Bush decides which laws he follows

[TheMaster]

it's a long read, but if you love your country, you should

Bush challenges hundreds of laws:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...aws/?page=full

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore

the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."

Bush basically makes the system of checks and balances non existent

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ing_statements

[TheMaster]

Examples of the president's signing statements
April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws GLOBE GRAPHIC: Number of new statutes challenged
Examples of the president's signing statements

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

SOURCE: Charlie Savage

[E$_manager]

this info is hard to bear.
THe thing that i understand is that a great job is going on.

[leggs]

These are not the actions of an Idiot!

This is the action of a power hungry monster. Perhaps all those stupid public appearances are just to keep people looking the opposite way.

[CyberHustler]

either way he's a dick

[E$_manager]

looks like he is going to control everything and not only in US

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by TheMaster

it's a long read, but if you love your country, you should

Bush challenges hundreds of laws:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...aws/?page=full


Bush basically makes the system of checks and balances non existent

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ing_statements

and all of this suprises you............................ how?

[Phoenix]

well he is the decider after all

[directfiesta]

ain't that the way a Reich works ???

[SilentKnight]

Bush thinks he's part of the Q continuum?

All hail the omnipotent fuhrer.

Who'd have thunk - a redneck tyrant.

[Barefootsies]

I think it's more like he has his countries mixed up. Spending all that time with Blair, he's King Bush.

[The Duck]

hes a power hungry tyrant, and there is a network of just as bad people behind him.

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

ain't that the way a Reich works ???

he's not at that level yet, but he's certainly on his way to become a dictator, if he keeps this up, makes me think of a stupider version of the chancelor in V For Vendetta

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

I think it's more like he has his countries mixed up. Spending all that time with Blair, he's King Bush.

well, than he again wouldn't have paid attention: in the UK, like in most countries, the Head of State (Queen, other countries have a president) and the Head of Government (Prime Minister Blair) are 2 different people and normally a Head of Government can't get away with pulling that much shit, because he would have to resign after 1 or 2 mishaps.

Exceptions on the rule: Putin and Berlusconi

keep finding it so dangerous that Head of State and Government are the same person, leaves the way open too easy for dictatorial outcrops.

[Sexxxy Sites]

By issuing signing statements President Bush is not doing anything that most if not all previous Presidents have done and that is to protect the office of the Presidency.

The Presidency is not bound by congressional law if said law infringes upon the powers granted to the Presidency via the constitution unless or until the Supreme Court decides that said law is within the powers of Congress and makes a legal decision that the President is required to abide by said law.

It is rather simple. If Congress concludes that a President must abide by a law enacted by Congress it can always sue before the Supreme Court for a legal decision by the Supreme Court.

[MotoShadow]

once you realize the string pulling that powers that agenda is much bigger the W could ever config..you start to see some truth..ugly truth..

[stickyfingerz]

Bush is writing laws in Prague???


TheMaster
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgian in Prague
Posts: 1,019

[leedsfan]

Originally Posted by TheMaster

he's not at that level yet, but he's certainly on his way to become a dictator, if he keeps this up, makes me think of a stupider version of the chancelor in V For Vendetta

The warchowsky brothers who wrote the script and made the movie (also responsbile for the matrix trilogy) were trying to suggest that the current modus operandi of western goverments and multination companies is akin to 1984, and reich-esk law. Hence the portrayal of Joh Hurt (lead in 1984) as the chancellor.

The vendetta is representative of the vox populi growing to rebel, and take control i.e. revolution.

Thats my take.

[Sexxxy Sites]

Originally Posted by TheMaster

well, than he again wouldn't have paid attention: in the UK, like in most countries, the Head of State (Queen, other countries have a president) and the Head of Government (Prime Minister Blair) are 2 different people and normally a Head of Government can't get away with pulling that much shit, because he would have to resign after 1 or 2 mishaps.

Exceptions on the rule: Putin and Berlusconi

keep finding it so dangerous that Head of State and Government are the same person, leaves the way open too easy for dictatorial outcrops.

In the US system of government the President is not the head of Government. The President is the head of the executive branch of Government which is one of the three branches of Government. The President actually has very limited domestic powers but the Constitution grants the President virtually unlimited power in foreign policy, national security, and the use of the military as he is the Commander in Chief of the military.

[Fresh]

IMPEACH the motherfucker!!!!!!!

