would knock it over.

Thank god we dont engage in shit like that.

But in retrospect didnt they prove this shit many times with the old black panthers, everytime they did something violent didnt the whole community get put through hell.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
gene cisco said:
Yeah I didnt express my "crip" point right.

Let me help you out geno (adding some humor to this thread):

playboy_centerfold_stephanie_adams.jpg
230px-Stephanie_Adams_2.jpg
Adams.jpg



[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/23/playmate.lawsuit.ap/index.html[/frame]
 

gene cisco

Not A BGOL Eunuch
BGOL Investor
Hahahahah man i dunno.

I love our blackwomen but if you aint used to their mouth....................................it can catch you off guard. I seen them cussing arabs out at my favorite beer and corn beef spot for nothing, showing their asses. A good lawyer could get under her skin on the stand and show how her attitude is.......if she has one.

But even if she did the police were just being police, she black so they can do whatever and who is gonna give a fuck, just ruff her up and hit her with the "my bad.....but you know we could still take you in for disturbing the peace(you screaming and yelling while they have you on the ground with their knee in your neck :smh: ) so just carry on and get out of here."
 
B

Blkvoz

Guest
I am fairly positive that all of us agree that our system of government, Justice etc. is not the least bit equal when it comes to Black men and women, vs our white counterparts. In fact across the board, Black men women and children, are treated worse than any other group in this country.

I will not attempt to defend my position, if anyone cares to disagree, first look up some statistics regarding the prison population, observe the disparity in sentencing in relationship to any other group in this country.

Bush does not have to worry about being impeached any more than Clinton did. Nor will he lose any sleep about the possibility of standing before a world court. Even if the Democrats do by some miracle do regain control of congress, they will not have the numbers to bring him to trial and convict him.

Bush is not as concerned about information collection as he is about being viewed as a strong leader. From a military prospective, when a solider is captured, and is in possession of vital information, that information is changed, so as to render it’s disclosure useless. Which is one of the reasons we have not been able to capture Bin Laden, or to successfully infiltrate any of the insurgents cells.

I am a Dem, I voted for both our two wannabees, but judging from their pathetic campaigns, I am not all that confident either one would have handled the Iraq invasion or war any better than Bush.

I also realize that some may say, we would not have been in Iraq, had Bush been defeated in 2000. Maybe so, I do not, nor will anyone else ever know, what could have been.

Having been in the military, been a police man, and a prison administrator, I know that if I decide that a person must tell me something, he will indeed tell me what I want to hear. Bear in mind, that what you hear or want to hear, may not be what you need to know.

And NO, I never tortured anyone, in most cases, it is too easy to obtain the information you need otherwise.

We have had some people locked up for four or five years now, whatever information these people have, would be of little value today. My question is, if they or any of them are suspected of a crime, why have they not been charged by now?

Bottom line, people only torture others because they enjoy inflicting pain on another. When you demonize the enemy, when you deprive them of any identification with humanity, then it becomes easy to treat them as less then human.

I watched a program last night, the statement was made, that we have killed 130,000 innocent people in this illegal war, a Bush disciple asked the question, whose fault was that. This bitch really believes that the Iraqi people were responsible for their own deaths, in spite of the fact they had nothing to do with 911.
 

neo_cacos

Potential Star
Registered
QueEx said:
Yo homes,

Where are the "Present Day" or at least "Modern Day" examples that you are referring to ??? I stopped reading right after "B. Mississippi Black Code". I also note that you said if a Black person does something terrible "probably MORE than 1 black person would feel the repercussions ..."

Don't get me wrong, shit happens to us. But saying it does doesn't make it so. If you're going to make allegations, you need to back them up. Otherwise, they sound more lack like excuse instead of statements of fact. Why is that important? I think its important that we <u>know</u> who and what might be fucking with us so that we can drop the bullshit excuses which don't help our cause -- and focus on REAL problems.

QueEx

I'm not sure if
a) you're looking for real info
b) just trying to put me on the spot.

Nevertheless, I am sure you are familiar with stats.
Make sure to check them out when you're checking the articles.
You can go through these rather quickly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/racial_profiling/
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm#P167_28183
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=18&did=537
http://www.kcba.org/ScriptContent/K...arch="disparity law enforcement black white "

This one is a bit more specific...but you see what I mean.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_profile.php?id=99

This one break it down even more by category...
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/judicial.html

You don't need to read this one all the way through...just check out page 8.
http://www.police.kingston.on.ca/Pr...pdf#search="kingston police racial profiling"


Check out the stats and let me know whare are your conclusions.?

By the way, SHIT HAPPENED TO US...
- and I HAVE TO KEEP SAYING IT.
- otherwise it will be forgotten
I choose not to ignore the past.
And by the way , time is not a criterion to differentiate allegations from facts.


PEOPLE MUST KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST IN ORDER TO PREVENT/ IMPROVE OR MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
If one choose to ignore the past and say ok let's focus on the present.
Well the present is a consequence of the past. So again...one still has to understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The example of the black codes illustrate how the gov. can say one thing and do another and it is quite obvious how it was applied. In other words , the whip was drop and replaced with the pen.
* Note that this is extremely important ! What to learn from this is that our battles will now have to be fought on another front (the justice system).

This kind of trickery is very easy to achieve at a national level but it is much harder to pull at an international level because chances are that you'll be called out...like so.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/
That's all I was saying.
Do you see how this links to the geneva convention article ??


neo
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
hoodedgoon said:
"...when fascism comes to america it will come wrapped in the flag and holding a cross..."

<font color="#d90000" size="4" face="impact"><b>INDEED!</b></font>

<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"></hr><p>
<object width="425" height="350"><br />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Gdul74iuUo"></param>
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Gdul74iuUo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br />
<p><hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"></hr>
<font face="times new roman" size="5" color="#000000"><b>
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." </font><font face="tahoma" size="3" color="#0000FF">
<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.democracymeansyou.com/images/kissinger-rummy.jpg" align="left"></div>
-- Henry A. Kissinger, quoted by Monika Jensen-Stevenson, Kiss the Boys Goodbye, Dutton, 1990, Page 97, citing The Final Days, Woodward and Bernstein (Simon & Schuster, 1976) </B></FONT>
 
Top