Dodaj do ulubionych

This is America? - Artykul.

IP: *.tnt5.chi15.da.uu.net 30.11.01, 23:21
HARRY BROWNE: WHO GAVE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY?

Many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are protesting the numerous
invasions of your liberty that Congress and the Bush administration have
imposed during the past two months.
But without realizing it, many of the protestors brought these invasions on
themselves.
THIS IS AMERICA?
I do share their concerns, however.
First, Congress rammed through an "anti-terrorism" bill that violates the civil
liberties of all Americans, not just terrorists.
The new law allows federal officials to search your home when you're not
present and not even tell you your home has been searched. You could come home
one day and find your computer, file cabinets, and legal papers have
disappeared. You'd naturally think it was a burglary, but the burglars would be
government employees (shades of Watergate).
Warrants can be issued in secret, and you may not be allowed to see a warrant –
or contest it – covering a search of your property.
THIS IS AMERICA?
Government officials can go into any company anywhere and search records of
your purchases and credit history, discover the websites you've visited, or
monitor your email – without evidence of a crime and without telling you, and
they can order the companies not to tell you about the search.
Then the Bush administration, apparently invoking the divine right of kings,
decided that people can be tried and executed by secret courts (using secret
evidence not available for you to refute), that government agents can eavesdrop
on attorney-client conversations, and that federal agents can conduct searches
without judicial oversight.
THIS IS AMERICA?
And understand that the so-called "War on Terrorism" is only two months old.
This is just the beginning. What's still to come?
In previous wars, citizens were imprisoned for speaking out against the
government, newspapers were closed for protesting the war, private publications
were censored, and people of foreign ancestry were put in concentration camps.
We have a lot to look forward to.
DON'T BE DECEIVED
The press implies that the new civil-liberties invasions will apply only to
terrorists.
Not true.
They apply to you, because anyone can be suspected of being a terrorist –
including you. In fact, the new definition of "suspected terrorist" includes
people speaking out against government policies.
And if law-enforcement officials are to decide whose civil liberties will be
denied, one of them may become convinced you're connected to the terrorists in
some way, try you in a secret court, sentence you, imprison you, and even
execute you – with no opportunity for you to appeal the verdict or your
sentence.
This is America?
An administration official told The Washington Post, "The U.S. Constitution
doesn't protect . . . anyone hiding and planning acts of violence." But what he
meant was, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect anyone we suspect of hiding
and planning acts of violence." They don't know who's actually guilty until
after a civil, public trial – conducted with all the traditional rules of
evidence. What they have arrogated to themselves is the power to decide whether
or not you will be protected by the Constitution.
This is America?
If you're not frightened by this, you're simply not paying attention.
WON'T BE LIMITED TO A FEW PEOPLE
Have you been told that some of these invasions apply only to aliens – or some
other small group of people?
Don't be reassured. When has any invasion of liberty not been expanded to cover
all people eventually?
The clearly unconstitutional RICO laws were supposed to apply only to organized
crime – but hardly a single Mafia kingpin has been prosecuted using RICO, while
abortion protestors and stockbrokers have been jailed by these laws. The
clearly unconstitutional asset-forfeiture laws were only to nab big-time drug
dealers, but all across America the property of innocent people has been
seized.
It's only a matter of time until every new oppression applies to all Americans.
WHY THIS HAPPENED
I said that many of those protesting these invasions brought this on
themselves. How?
It's very simple.
Attorney General John Ashcroft justified the unconstitutional police-state
tactics by saying, "I think it's important to understand that we are at war
now."
And there you have it. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the
state." Once you grant the government war-making powers, you grant the
politicians the power to do anything they want. After all, you can't put your
own personal liberty ahead of the good of the Fatherland, can you?
Congress didn't declare war. There were none of the usual pre-war negotiations
to try to avoid going to war. We're not even at war with any specific nation.
But just utter the magic word "war" and all your rights can be stolen from you.
So if you hollered for war, you hollered to have your rights taken away from
you.
Who gave your rights away? You did – if you supported the idea that the
politicians should be free to do anything they want to satisfy a national lust
for revenge.
Isn't it time to start taking back your liberty?
Obserwuj wątek
    • Gość: Daniel Re: This is America? - Artykul. IP: 168.103.126.* 30.11.01, 23:41
      Michal - zgadzam sie z artykulem 100%
    • Gość: Kingfish Re: This is America? You bet! IP: *.dyn.optonline.net 01.12.01, 00:04
      Drogi Michale pozwól Ameryce rządzić swoim krajem jak im się podoba. Jeśli rząd
      tego kraju zrobi coś nie zgodnego z życzeniami ich obywateli, za cztery lata ci
      sami obywatele będą mieli okazję wybrać nowy rząd. Jeśli mieszkasz w USA i masz
      prawo do głosowanie ty też będziesz miał na to okazję, jeśli nie to zdanie twoje
      jest zupełnie nie ważne.

      Yours,truly
      Kingfish



      Gość portalu: Michal napisał(a):