[dig420]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

In the US system of government the President is not the head of Government. The President is the head of the executive branch of Government which is one of the three branches of Government. The President actually has very limited domestic powers but the Constitution grants the President virtually unlimited power in foreign policy, national security, and the use of the military as he is the Commander in Chief of the military.

is there ANYTHING Bush could do that you wouldn't defend?

[Sexxxy Sites]

Originally Posted by Dave Guru

IMPEACH the motherfucker!!!!!!!

For the violation of what law?

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

By issuing signing statements President Bush is not doing anything that most if not all previous Presidents have done and that is to protect the office of the Presidency.

The Presidency is not bound by congressional law if said law infringes upon the powers granted to the Presidency via the constitution unless or until the Supreme Court decides that said law is within the powers of Congress and makes a legal decision that the President is required to abide by said law.

It is rather simple. If Congress concludes that a President must abide by a law enacted by Congress it can always sue before the Supreme Court for a legal decision by the Supreme Court.

Yup, exactly.

It's apparently not well known that the things that Bush does, that are protrayed as SO terrible, are things that all other presidents, including the beloved Clinton, have done before him, (yes, even starting a war that was not sanctioned by the UN and with a country that was not a threat to the US). It's really weird how short people's memory and knowledge extend. They get so sucked in by what the media tells them, and seem to be unable to research anything that does not agree with their pre-held beliefs

[Sexxxy Sites]

Originally Posted by dig420

is there ANYTHING Bush could do that you wouldn't defend?

I do not consider myself to be a defender of President Bush and, or his policies, but I do recognize that a President is provided via the constitution the legal right to make policy as long as it is not in violation of law and as of this point in time no court has determined that this President has violated US law nor has the House. Every President in previous history has been provided the same constitutional powers as the current President until and unless the House or the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The people have the power of the vote and the Congress has the power to sue in Court or the House has the power to impeach. Only the people have exercised their power.

[minusonebit]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

For the violation of what law?

The constitution.

The founding fathers didn't trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?

[Sexxxy Sites]

Originally Posted by minusonebit

The constitution.

The founding fathers didn't trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?

President Bush does not have unlimited power and as of this point in time the House and the Court has not ruled that the President has violated any US law or the Constitution.

[madawgz]

bush is a fucking moron.........

[leggs]

Watch out for that....
IRAQI

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

By issuing signing statements President Bush is not doing anything that most if not all previous Presidents have done and that is to protect the office of the Presidency.

The Presidency is not bound by congressional law if said law infringes upon the powers granted to the Presidency via the constitution unless or until the Supreme Court decides that said law is within the powers of Congress and makes a legal decision that the President is required to abide by said law.

It is rather simple. If Congress concludes that a President must abide by a law enacted by Congress it can always sue before the Supreme Court for a legal decision by the Supreme Court.

have you even read the article?

Bush seems to also put aside decisions by the Supreme Court

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Bush is writing laws in Prague???


TheMaster
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgian in Prague
Posts: 1,019

1. what's your point?
2. if US officials keep proclaiming that they're the greatest democracy on the planet, than you should expect a critical eye from the rest of the world
3. what those people do, affects the rest of the world as well
4. that was the weakest reply in this thread and kind of makes me think you don't know what to do when you're confronted with the truth

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Yup, exactly.

It's apparently not well known that the things that Bush does, that are protrayed as SO terrible, are things that all other presidents, including the beloved Clinton, have done before him,

again, have you read the article, how Bush does it much much much more and in a more pervasive way

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

President Bush does not have unlimited power and as of this point in time the House and the Court has not ruled that the President has violated any US law or the Constitution.

why do you think that is? maybe read the article, because all your points are countered in the article

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

By issuing signing statements President Bush is not doing anything that most if not all previous Presidents have done and that is to protect the office of the Presidency.

The Presidency is not bound by congressional law if said law infringes upon the powers granted to the Presidency via the constitution unless or until the Supreme Court decides that said law is within the powers of Congress and makes a legal decision that the President is required to abide by said law.

It is rather simple. If Congress concludes that a President must abide by a law enacted by Congress it can always sue before the Supreme Court for a legal decision by the Supreme Court.