      > HARRY BROWNE: WHO GAVE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY?
      >
      > Many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are protesting the numerous
      > invasions of your liberty that Congress and the Bush administration have
      > imposed during the past two months.
      > But without realizing it, many of the protestors brought these invasions on
      > themselves.
      > THIS IS AMERICA?
      > I do share their concerns, however.
      > First, Congress rammed through an "anti-terrorism" bill that violates the civil
      >
      > liberties of all Americans, not just terrorists.
      > The new law allows federal officials to search your home when you're not
      > present and not even tell you your home has been searched. You could come home
      > one day and find your computer, file cabinets, and legal papers have
      > disappeared. You'd naturally think it was a burglary, but the burglars would be
      >
      > government employees (shades of Watergate).
      > Warrants can be issued in secret, and you may not be allowed to see a warrant &
      > #8211;
      > or contest it – covering a search of your property.
      > THIS IS AMERICA?
      > Government officials can go into any company anywhere and search records of
      > your purchases and credit history, discover the websites you've visited, or
      > monitor your email – without evidence of a crime and without telling you,
      > and
      > they can order the companies not to tell you about the search.
      > Then the Bush administration, apparently invoking the divine right of kings,
      > decided that people can be tried and executed by secret courts (using secret
      > evidence not available for you to refute), that government agents can eavesdrop
      >
      > on attorney-client conversations, and that federal agents can conduct searches
      > without judicial oversight.
      > THIS IS AMERICA?
      > And understand that the so-called "War on Terrorism" is only two months old.
      > This is just the beginning. What's still to come?
      > In previous wars, citizens were imprisoned for speaking out against the
      > government, newspapers were closed for protesting the war, private publications
      >
      > were censored, and people of foreign ancestry were put in concentration camps.
      > We have a lot to look forward to.
      > DON'T BE DECEIVED
      > The press implies that the new civil-liberties invasions will apply only to
      > terrorists.
      > Not true.
      > They apply to you, because anyone can be suspected of being a terrorist –
      >
      > including you. In fact, the new definition of "suspected terrorist" includes
      > people speaking out against government policies.
      > And if law-enforcement officials are to decide whose civil liberties will be
      > denied, one of them may become convinced you're connected to the terrorists in
      > some way, try you in a secret court, sentence you, imprison you, and even
      > execute you – with no opportunity for you to appeal the verdict or your
      > sentence.
      > This is America?
      > An administration official told The Washington Post, "The U.S. Constitution
      > doesn't protect . . . anyone hiding and planning acts of violence." But what he
      >
      > meant was, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect anyone we suspect of hiding
      > and planning acts of violence." They don't know who's actually guilty until
      > after a civil, public trial – conducted with all the traditional rules of
      >
      > evidence. What they have arrogated to themselves is the power to decide whether
      >
      > or not you will be protected by the Constitution.
      > This is America?
      > If you're not frightened by this, you're simply not paying attention.
      > WON'T BE LIMITED TO A FEW PEOPLE
      > Have you been told that some of these invasions apply only to aliens – or
      > some
      > other small group of people?
      > Don't be reassured. When has any invasion of liberty not been expanded to cover
      >
      > all people eventually?
      > The clearly unconstitutional RICO laws were supposed to apply only to organized
      >
      > crime – but hardly a single Mafia kingpin has been prosecuted using RICO,
      > while
      > abortion protestors and stockbrokers have been jailed by these laws. The
      > clearly unconstitutional asset-forfeiture laws were only to nab big-time drug
      > dealers, but all across America the property of innocent people has been
      > seized.
      > It's only a matter of time until every new oppression applies to all Americans.
      >
      > WHY THIS HAPPENED
      > I said that many of those protesting these invasions brought this on
      > themselves. How?
      > It's very simple.
      > Attorney General John Ashcroft justified the unconstitutional police-state
      > tactics by saying, "I think it's important to understand that we are at war
      > now."
      > And there you have it. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the
      > state." Once you grant the government war-making powers, you grant the
      > politicians the power to do anything they want. After all, you can't put your
      > own personal liberty ahead of the good of the Fatherland, can you?
      > Congress didn't declare war. There were none of the usual pre-war negotiations
      > to try to avoid going to war. We're not even at war with any specific nation.
      > But just utter the magic word "war" and all your rights can be stolen from you.
      >
      > So if you hollered for war, you hollered to have your rights taken away from
      > you.
      > Who gave your rights away? You did – if you supported the idea that the
      > politicians should be free to do anything they want to satisfy a national lust
      > for revenge.
      > Isn't it time to start taking back your liberty?

      • Gość: Bush Read my lips IP: *.sympatico.ca 01.12.01, 00:14
        • Gość: Kingfish Re: Bardzo dobry przykład- drugi raz nie był wybra IP: *.dyn.optonline.net 01.12.01, 00:28
          Gość portalu: Bush napisał(a):


      • Gość: Michal Re: This is America? You bet! IP: *.tnt16.chi15.da.uu.net 01.12.01, 03:42
        Blad w twoim rozumowaniu polega na tym ze to nie jest tylko moj poglad
        rozumowania. My maluczcy i tak nie mamy glosu nawet jesli bedziemy glowsowac na
        ta czy inna partie. Nie badzmy az tak naiwini. To ze bedzisz np. glosowal na
        Busha nie znaczy ze glosujesz na "orlow", o ktorych sie dowiadujesz pozniej i
        nieraz nie jest to akurat twoj faworyt. I co wtedy, polecisz na skarge ze nie
        tego akurat miales na mysli? Czy akurat miales pojecie kto bedzie hawk w nowym
        rzadzie? Czy sadzieles ze Powell jest zaliczany do moderate? a np. pani Rice do
        tych hawks? i ze byla managerem Cheveron (na cala corp.).
        Polityka sie rzadzi swoimi prawami i wcale nie musi byc zgodna z nami
        (wlasciwie czy kiedys byla dla ludzi?).
        Te utarczki slowne miedzy niektorymi z nas odnosza sie do tego aby nie byc az
        tak zaslepionym przez propagande. Troche wiecej realnosci i rozsadku w
        pogladach i postrzeganiu swiata.
        Nie watpie ze Ameryka da sobie rade ale nie chce aby to bylo moim czy mojej
        rodziny kosztem. Nie jestem anarchista ani terrorysta ale tez mam prawo (a tak
        przynajmniej uwazam) do swojego zdania wiec co... jestem przeciw? Komu i czemu?
        Zdrowemu rozsadkowi, czlowieczenstwu, tego ze manipuluje sie innymi i robi z
        nas idiotow?. Wiec przez to ze mam inne zdanie mam byc zamkniety, oskarzony,
        osadzony, zlikwidowany?. Takiego chcemy nowego porzadku? Obysmy sie kiedys nie
        obudzili z przekonaniem ze jestesmy w slepym zaulku i nikt juz nie slucha co
        taki jak ty czy ja mowi.
        • Gość: Kingfish Re: This is America? You bet! IP: *.dyn.optonline.net 01.12.01, 04:12

          Michale masz rację w stu procentach że masz prawo do swojego zdania i w cale ci
          go nie odbieram. Kroki podjęte przez nasz rząd są jednak konieczne i poparte
          przez większość Amerykańskiego społeczeństwa. Wątpię też że twoja obawa o siebie
          i o twoją rodzinę, związana z tymi zmianami, jest szczera. Pamiętaj jednak że
          podejście do samobójczego wroga zdolnego do zamordowania 4000 ludzi musi być inne
          niż podejście do OJ Simpson.

          Pzdr
          Kingfish


          Gość portalu: Michal napisał(a):

          > Blad w twoim rozumowaniu polega na tym ze to nie jest tylko moj poglad
          > rozumowania. My maluczcy i tak nie mamy glosu nawet jesli bedziemy glowsowac na
          >
          > ta czy inna partie. Nie badzmy az tak naiwini. To ze bedzisz np. glosowal na
          > Busha nie znaczy ze glosujesz na "orlow", o ktorych sie dowiadujesz pozniej i
          > nieraz nie jest to akurat twoj faworyt. I co wtedy, polecisz na skarge ze nie
          > tego akurat miales na mysli? Czy akurat miales pojecie kto bedzie hawk w nowym
          > rzadzie? Czy sadzieles ze Powell jest zaliczany do moderate? a np. pani Rice do
          >
          > tych hawks? i ze byla managerem Cheveron (na cala corp.).
          > Polityka sie rzadzi swoimi prawami i wcale nie musi byc zgodna z nami
          > (wlasciwie czy kiedys byla dla ludzi?).
          > Te utarczki slowne miedzy niektorymi z nas odnosza sie do tego aby nie byc az
          > tak zaslepionym przez propagande. Troche wiecej realnosci i rozsadku w
          > pogladach i postrzeganiu swiata.
          > Nie watpie ze Ameryka da sobie rade ale nie chce aby to bylo moim czy mojej
          > rodziny kosztem. Nie jestem anarchista ani terrorysta ale tez mam prawo (a tak
          > przynajmniej uwazam) do swojego zdania wiec co... jestem przeciw? Komu i czemu?
          >
          > Zdrowemu rozsadkowi, czlowieczenstwu, tego ze manipuluje sie innymi i robi z
          > nas idiotow?. Wiec przez to ze mam inne zdanie mam byc zamkniety, oskarzony,
          > osadzony, zlikwidowany?. Takiego chcemy nowego porzadku? Obysmy sie kiedys nie
          > obudzili z przekonaniem ze jestesmy w slepym zaulku i nikt juz nie slucha co
          > taki jak ty czy ja mowi.

          • Gość: Michal Re: This is America? You bet! IP: *.tnt16.chi15.da.uu.net 01.12.01, 04:45
            Gość portalu: Kingfish napisał(a):
            >
            > Michale masz rację w stu procentach że masz prawo do swojego zdania i w cale
            > ci go nie odbieram. Kroki podjęte przez nasz rząd są jednak konieczne i
            > poparte przez większość Amerykańskiego społeczeństwa. Wątpię też że twoja
            > obawa o siebie i o twoją rodzinę, związana z tymi zmianami, jest szczera.

            Akurat mam syna, ktory mimo ze mieszka od dawna poza Polska czuje sie przede
            wszystkim Polakiem a dopiero pozniej tubylcem. Ty jak widze czujesz sie
            tubylcem na pierwszym miejscu i pozniej moze Polakiem (sadzac po niektorych
            twoich wypowiedziach mam mieszane uczucia). W zwiazku z tym nie chcialbym
            widziec syna w mundurze i wyslanego na zabijanie lub byc zabitym i w sprawie
            ktora nie jest calkowicie wyjasniona. Tobie to chyba wszystko jedno bo jestes
            mlody i sam pewnie bys poszedl walczyc nie zdajac sobie byc moze sprawy czy
            wlasnie o to walczysz??

            >Pamiętaj jednak że podejście do samobójczego wroga zdolnego do zamordowania
            4000 >ludzi musi być inne niż podejście do OJ Simpson.

            I tu tez sie roznimy. Dalej nie ma jednoznaczych dowodow za wyjatkiem tego co
            podaje CNN, FOX czy to co przecieka do prasy czy telewizji. To co sie dzieje
            tez wewnatrz nie napawa optymizmem. Ciekaw jestem jak przykreci sie srube i
            bedziesz musial szanowny adwersarzu nosisc legitymacje jak obcokrajowiec (lub
            ktos z twojej rodziny, bo zakladam ze mogles sie tu urodzic). Wtedy co? Beda
            rowni i rowniejsi? Coraz czesciej sie slyszy ze inne panstwa (np. Hiszpania)
            nie sa juz tak skore do wysylania swoich wojsk. Inni tez chca partycypowac
            (jesli juz musza) ale raczej w pomocy humanitarnej a nie czysto wojskowej.
            Francja od pocztku zachowuje gleboka rezerwe. Czy sadzisz ze sluzby
            wywiadowwcze innych panstw nie prowadza swoich dochodzen?

            Sprawa Simpsona jest sprawa kryminalna (i rasowa) i nie mozna tego wogole
            porownywac; tu jest to sprawa czysto polityczna (i na dokladke wyglada na walke
            nie tylko cywilizacji ale i religii). W pierwszym przypadku nikt nie oskarzal
            innych, oskarzony byl jeden. Tu natomiats mamy z odpowiedzialnoscia zbiorowa,
            zmianami w prawie (i to b. powaznymi), inwigilacja, oskarzaniem, nawolywaniem
            do donosicielstwa itd. itp. Oby nie nastapil zwrot w kierunku panstwa
            totalitarnego. Bo to bedzie juz nas naprawde gleboko dotyczyc.

            Pozdrawiam.

            • Gość: Kingfish Re: This is America? You bet! IP: *.dyn.optonline.net 01.12.01, 05:15
              Gość portalu: Michal napisał(a):