The problem with that statement (and Ive noticed every Republican commentator using that line of reasoning in the last few days) is that there is a huge difference between the number of signing statements Bush has produced (over 600) that in some cases do put aside Supreme Court rulings and Congress - including the ability to use that suing power you speak of, and what all previous presidents have done. Until the 1980s (Reagan) there was no use of signing statements at all - the veto was used per the constitution, as it gave Congress a recourse of action. The signing statement circumvents that recourse action by congress.
Bush has not vetoed a single bill out of congress - although he has made quite a few not even worth the paper they were written on by using this system.
You cant have it both ways - either support Bush and his underhanded ways of doing things unpatriotically and outside the confines of the constitution - or you can use your civic power to vote the Republicans out of power this year - since a few states have already started the impeachment articles, congress will have to take action before Bush leaves the presidency.

[TheMaster]

btw for a good laugh, go to http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/
to videos for The White House Correspondents' Dinner, where Stephen Colbert humiliates Bush

[SilentKnight]

I'm rather baffled...

Bush has demonstrated time and time again his absolute disdain and hatred towards the adult entertainment industry - and has gone to great lengths with his administration to drive as many of us out of business as possible during his terms in office.

And yet, here on one of the largest and most influential adult webmaster forums on the web - we still have people coming to Bush's defense.

How can someone possibly be in the adult entertainment industry, witness their civil liberties and very livelihood sliding farther and farther down the shitter on a daily basis - yet still sing the praises of GWB?

Or is this simply a division between us webmasters...and the naive surfers who simply don't know any better?

Its very much perplexing.

[2HousePlague]

2hp

[Fresh]

Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites

For the violation of what law?

that and being one of the stupidest things to ever breath and walk on two feet. He's not only an insult to the oval office, but an insult to the human kind. He cant speak, he hasnt done a single good thing for this country since his whole term, fuckkkkkk i could go on and on and fuckin on some more. But whats the point? NOTHING i say can change the fact that we have a real life idiot as a president. A true idiot.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

including the beloved Clinton, have done before him, (yes, even starting a war that was not sanctioned by the UN and with a country that was not a threat to the US).

We declared war when Clinton was President? Against who?

[Linkster]

S Moby - its no use theyre just repeating what they hear on TV when the commentators get riled up and have no real concept or knowledge of history - nor do they have any interest in learning American history for some reason???

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

I'm rather baffled...

Bush has demonstrated time and time again his absolute disdain and hatred towards the adult entertainment industry - and has gone to great lengths with his administration to drive as many of us out of business as possible during his terms in office.

And yet, here on one of the largest and most influential adult webmaster forums on the web - we still have people coming to Bush's defense.

How can someone possibly be in the adult entertainment industry, witness their civil liberties and very livelihood sliding farther and farther down the shitter on a daily basis - yet still sing the praises of GWB?

Or is this simply a division between us webmasters...and the naive surfers who simply don't know any better?

Its very much perplexing.

Have a link for that? Id love to see it.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

We declared war when Clinton was President? Against who?

Umm Bosnia, Croatia? Kosovo? Serbia? Sudan? Afganistan? Well those were just "military actions"... And shooting at Asprin factories. lol

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

And shooting at Asprin factories. lol

Ive always loved this quote - lets see - Clinton gets intel that Osama bin Laden is producing nerve gas in this factory and it is an Al-Qaeda front and tries to take it out - turns out the intel was wrong, and he gets laughed at.
Bush gets intel that Saddam is trying to buy Niger yellowcake and is in cohoots with Al- Qaeda and Bin Laden and invades Iraq and Afghanistan and has so far spent over 600 billion and 2000 American lives - turns out that intel was wrong too - and we shout "go Bush"

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Ive always loved this quote - lets see - Clinton gets intel that Osama bin Laden is producing nerve gas in this factory and it is an Al-Qaeda front and tries to take it out - turns out the intel was wrong, and he gets laughed at.
Bush gets intel that Saddam is trying to buy Niger yellowcake and is in cohoots with Al- Qaeda and Bin Laden and invades Iraq and Afghanistan and has so far spent over 600 billion and 2000 American lives - turns out that intel was wrong too - and we shout "go Bush"

Better double check on the Yellow cake thing. Its hard to find though since the media has buried it. Clinton was wagging the dog.

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Have a link for that? Id love to see it.