              > Gość portalu: Kingfish napisał(a):
              > >
              > > Michale masz rację w stu procentach że masz prawo do swojego zdania i w ca
              > le
              > > ci go nie odbieram. Kroki podjęte przez nasz rząd są jednak konieczne i
              > > poparte przez większość Amerykańskiego społeczeństwa. Wątpię też że twoja
              >
              > > obawa o siebie i o twoją rodzinę, związana z tymi zmianami, jest szczera.
              >
              > Akurat mam syna, ktory mimo ze mieszka od dawna poza Polska czuje sie przede
              > wszystkim Polakiem a dopiero pozniej tubylcem. Ty jak widze czujesz sie
              > tubylcem na pierwszym miejscu i pozniej moze Polakiem (sadzac po niektorych
              > twoich wypowiedziach mam mieszane uczucia). W zwiazku z tym nie chcialbym
              > widziec syna w mundurze i wyslanego na zabijanie lub byc zabitym i w sprawie
              > ktora nie jest calkowicie wyjasniona. Tobie to chyba wszystko jedno bo jestes
              > mlody i sam pewnie bys poszedl walczyc nie zdajac sobie byc moze sprawy czy
              > wlasnie o to walczysz??
              >
              > >Pamiętaj jednak że podejście do samobójczego wroga zdolnego do zamordowania
              >
              > 4000 >ludzi musi być inne niż podejście do OJ Simpson.
              >
              > I tu tez sie roznimy. Dalej nie ma jednoznaczych dowodow za wyjatkiem tego co
              > podaje CNN, FOX czy to co przecieka do prasy czy telewizji. To co sie dzieje
              > tez wewnatrz nie napawa optymizmem. Ciekaw jestem jak przykreci sie srube i
              > bedziesz musial szanowny adwersarzu nosisc legitymacje jak obcokrajowiec (lub
              > ktos z twojej rodziny, bo zakladam ze mogles sie tu urodzic). Wtedy co? Beda
              > rowni i rowniejsi? Coraz czesciej sie slyszy ze inne panstwa (np. Hiszpania)
              > nie sa juz tak skore do wysylania swoich wojsk. Inni tez chca partycypowac
              > (jesli juz musza) ale raczej w pomocy humanitarnej a nie czysto wojskowej.
              > Francja od pocztku zachowuje gleboka rezerwe. Czy sadzisz ze sluzby
              > wywiadowwcze innych panstw nie prowadza swoich dochodzen?
              >
              > Sprawa Simpsona jest sprawa kryminalna (i rasowa) i nie mozna tego wogole
              > porownywac; tu jest to sprawa czysto polityczna (i na dokladke wyglada na walke
              >
              > nie tylko cywilizacji ale i religii). W pierwszym przypadku nikt nie oskarzal
              > innych, oskarzony byl jeden. Tu natomiats mamy z odpowiedzialnoscia zbiorowa,
              > zmianami w prawie (i to b. powaznymi), inwigilacja, oskarzaniem, nawolywaniem
              > do donosicielstwa itd. itp. Oby nie nastapil zwrot w kierunku panstwa
              > totalitarnego. Bo to bedzie juz nas naprawde gleboko dotyczyc.
              >
              > Pozdrawiam.
              >

              Nie jestem aż taki młody i dwójkę dzieci też mam. Jestem obywatelem USA ale w
              Polsce się urodziłem. Nie podzielam jednak twoich obaw i tylko taka jest między
              nami różnica. Ja też nie chcę żyć w kraju który opisałeś ale jestem pewny że do
              tego nigdy nie dojdzie.

              Co do OJ Simpson, użyłem ten przykład tylko z jednego powodu. Wiadomo że on jest
              mordercą ale niestety jest też wolnym człowiekiem. Jest to niesprawiedliwość ale
              nie stwarza ona chyba żadnego zagrożenia dla ciebie czy mojej rodziny. Nie możemy
              sobie jednak pozwolić na podobne wyroki jeśli chodzi o terrorystów którzy planują
              mordowanie niewinnych, bezbronnych ludzi. Oni nie planują, tak jak OJ Simpson,
              zamordowanie jednej osoby, oni planują zamordowanie całego narodu.


              pozdr
              Kingfish


              • Gość: POL Re: This is America? You bet! re.Kingfish IP: *.proxy.aol.com 01.12.01, 08:00
                Kingfish Twoje bycie Amerykaninem zaczyna Cie widac przerastac.Twoje
                odp.sa "cieniutkie" a przyklady amerykanskich "soap opera" zupelnie nie na
                miejscu(OJ Simpson).Argumenty Michala sa przekonywujace i wiekszosc rozsadnych
                ludzi ma podobny punkt widzenia(nie dac sie oglupic propagandzie CNN FOX
                itd).Czytalem niektore Twoje posty i wiem ,ze stac Cie na wiecej!-rozsadku.
                Pozdr.
                • Gość: Kingfish Re: This is America? You bet! re.Kingfish IP: *.dyn.optonline.net 01.12.01, 15:53
                  Gość portalu: POL napisał(a):

                  > Kingfish Twoje bycie Amerykaninem zaczyna Cie widac przerastac.Twoje
                  > odp.sa "cieniutkie" a przyklady amerykanskich "soap opera" zupelnie nie na
                  > miejscu(OJ Simpson).Argumenty Michala sa przekonywujace i wiekszosc rozsadnych
                  > ludzi ma podobny punkt widzenia(nie dac sie oglupic propagandzie CNN FOX Ani
                  Cnn ani Fax ni oglądam:-)
                  > itd).


                  Jest to tylko twoje zdanie z którym ja się nie nie zgadzam. Skąd wiesz kto jest
                  rozsądny i co rozsądni ludzie myślą? Dla mnie, człowiek rozsądny rozumie w tej
                  sytułacji że po WTC i w obliczu ponownego ataku nie mamy szansy jemu zapobiec
                  jeśli nie zmienimy zasad i metod które muszą zapobiec a nie udowodnić komuś winę
                  po tragedii. Ja w twoich oczach jestem jeszcze mniej rozsądny ponieważ uważam że
                  zmiany prawne które opisane są w powyższym artykule są niewystarczające.



                  Czytalem niektore Twoje posty i wiem ,ze stac Cie na wiecej!-rozsadku.
                  > Pozdr.

                  Dziękuję za miłe(chyba), słowa.
                  pzdr
                  Kingfish

                  • Gość: POL Re: This is America? You bet! re.Kingfish IP: *.proxy.aol.com 03.12.01, 07:09
                    Gość portalu: Kingfish napisał(a):

                    > Gość portalu: POL napisał(a):
                    >
                    > > Kingfish Twoje bycie Amerykaninem zaczyna Cie widac przerastac.Twoje
                    > > odp.sa "cieniutkie" a przyklady amerykanskich "soap opera" zupelnie nie na
                    >
                    > > miejscu(OJ Simpson).Argumenty Michala sa przekonywujace i wiekszosc rozsad
                    > nych
                    > > ludzi ma podobny punkt widzenia(nie dac sie oglupic propagandzie CNN FOX A
                    > ni
                    > Cnn ani Fax ni oglądam:-)
                    > > itd).
                    >
                    >
                    > Jest to tylko twoje zdanie z którym ja się nie nie zgadzam. Skąd wiesz kto
                    jest i

                    >
                    > co rozsądni ludzie myślą? Dla mnie, człowiek rozsądny rozumie w tej
                    > sytułacji że po WTC i w obliczu ponownego ataku nie mamy szansy jemu zapobiec
                    > jeśli nie zmienimy zasad i metod które muszą zapobiec a nie udowodnić komuś win
                    > ę
                    > po tragedii. Ja w twoich oczach jestem jeszcze mniej rozsądny ponieważ uważam ż
                    > e
                    > zmiany prawne które opisane są w powyższym artykule są niewystarczające.