For the first time in 10 years, the U.S. government is spending
millions of dollars to file obscenity charges across the country

[Linkster]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-23.html - sure thing - luckily the white house maintains all of the presidents state of the union addresses on their web site and I agree - she was a real dog he was wagging

[BigDeanEvans]

December 29, 2005
BUSH'S WAR ON PORN TARGETS HOLLYWOOD, THE INTERNET, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN '06

Ed_meese_1 Not since Ronald Reagan?s attorney general, Edwin Meese (left), made a crusade against pornography a top priority has there been such a broad-scale attempt to destroy First Amendment protections for sexual expression and sexual privacy as the one currently being mounted by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans.

And just in time to make it an issue in the 2006 election cycle, the U.S. Senate will take up early in the new year a House-passed bill that, disguised as anti-child Orrin_hatch pornography legislation, poses a serious threat to both Hollywood and to millions of American Internet users. The legislation is called the Children?s Safety Act of 2005. Already passed by the House, it has now been introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking Republicaqn, Orin Hatch (right), the Utah Republican, and fast-tracked for speedy passage.

Current law requires that producers of material containing actual sexual conduct keep documentation?known as 2257 records after the section of federal statute governing them?of the names and proof of age of all actors shown in video and online material they distribute. But the House-Hatch bill would expand those requirements to include ?simulated? sexual conduct; any tiny error or omission in keeping these 2257 records?which must be available to federal government inspectors upon demand according to the law?could result in stiff fines and two years? imprisonment.

That?s part of what has the creative community scared. ?We are extremely concerned Erik_v_huey_1 that this measure is overly broad and violates the constitutional protections of free speech,? Erik V. Huey (right), a Washington lawyer for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, recently told the Los Angeles Times. ?Mainstream film and television productions are being lumped in the same category as hard-core pornography.? The Motion Picture Association of America is also lobbying hard against the House-Hatch bill for the same reasons.

Real child pornographers, of course, don?t keep such records?and the 2257 requirements have been used primarily to harass and close down producers of videos showing sex between consenting adults on the basis of minor technical violations. Indeed, as Adult Video News?the video sex industry?s online trade publication?has reported, the adult video industry (mostly based in the Los Angeles area) has been very active in tracking down and exposing real child pornographers. So extending the 2257 requirements to include Hollywood and cable TV appears to be just another Christian-right driven measure designed to intimidate producers into curtailing or eliminating sexual content.

Ted_stevens Another Republican proposal to come up for Senate consideration in 2006?this one from powerful, octogenarian Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (left), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation?would extend a censorious House-passed ?indecency? bill regulating radio and TV broadcasters to cable TV and to the Internet. Stevens proposes sharply increased fines?just the sort of thing designed to frighten many timid, profit-bottom-line-minded Internet service providers, such as AOL, which has exhibited frighteningly censorious tendencies in the last couple of years?and a government-imposed ratings system. In particular, Stevens? proposals?which, if adopted, would have a decidedly chilling effect on creative and artistic freedom on both cable TV and the Internet?seem motivated by advances in technology that have facilitated the downloading of movies and videos.

But the effect would be much, much broader than simply curtailing the availability of Howard_stern online sexual content. The Federal Communications Commission has defined ?indecency? as everything from Howard Stern?s broadcasts to certain four-letter words. (Poor Howard (right)?he fled broadcast radio for the freedom of the Internet?s Sirius Radio, but if Stevens has his way even that haven could be taken away from him.) Extending those FCC ?indecency? standards from broadcast to the Internet and cable TV, as Stevens wants to do, would drastically change the audio-visual landscape?from stand-up comics such as Whoopi Goldberg to cable offerings like ?Queer as Folk? and the gay cable networks Logo and QTN, sexually charged verbiage and portrayals would be threatened.

More far-reaching still, explicit science-based sex education on the Internet, or safe-sex videos on the Web featuring graphic instruction on how to use a condom, could potentially be covered by this new indecency bill. The photos of the sexual humiliations at Abu Ghraib inflicted by U.S. torturers, which first saw the light of day on the Internet, could also have been covered by the Stevens proposals, civil liberties lawyers say.

Many private Internet users could be targeted as well under the Stevens proposals. For example, a well-known gay professor in New York City of my acquaintance has an amusing annual Christmas tradition?he harvests and distributes X-rated gay photos and videos with Christmas motifs and sends them out to his friends and to subscribers to the Yahoo group he created for that purpose. He, too, could be covered by the Stevens amendments. There are at least two million Web sites and blogs which offer some sort of pornography, many of them run by private individuals from their homes?targets all under the proposed new laws.

Alberto_gonzales This Pandora?s box of Republican legislation would give new weapons to President George W. Bush?s aggressive new war on porn, which is spearheaded by Attorney General Albert Gonzales (left). An electronic memo from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices described the push against porn as ?one of the top priorities? of Gonzales and, by extension, of ?the Director??FBI chief Robert S. Mueller III. U.S. attorneys all over the country are making sure their troops get the message. In May, Gonzales established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force under the office?s criminal division. The Task Force, headed by the deputy chief for obscenity Richard Green, will work closely with Bruce Taylor, senior counsel to the criminal division?s assistant attorney general. And the FBI has just begun recruiting anti-porn agents for obscenity units in all of its field offices.

Taylor (right) was one of the founding members of the Justice Department?s NationalBruce_taylor Obscenity Enforcement Unit under Attorney General Meese back in the Reagan ?80s. He reportedly has prosecuted more than 100 state and federal obscenity cases and is the prosecutor who went after Hustler publisher Larry Flynt in the early 1980s. Taylor won that case and Flynt spent six days in jail, but the verdict was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court?a major free speech victory portrayed in the 1996 movie, ?The People Vs. Larry Flynt,? starring Woody Harrelson as the scrappy publisher. But with a hard-line conservative, ?family values? majority on the Supreme Court under strict Catholic Chief Justice John Roberts, there won?t be any Flynt-style victories from the high court on sexual issues in the foreseeable future.

Gonzales has already more than quadrupled federal obscenity prosecutions. In the entire Clinton presidency, there were only four such cases brought by the feds?during the eight months since Gonzales succeeded John Ashcroft as attorney general, there have already been 20. Christian right groups including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family?all of which have pressed hard for the new Republican legislation?have appointed themselves sex vigilantes who report what they perceive as obscene or pornography to the Alan_sears authorities and press for prosecutions. A well-funded and well-connected new group pushing the anti-porn crusade is the Alliance Defense Fund, whose president, Alan Sears (left), served as executive director of Meese?s Commission on Pornography during the Reagan years.

When, as expected, the skein of new Republican anti-porn and anti-indecency laws pass?few Democrats up for re-election in 2006 or ?08 will oppose them?one can expect that Gonzales and his minions will initiate a raft of new prosecutions under those laws. Texas has become a favorite venue for judge-shopping federal anti-porn prosecutors. Defense attorneys preparing for pending cases expect Dallas to be the venue of choice for feds keen to fatten their conviction record by doing legal battle in one of the most socially conservative areas in the Eddie_wedelstedt nation. Already, the Northern District of Texas has been chosen as the venue for an upcoming trial of Eddie Wedelstedt (left), a Colorado man who has earned the distinction of being the country?s largest operator of adult video stores, with 60 located in about 20 states. Wedelstedt?s bust included the seizure of videos that were sexually explicit, but included no sexual torture, rape, or underage exploitation.

[BigDeanEvans]

cont'd

Gonzales told the Associated Press in September that he?s ordered the Justice Department to offer resources to, and cooperate closely with, local prosecutors in making obscenity and anti-porn cases. That?s why one of the most closely-watched pornography prosecutions in the country is the case Florida prosecutors?in close cooperation with the FBI and Gonzales? Obscenity Enforcement Unit?brought against Christopher Wilson, whose Web site, nowthatsfuckedup.com, offered free pornography to soldiers in Iraq in exchange for graphic photos of the war?s dead casualties, a barter which drove conservatives crazy. Wilson has been charged with a whopping 100 counts of distribution or transmission of obscene materials, 100 counts of offering to distribute or transmit obscene materials, and 100 counts of possession of obscene materials. If Wilson is convicted and that conviction upheld on appeal, it will set a draconian standard for harsh prosecutions of porn providers. Not only has gay consumption of pornography skyrocketed in the age of AIDS?as a safe alternative to sexual promiscuity?but obscenity and indecency laws have historically been used to disproportionately persecute gay people, who therefore have particularly strong reasons to be concerned about the Republicans? new, electorally-motivated anti-porn crusade.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by BigDeanEvans

December 29, 2005
BUSH'S WAR ON PORN TARGETS HOLLYWOOD, THE INTERNET, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN '06

Ed_meese_1 Not since Ronald Reagan?s attorney general, Edwin Meese (left), made a crusade against pornography a top priority has there been such a broad-scale attempt to destroy First Amendment protections for sexual expression and sexual privacy as the one currently being mounted by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans.