                    Masz prawo jako lojalny obywatel bronic intersow USA ale nie bron ordynarniej
                    propagandy przekazywanej przez media amerykanskie i tutaj byl moj apel o rozsadek.
                    Poczatkowo Twoj przyklad OJ Simpson mnie zbulwersowal ale pozniej sie
                    zastanowilem -cholera ten Kingfish ma chyba racje,ta cala polityka to jedna
                    wielka "soup opera"-zeby tylko tylu ludzi niewinnych nie ginelo(po obu stronach)
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Czytalem niektore Twoje posty i wiem ,ze stac Cie na wiecej!-rozsadku.
                    > > Pozdr.
                    >
                    > Dziękuję za miłe(chyba), słowa. (chyba) jest zbedne
                    pzdr.
                    > pzdr POL
                    > Kingfish
                    >

                    • kingfish Re: This is America? You bet! re.Kingfish 03.12.01, 21:31
                      Gość portalu: POL napisał(a):

                      > Gość portalu: Kingfish napisał(a):
                      >
                      > > Gość portalu: POL napisał(a):
                      > >
                      > > > Kingfish Twoje bycie Amerykaninem zaczyna Cie widac przerastac.Twoje
                      > > > odp.sa "cieniutkie" a przyklady amerykanskich "soap opera" zupelnie n
                      > ie na
                      > >
                      > > > miejscu(OJ Simpson).Argumenty Michala sa przekonywujace i wiekszosc r
                      > ozsad
                      > > nych
                      > > > ludzi ma podobny punkt widzenia(nie dac sie oglupic propagandzie CNN
                      > FOX A
                      > > ni
                      > > Cnn ani Fax ni oglądam:-)
                      > > > itd).
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Jest to tylko twoje zdanie z którym ja się nie nie zgadzam. Skąd wiesz k
                      > to
                      > jest i
                      >
                      > >
                      > > co rozsądni ludzie myślą? Dla mnie, człowiek rozsądny rozumie w tej
                      > > sytułacji że po WTC i w obliczu ponownego ataku nie mamy szansy jemu zapo
                      > biec
                      > > jeśli nie zmienimy zasad i metod które muszą zapobiec a nie udowodnić komu
                      > ś win
                      > > ę
                      > > po tragedii. Ja w twoich oczach jestem jeszcze mniej rozsądny ponieważ uwa
                      > żam ż
                      > > e
                      > > zmiany prawne które opisane są w powyższym artykule są niewystarczające.
                      >
                      >
                      > Masz prawo jako lojalny obywatel bronic intersow USA ale nie bron ordynarniej
                      >
                      > propagandy przekazywanej przez media amerykanskie i tutaj byl moj apel o rozsad
                      > ek.
                      > Poczatkowo Twoj przyklad OJ Simpson mnie zbulwersowal ale pozniej sie
                      > zastanowilem -cholera ten Kingfish ma chyba racje,ta cala polityka to jedna
                      > wielka "soup opera"-zeby tylko tylu ludzi niewinnych nie ginelo(po obu stronach
                      > )
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Czytalem niektore Twoje posty i wiem ,ze stac Cie na wiecej!-rozsadku.
                      > > > Pozdr.
                      > >
                      > > Dziękuję za miłe(chyba), słowa. (chyba) jest zbedne
                      > pzdr.
                      > > pzdr POL
                      > > Kingfish
                      > >
                      >

                      Przykład OJ.Sompsona jest bardzo ważny bo ilustruje jak bardzo pojebany jest
                      system sądowy w tym kraju. Taka niestety jest prawda, sprawiedliwość w sądach USA
                      jest pojęciem bardzo, bardzo względnym.

    • Gość: Dariusz Michał nienawidzi USA , bo dzięki temu żyje !!! IP: *.bielsko.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 01.12.01, 10:45
      Największym nieszczęściem dla ciebie byłoby zniszczenie Ameryki. Musiałbyś
      poszukać sobie innego wroga !
      Jest mi cię żal !!!
    • Gość: Jurek This is America? Nie, to Orwellica IP: 193.188.161.* 01.12.01, 13:05
      Artykul z The Moscow Times.

      Friday, Nov. 30, 2001. Page VIII

      Global Eye
    • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? - Nie, to Ameri-cia IP: 193.188.161.* 01.12.01, 13:56
      Artykul z www.electronicintifada.org/al-bassaleh/blackfall2001/oops.html

      AMERICA AT WAR
      A NATION, POISED TO BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF WHOEVER IS BEHIND THE TERROR,
      ENCOUNTERS MAJOR OBSTACLE

      Washington D.C.
    • Gość: Juek This is America? - Yes, this is Canada IP: 193.188.161.* 01.12.01, 14:10
      'This is the transcript of an actual radio conversation of a US naval ship with
      Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio
      conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

      Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees the North to avoid a collision.

      Canadians: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a
      collision.

      Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert your
      course.

      Canadians: No. I say again, you divert your course.

      Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in
      the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers,
      three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that you change your
      course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or counter-measures
      will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.

      Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call....GROOOOM'

    • Gość: Jurek This is America? -Tak, ale Perestrojka sie zaczela IP: 193.188.161.* 01.12.01, 14:33
      SERGEY BORISOV: AMERICA MAY “FREEZE” EMIGRATION TO SAVE THE NATION

      When they started saying that the events of September 11 have changed America,
      no one thought that those changes would be so grand. The things that were
      included in the notion “America,” started changing. Americans have to sacrifice
      some of their liberties for more safety. If someone ventured to forecast at the
      end of the 20th century that such a thing would happen to the United States, he
      or she would have been considered a fool. Now, everybody is saying something
      about the threat of free imigration. How come? The Americans were proud of
      being the nation of imigrants. The imigrants gave birth to the United States.
      Now, they say that the imigration can bury this country. The events of
      September 11 made this issue more actual.