And just in time to make it an issue in the 2006 election cycle, the U.S. Senate will take up early in the new year a House-passed bill that, disguised as anti-child Orrin_hatch pornography legislation, poses a serious threat to both Hollywood and to millions of American Internet users. The legislation is called the Children?s Safety Act of 2005. Already passed by the House, it has now been introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking Republicaqn, Orin Hatch (right), the Utah Republican, and fast-tracked for speedy passage.

Current law requires that producers of material containing actual sexual conduct keep documentation?known as 2257 records after the section of federal statute governing them?of the names and proof of age of all actors shown in video and online material they distribute. But the House-Hatch bill would expand those requirements to include ?simulated? sexual conduct; any tiny error or omission in keeping these 2257 records?which must be available to federal government inspectors upon demand according to the law?could result in stiff fines and two years? imprisonment.

That?s part of what has the creative community scared. ?We are extremely concerned Erik_v_huey_1 that this measure is overly broad and violates the constitutional protections of free speech,? Erik V. Huey (right), a Washington lawyer for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, recently told the Los Angeles Times. ?Mainstream film and television productions are being lumped in the same category as hard-core pornography.? The Motion Picture Association of America is also lobbying hard against the House-Hatch bill for the same reasons.

Real child pornographers, of course, don?t keep such records?and the 2257 requirements have been used primarily to harass and close down producers of videos showing sex between consenting adults on the basis of minor technical violations. Indeed, as Adult Video News?the video sex industry?s online trade publication?has reported, the adult video industry (mostly based in the Los Angeles area) has been very active in tracking down and exposing real child pornographers. So extending the 2257 requirements to include Hollywood and cable TV appears to be just another Christian-right driven measure designed to intimidate producers into curtailing or eliminating sexual content.

Ted_stevens Another Republican proposal to come up for Senate consideration in 2006?this one from powerful, octogenarian Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (left), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation?would extend a censorious House-passed ?indecency? bill regulating radio and TV broadcasters to cable TV and to the Internet. Stevens proposes sharply increased fines?just the sort of thing designed to frighten many timid, profit-bottom-line-minded Internet service providers, such as AOL, which has exhibited frighteningly censorious tendencies in the last couple of years?and a government-imposed ratings system. In particular, Stevens? proposals?which, if adopted, would have a decidedly chilling effect on creative and artistic freedom on both cable TV and the Internet?seem motivated by advances in technology that have facilitated the downloading of movies and videos.

But the effect would be much, much broader than simply curtailing the availability of Howard_stern online sexual content. The Federal Communications Commission has defined ?indecency? as everything from Howard Stern?s broadcasts to certain four-letter words. (Poor Howard (right)?he fled broadcast radio for the freedom of the Internet?s Sirius Radio, but if Stevens has his way even that haven could be taken away from him.) Extending those FCC ?indecency? standards from broadcast to the Internet and cable TV, as Stevens wants to do, would drastically change the audio-visual landscape?from stand-up comics such as Whoopi Goldberg to cable offerings like ?Queer as Folk? and the gay cable networks Logo and QTN, sexually charged verbiage and portrayals would be threatened.

More far-reaching still, explicit science-based sex education on the Internet, or safe-sex videos on the Web featuring graphic instruction on how to use a condom, could potentially be covered by this new indecency bill. The photos of the sexual humiliations at Abu Ghraib inflicted by U.S. torturers, which first saw the light of day on the Internet, could also have been covered by the Stevens proposals, civil liberties lawyers say.

Many private Internet users could be targeted as well under the Stevens proposals. For example, a well-known gay professor in New York City of my acquaintance has an amusing annual Christmas tradition?he harvests and distributes X-rated gay photos and videos with Christmas motifs and sends them out to his friends and to subscribers to the Yahoo group he created for that purpose. He, too, could be covered by the Stevens amendments. There are at least two million Web sites and blogs which offer some sort of pornography, many of them run by private individuals from their homes?targets all under the proposed new laws.