      Some American observers write with anxiety that America is on the way to
      becoming a non-Christian country, although it was created as a Christian
      country. The years of free imigration did their thing and now “the native
      Americans” are looking through the population census lists with fear.

      The Muslim population felt America's anger after the terrorist attack of
      September 11. The terrorists who took part in those events were foreigners. It
      does not matter really that the American authorities are calling upon everyone
      to show patience, as the suspicious attitude towards imigrants is hardly going
      to decrease.

      The Mexicans are very unhappy about the acts of terrorism. Several millions of
      illegal imigrants from Mexico were supposed to obtain legal status. Now, no one
      knows what “the native Americans” will say on the score. As far as we know,
      there have not been any opinion polls on this subject yet, but the American
      press already urges all to restrain imigration. It was even said that if the
      current imigration policy continues the way it is now, then the problems of
      terrorism will never be solved. There is an opinion that if the American
      population will grow as it did during the last decade, then the Mexicans will
      become the majority in California by 2005 and in the whole of the USA by 2070.
      Even if the American administration listens to the advice and holds imigration
      back, it will not likely change the situation. The world has to prepare for the
      new America in this century.

      Sergey Borisov
      PRAVDA.Ru

      Christian Science Monitor : Mexico begins to face legacy of dirty war
      Los Angeles Times : Deal Struck on Mexico Truckers Access to U.S.

      Read the original in Russian: pravda.ru/main/2001/11/30/34407.html

      Translated by Dmitry Sudakov

    • Gość: Jurek This is America? - It sure is IP: 193.188.161.* 01.12.01, 14:51
      Dzisiejszy New York Times:

      It Can Happen Here
      By ANTHONY LEWIS

      BOSTON

      On the basis of secret evidence, the government accuses a non-citizen of
      connections to terrorism, and holds him in prison for three years. Then a judge
      conducts a full trial and rejects the terrorism charges. He releases the
      prisoner. A year later government agents rearrest the man, hold him in solitary
      confinement and state as facts the terrorism charges that the judge found
      untrue.

      Could that happen in America? In John Ashcroft's America it has happened.

      Mazen Al-Najjar, a Palestinian, came to the United States in 1984 as a graduate
      student and stayed to teach at a university. The Immigration Service moved to
      deport him for overstaying his visa — and asked an immigration judge, R. Kevin
      McHugh, to imprison him. Secret evidence, the government lawyers said, showed
      that Mr. Al-Najjar had raised funds for a terrorist organization, Palestinian
      Islamic Jihad. In June 1997 Judge McHugh issued the detention order.

      Mr. Al-Najjar's lawyers went to federal court and challenged the use of secret
      evidence against him. The court held that he must at least be told enough about
      the evidence to have a fair chance of responding to it.

      Judge McHugh then reopened the case in his immigration court. In a two-week
      trial the government's lead witness, an Immigration agent, admitted that there
      was no evidence of Mr. Al-Najjar contributing to a terrorist organization or
      ever advocating terrorism. At the end Judge McHugh found that there were
      no "bona fide reasons to conclude that [Mr. Al- Najjar] is a threat to national
      security."

      Judge McHugh, a former U.S. marine, wrote a 56-page decision that evidently
      carried much legal weight. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected a
      government appeal. And Attorney General Janet Reno, who had the right to step
      in, refused to do so. A year ago Mr. Al-Najjar rejoined his wife and three
      daughters.

      Last Saturday immigration agents arrested Mr. Al-Najjar again. The Justice
      Department issued a triumphant press release saying that the case "underscores
      the department's commitment to address terrorism by using all legal authorities
      available." Mr. Al-Najjar, it said, "had established ties to terrorist
      organizations."

      That flat, conclusory statement was in direct contradiction to the findings
      made by Judge McHugh after a full trial. And the department did not claim, this
      time, to be relying on undisclosed information. It said the detention was "not
      based on classified evidence."

      It seems to me shocking that the United States Department of Justice should
      state as a fact something that a judge has found to be untrue. The whole press
      release had the ring not of law but of political propaganda. That is not the
      department of respected lawyers that I have known over many years.

      Mr. Al-Najjar is not only back in prison, he is being treated with exceptional
      severity, indeed cruelty. He is in solitary confinement 23 hours a day. He is
      not allowed to make telephone calls, and he may not see his family. Only his
      lawyer is permitted to visit him.

      Because Mr. Al-Najjar is stateless and no country will accept him, he probably
      cannot be deported. So if the Justice Department view that he is a security
      risk prevails — in the teeth of the judge's finding — he could spend the rest
      of his life in prison.

      Why is Attorney General Ashcroft using his office to punish this man so
      severely? At a time of national anxiety about Arabs and Muslims, Mr. Al-Najjar
      is a useful target: a Palestinian Muslim. More broadly, Mr. Ashcroft has
      claimed power to detain non-citizens even when immigration judges order them
      released.

      It could be, too, that Mr. Ashcroft wants to use this case to establish the
      right to use secret evidence against aliens. The practice had been all but
      abandoned by the Justice Department after several judges frowned on it and more
      than 100 members of the House co-sponsored legislation to prohibit it.

      With all the extreme measures taken by the administration in recent days —
      detaining hundreds of people, ordering thousands questioned, establishing
      military tribunals — Mr. Ashcroft and President Bush have assured the country
      that they will enforce the measures with care, and with concern for civil
      liberties. Their motto is, "Trust us."

      The Al-Najjar case shows that there is no basis for trust.



      • Gość: Michal Re: This is America? - It sure is IP: *.tnt16.chi15.da.uu.net 01.12.01, 16:14
        To wlasnie jest cos co powinno przerazac wszystkich zwolennikow takich
        praktych. Kiedys ten temat byl przerabiany w historii swiata. Najpierw Niemcy
        wzieli sie za oczyszczanie panstwa z Zydow, pozniej rodzimych lewakow, pozniej
        to juz wszystkich co byli przeciw wlaczajac wlasnych obywateli. Czy o to nam
        wlasnie chodzi?

        Pozdrawiam.
        • Gość: Jurek This is America? - It sure is Busheviks' America IP: 193.188.161.* 02.12.01, 08:57
          Gość portalu: Michal napisał(a):

          > To wlasnie jest cos co powinno przerazac wszystkich zwolennikow takich
          > praktych. Kiedys ten temat byl przerabiany w historii swiata. Najpierw Niemcy
          > wzieli sie za oczyszczanie panstwa z Zydow, pozniej rodzimych lewakow, pozniej
          > to juz wszystkich co byli przeciw wlaczajac wlasnych obywateli. Czy o to nam
          > wlasnie chodzi?
          > Pozdrawiam.

          Historia kolem sie toczy. Imperialisci >> kolonialisci >> imperialisci >>
          faszysci >> Hitlerowcy >>> bolszewicy >> Bushewicy >>> Islamisci >>> ????
          Wszyscy byli i sa zamordysci.

          Bushewicy mysla ze sa Opus Dei, a przeciez panta rei.

          Zamordyzm nigdy sie nie utrzyma dlugo, bo kazda akcja wywoluje reakcje. Dlatego
          sa rewolucje i wielokrotnie wyklety powstal lud ziemi. Taki byl przeciez tez
          poczatek zarowno ZSRR i USA-rewolucja i terror.

          Nihil novi sub sole ad mortem defeacatum.


    • Gość: molder . IP: *.sympatico.ca 01.12.01, 15:49
      www.laweekly.com/ink/02/02/new-crogan.shtml
    • Gość: Juek Re: This is America? Yep, see Ashcroft's cover up IP: 193.188.161.* 03.12.01, 13:53
      english.pravda.ru/main/2001/12/03/22668.html
    • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 193.188.161.* 03.12.01, 14:14
      USA i poczatki Swietej Inkwizycji.

      Czy zalozenia polityki socjalnej "faith based" nie sa podobne u Bushewikow i w
      Swietej Inkwizycji?
    • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 193.188.161.* 03.12.01, 14:17
      USA i poczatki Swietej Inkwizycji.

      Czy zalozenia polityki socjalnej "faith based" nie sa podobne u Bushewikow i w
      Swietej Inkwizycji?

      www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/opinion/03HERB.html

    • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 193.188.161.* 03.12.01, 14:17
      USA i poczatki Swietej Inkwizycji.

      Czy zalozenia polityki socjalnej "faith based" nie sa podobne u Bushewikow i w
      Swietej Inkwizycji?

      www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/opinion/03HERB.html

    • Gość: U Re: This is America? - Artykul. IP: *.33.41.216.conversent.net 03.12.01, 14:46
      Gość portalu: Michal napisał(a):

      > HARRY BROWNE: WHO GAVE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY?
      >
      > Many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are
      protesting the numerous
      > invasions of your liberty that Congress and the Bush
      administration have
      > imposed during the past two months.
      > But without realizing it, many of the protestors
      brought these invasions on
      > themselves.
      > THIS IS AMERICA?
      > I do share their concerns, however.
      > First, Congress rammed through an "anti-terrorism"
      bill that violates the civil
      >
      > liberties of all Americans, not just terrorists.
      > The new law allows federal officials to search your
      home when you're not
      > present and not even tell you your home has been
      searched. You could come home
      > one day and find your computer, file cabinets, and
      legal papers have
      > disappeared. You'd naturally think it was a burglary,
      but the burglars would be
      >
      > government employees (shades of Watergate).
      > Warrants can be issued in secret, and you may not be
      allowed to see a warrant &
      > #8211;
      > or contest it � covering a search of your property.
      > THIS IS AMERICA?
      > Government officials can go into any company anywhere
      and search records of
      > your purchases and credit history, discover the
      websites you've visited, or
      > monitor your email � without evidence of a crime and
      without telling you,
      > and
      > they can order the companies not to tell you about the
      search.
      > Then the Bush administration, apparently invoking the
      divine right of kings,
      > decided that people can be tried and executed by
      secret courts (using secret
      > evidence not available for you to refute), that
      government agents can eavesdrop
      >
      > on attorney-client conversations, and that federal
      agents can conduct searches
      > without judicial oversight.
      > THIS IS AMERICA?
      > And understand that the so-called "War on Terrorism"
      is only two months old.
      > This is just the beginning. What's still to come?
      > In previous wars, citizens were imprisoned for
      speaking out against the
      > government, newspapers were closed for protesting the
      war, private publications
      >
      > were censored, and people of foreign ancestry were put
      in concentration camps.
      > We have a lot to look forward to.
      > DON'T BE DECEIVED
      > The press implies that the new civil-liberties
      invasions will apply only to
      > terrorists.
      > Not true.
      > They apply to you, because anyone can be suspected of
      being a terrorist �
      >
      > including you. In fact, the new definition of
      "suspected terrorist" includes
      > people speaking out against government policies.
      > And if law-enforcement officials are to decide whose
      civil liberties will be
      > denied, one of them may become convinced you're
      connected to the terrorists in
      > some way, try you in a secret court, sentence you,
      imprison you, and even
      > execute you � with no opportunity for you to appeal
      the verdict or your
      > sentence.
      > This is America?
      > An administration official told The Washington Post,
      "The U.S. Constitution
      > doesn't protect . . . anyone hiding and planning acts
      of violence." But what he
      >
      > meant was, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect
      anyone we suspect of hiding
      > and planning acts of violence." They don't know who's
      actually guilty until
      > after a civil, public trial � conducted with all the
      traditional rules of
      >
      > evidence. What they have arrogated to themselves is
      the power to decide whether
      >
      > or not you will be protected by the Constitution.
      > This is America?
      > If you're not frightened by this, you're simply not
      paying attention.
      > WON'T BE LIMITED TO A FEW PEOPLE
      > Have you been told that some of these invasions apply
      only to aliens � or
      > some
      > other small group of people?
      > Don't be reassured. When has any invasion of liberty
      not been expanded to cover
      >
      > all people eventually?
      > The clearly unconstitutional RICO laws were supposed
      to apply only to organized
      >
      > crime � but hardly a single Mafia kingpin has been
      prosecuted using RICO,
      > while
      > abortion protestors and stockbrokers have been jailed
      by these laws. The
      > clearly unconstitutional asset-forfeiture laws were
      only to nab big-time drug
      > dealers, but all across America the property of
      innocent people has been
      > seized.
      > It's only a matter of time until every new oppression
      applies to all Americans.
      >
      > WHY THIS HAPPENED
      > I said that many of those protesting these invasions
      brought this on
      > themselves. How?
      > It's very simple.
      > Attorney General John Ashcroft justified the
      unconstitutional police-state
      > tactics by saying, "I think it's important to
      understand that we are at war
      > now."
      > And there you have it. As Randolph Bourne said, "War
      is the health of the
      > state." Once you grant the government war-making
      powers, you grant the
      > politicians the power to do anything they want. After
      all, you can't put your
      > own personal liberty ahead of the good of the
      Fatherland, can you?
      > Congress didn't declare war. There were none of the
      usual pre-war negotiations
      > to try to avoid going to war. We're not even at war
      with any specific nation.
      > But just utter the magic word "war" and all your
      rights can be stolen from you.
      >
      > So if you hollered for war, you hollered to have your
      rights taken away from
      > you.
      > Who gave your rights away? You did � if you supported
      the idea that the
      > politicians should be free to do anything they want to
      satisfy a national lust
      > for revenge.
      > Isn't it time to start taking back your liberty?