Alberto_gonzales This Pandora?s box of Republican legislation would give new weapons to President George W. Bush?s aggressive new war on porn, which is spearheaded by Attorney General Albert Gonzales (left). An electronic memo from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices described the push against porn as ?one of the top priorities? of Gonzales and, by extension, of ?the Director??FBI chief Robert S. Mueller III. U.S. attorneys all over the country are making sure their troops get the message. In May, Gonzales established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force under the office?s criminal division. The Task Force, headed by the deputy chief for obscenity Richard Green, will work closely with Bruce Taylor, senior counsel to the criminal division?s assistant attorney general. And the FBI has just begun recruiting anti-porn agents for obscenity units in all of its field offices.

Taylor (right) was one of the founding members of the Justice Department?s NationalBruce_taylor Obscenity Enforcement Unit under Attorney General Meese back in the Reagan ?80s. He reportedly has prosecuted more than 100 state and federal obscenity cases and is the prosecutor who went after Hustler publisher Larry Flynt in the early 1980s. Taylor won that case and Flynt spent six days in jail, but the verdict was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court?a major free speech victory portrayed in the 1996 movie, ?The People Vs. Larry Flynt,? starring Woody Harrelson as the scrappy publisher. But with a hard-line conservative, ?family values? majority on the Supreme Court under strict Catholic Chief Justice John Roberts, there won?t be any Flynt-style victories from the high court on sexual issues in the foreseeable future.

Gonzales has already more than quadrupled federal obscenity prosecutions. In the entire Clinton presidency, there were only four such cases brought by the feds?during the eight months since Gonzales succeeded John Ashcroft as attorney general, there have already been 20. Christian right groups including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family?all of which have pressed hard for the new Republican legislation?have appointed themselves sex vigilantes who report what they perceive as obscene or pornography to the Alan_sears authorities and press for prosecutions. A well-funded and well-connected new group pushing the anti-porn crusade is the Alliance Defense Fund, whose president, Alan Sears (left), served as executive director of Meese?s Commission on Pornography during the Reagan years.

When, as expected, the skein of new Republican anti-porn and anti-indecency laws pass?few Democrats up for re-election in 2006 or ?08 will oppose them?one can expect that Gonzales and his minions will initiate a raft of new prosecutions under those laws. Texas has become a favorite venue for judge-shopping federal anti-porn prosecutors. Defense attorneys preparing for pending cases expect Dallas to be the venue of choice for feds keen to fatten their conviction record by doing legal battle in one of the most socially conservative areas in the Eddie_wedelstedt nation. Already, the Northern District of Texas has been chosen as the venue for an upcoming trial of Eddie Wedelstedt (left), a Colorado man who has earned the distinction of being the country?s largest operator of adult video stores, with 60 located in about 20 states. Wedelstedt?s bust included the seizure of videos that were sexually explicit, but included no sexual torture, rape, or underage exploitation.

Don't lose your time with ShittyFingerzdotnet ... He will not read it ... He will just pull out another one sentence pre-fabricated replica ...

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Umm Bosnia, Croatia? Kosovo? Serbia? Sudan? Afganistan? Well those were just "military actions"... And shooting at Asprin factories. lol

well technically, the US hasn't gone to war since WO II or something, they were all "military actions", even Vietnam, wasn't a war.

BUT how can you compare the Balkan to Iraq ???
majority of the people worldwide were for an intervention in Ex-Yugoslavia.

that comparison is like the Bush administration compares the war in Iraq to the fight against the nazis, just sickening

[TheMaster]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Ive always loved this quote - lets see - Clinton gets intel that Osama bin Laden is producing nerve gas in this factory and it is an Al-Qaeda front and tries to take it out - turns out the intel was wrong, and he gets laughed at.
Bush gets intel that Saddam is trying to buy Niger yellowcake and is in cohoots with Al- Qaeda and Bin Laden and invades Iraq and Afghanistan and has so far spent over 600 billion and 2000 American lives - turns out that intel was wrong too - and we shout "go Bush"

indeed
but I bet you there are still people, who believe Saddam and Bin Laden were working together.
I would say to these people, read your own CIA reports: There are more terrorists in post war Iraq, than in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The terrorist problem in Iraq is all on the account of Bush & co.
A totalitarian dictator as Saddam would never split power with a religious terrorist group like Al Quada. But sure Saddam and Bin Laden met once in the 80s, they basically couldn't stand each other, but hey wait: at that time Saddam and Bush Senior were the best of friends