      "Just wait a minute"-jak mowia obywatele 1-go kraju
      swiata.To tylko poczatek.Narazie wylegarnia
      slepych patriotow wierzacych w bill of
      rights,constitution,freedoms i specjalne
      przywileje musi sie krecic.Patrioci
      sa ciagle potrzebni(TYle terroryzmu na tym
      swiecie).Kiedy swiat bedzie juz
      "uporzadkowany",przyjdzie kolej na 1-st country of ze
      world.Moze nawet doczekamy sie
      GULAG-ow? Ja,od kilkunastu lat zyje w
      reliach.Sprawdzilem swoje swobody i dzisiaj wiem,ze
      miedzy soveckimi sztatami Ameriki i sovietskimi sztatami
      Rasieji niema roznicy.Nawet wodzowie,a moze
      wlasciciele maja to samo pochodzenie.To 1st country of
      ze world,to soviecka Rsieja opakowana w zlota
      cynfolie.Wkrotce ten papierek zostanie odwiniety i
      zobaczycie sami,co jest w srodku.Wroccie na
      ziemie,unikniecie rozczarowan.
    • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 193.188.161.* 03.12.01, 15:14
      USA i poczatki Swietej Inkwizycji.

      Czy zalozenia polityki socjalnej "faith based" nie sa podobne u Bushewikow i w
      Swietej Inkwizycji?

      www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/opinion/03HERB.html

      • Gość: Michal Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 63.164.131.* 03.12.01, 19:55
        Cale szczescie ze zaczynaja sie pojawiac tego typu artykulu. I to w amerykanskiej prasie jak NY
        Times. Mam nadzieje ze opinia publiczna sie obudzi(la) i zacznie rozdzielac niektore sprawy. Inaczej
        dojdzie do stworzenia panstwa totalitarnego i wtedy ci wszyscy zwolennicy dowalenia kazdemu moga
        byc wlasnie tymi dowalonymi. Jeszcze tego nie ma ale stoimi wlansie na pragu takich zmian. Jesli
        zostana wprowadzone w zycie to kto ma pozniej powiedziec ze nalezy wrocic do stanu poprzedniego.
        Nigdy juz nie bedzie stanu poprzedniego.
        • Gość: Daniel Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 168.103.126.* 03.12.01, 21:40
          "98 % amerykanow popiera idee wojny z Irakiem" to dowodzi gdzie jest demokracja
          i kto opanowal media. Ameryka czeka teraz na zbawce, 11 wrzesnia byl pucz i
          teraz Bush bedzie umacniac faszyzm, najpierw przy pomocy zydow, potem przeciwko
          zydom. Podobnie jak Talibami i Sojuszem Polnocnych Aliantow. Jestesmy swiadkami
          poltyki i wojny Proxy.
          • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? Polowanie na czarownice w IP: 193.188.161.* 05.12.01, 13:51
            Gość portalu: Daniel napisał(a):

            > "98 % amerykanow popiera idee wojny z Irakiem" to dowodzi gdzie jest demokracja
            >
            > i kto opanowal media. Ameryka czeka teraz na zbawce, 11 wrzesnia byl pucz i
            > teraz Bush bedzie umacniac faszyzm, najpierw przy pomocy zydow, potem przeciwko
            >
            > zydom. Podobnie jak Talibami i Sojuszem Polnocnych Aliantow. Jestesmy swiadkami
            >
            > poltyki i wojny Proxy.

            Osama bin Laden to najwieksze zbawienie Busha. Gdyby nie Osama, to ocena Busha w
            spoleczenstwie jako polityka byla by ponizej 20%, dzieki galopujacej w doliny
            godpodarce, mimo obnizania podatkow dla bogatych; a po fiasko Enronu, musial by
            zrezygnowac ze stanowiska pod presja publiczna.

    • Gość: Jurek This is America? Kto zniszczy Konstytucje USA? IP: 193.188.161.* 06.12.01, 15:57
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
      deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

      Osam bin Laden jest oskarzony o zniszczenie 911 WTC i Pentagonu.

      "Patriot Act" Georga W. Busha jest na dobrej drodze aby zniszczyc Konstytucje
      USA.

      Czy Osama bin Laden w konsekwencji bedzie oskarzony o zniszczenie Konstytucji
      USA?

      Jesli tak, to terroryzm zwyciezy mimo wygranej z nim wojny.
    • Gość: Jurek Re: This is America? Pytania z New York Times IP: 193.188.161.* 08.12.01, 16:09
      Czytelnik na forum w NYT z 8/12 zapytuje i ma nadzieje:

      Name two western leaders in the past 100 years who, unable to achieve lawful
      election as head of state, were appointed to their positions by corrupt
      gerontocracies.

      Name two western heads of state in the past 100 years who, after being
      appointed head of state, within their first year in office used foreign
      provocations as justification for immediate and dramatic restrictions on their
      own citizens' civil rights.

      Name two western heads of state in the past 100 years who, after being
      appointed head of state, within their first year in office set up extrajudical
      mechanisms for detaining, imprisoning, and executing enemies of the state.

      Name two western heads of state in the past 100 years who, after being
      appointed head of state, within their first year in office demonized an entire
      class of their own citizens as traitors.

      Name two western heads of state in the past 100 years who, despite all that
      inadvised and offensive conduct, achieved nearly universal domestic acclaim
      despite widespread foreign criticism and contempt.

      I can only hope that our country does not go down the same path as the other
Inne wątki na temat:

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się


Nakarm Pajacyka