• Actually, it's the other way around. The war started under Bush Sr. and Clinton/Gore continued it in their own way, with sanctions and no-fly zones, and on and on......1.4 million dead in their time. Don't forget!

    Democrat, Republican alike - the enemies of freedom and justice. Lose the blinders.
  • You are either a government troll or are completely cluess. The only way to protect American soldiers is to get them out of the war zone. Plain and simple.

    "Supporting" them is just what the neo-cons want you to do....it only reduces resistance to murdering innocents in Iraq (and elsewhere), and prolongs their war-profit machine.

    Supporting someone who kills and conquers because of the fear of prison is morally reprehensible.

    Question...if you had an option between killing a person (or people), or spending years in jail, what would you do?

    This mindless "support the troops" garbage is a large part of what is prolonging this illegal and immoral war - and what will be the reason for our next conquest too. Get some backbone and support justice and freedom!
  • The idea that supporting Gore or even Kerry vs Bush as a way to prevent or end war in Iraq is laughable.

    Why doesn't anyone remember the 1.4 million dead in Iraq under Clinton, as well as his authorization to overthrow Saddam? Why doesn't anyone remember Kerry's support for the Iraq war, and his countless calls to increase troops levels?

    If this kind of Democratic party garbage is "supporting the troops" we want nothing to do with it. The only way to support the troops is to give them everything we have emotionally, financially and physically to support them in refusing to murder innocents and conquer foreign lands. Oh, and....supporting troops isn't giving them moral support when they get home, it's getting them out of the war zone immediately. Period.
  • on a comment on The Executive and War Powers... over 8 years ago
    excellent point, thank you. The government has been reduced to little more than a mafia cabal.

    But, the Constitution remains valid even after Presidents violate it.
  • Thanks for your feedback on this essay. We're proud to present Mathew's work, and feel he always provides a viewpoint on geopolitical issues that are, frankly, missed. Please don't hesitate to email him using the address in the diary above - he welcomes feedback on his work.

    Interesting point of view on MyDD. We're glad that it exists, but have noticed that many have simply passed over a number of solid essays that we've posted. But, the operators of the site must be good people as they allow us to continue posting the "Populist" point of view, and we thank them for that.

    Alternatively, a recent post about a soldier dying from DU got us permanently banned from a "redstate" blogsite. We posted the same essay here on MyDD if you'd like to read it:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/5/16182 7/5341

    We're glad you took the time to read this, and hope to hear from you again soon. Thank you.

  • last line, 1st paragraph should read:

    "relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office..."

  • wow. It appears you're completely missing a comma. Legislative Immunity does not allow legislators to do anything they want. "This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution" It also doesn't "relieve them from for actions outside the scope of their office..."

    These are two separate issues. You're combining them. With your way of thinking, I guess we can just Heil the entire government, because representatives can do whatever they want, and not be prosecuted. If, and I assume you are not able to do so, but if you can quote anything in USC that shows full immunity for illegal acts by elected officials, my response is simply this:

    Such a law is unjust, unreasonable, and repugnant to the ideals of freedom. Only a fascist would support total immunity for the all-powerful state. Any such law must be repealed or resisted, or are we to be just as weak as the people in the 19th century who obeyed slavery laws - just because they were the law?

    But, then again, I would be surprised if you found such a criminal law.

    Tom Paine may have said it best...

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the People; it is an instrument for the People to restrain the government."

  • The Following is a Rebuttal Directly from the Essay's Author...

    **************************************** **********

    My critic wrote -- 
    > I'm sorry... but you are a little confused.  First of all,
    > ALL legislators and elected executives enjoy blanket
    > legal immunity from their official acts. ...

    Here you are sitting on the greatest instant information search engine of all time, not researching your claims, not knowing what you are talking about, and personally attacking me out of your ignorance.  Bad form.  Shame on you.

    "Legislative Immunity -- A legal doctrine that prevents legislators from being sued for actions performed and decisions made in the course of serving in government.  This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution, nor does it relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office, such as the nefarious activities of former Senator Bob Packwood."

    That quote is from the NOLO web site at
    http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/ 8E90467F-4F3E-486A-B2AADDBCA56B369F/alph a/L/

    Needless to say, 18 USC 241 violations are subject to criminal porsecution in federal court.  Also needless to say, we can hold the SD legislators and governor -- if he signs the bill -- responsible for their criminal conspiracy against Constitutional rights regardless of whether they knew they were breaking the law or not.

    My critic wrote --
    > Secondly, if what you are positing was true -- and it
    > isn't -- then no legislator or elected executive could
    > hardly participate in the process of enacting almost any law.
    > Your very fallacious argument that under 18 USC 241
    > legislators/elected execs could be prosecuted for "two
    > or more persons" conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten,
    > or intimidate any person" is breathtakingly lacking logic.

    Of course, I just established that what I posited is, in fact, true.  My facts are accurate.  My statements based on fact -- which you seem to confuse with argument -- are true, and my arguments based on facts and truth are logically sound, not silly. 

    My critic wrote --
    > Thirdly, aren't you playing into the hands of those who
    > are anti-choice.[?]  Couldn't your reasoning be used to prosecute
    > those who participate in the passage and enactment of abortion
    > rights legislation.[?]  Couldn't they argue that abortion rights law
    > "injures" and "oppresses" the unborn child?

    As a matter of fact, that has been one of the anti-abortion arguments from the beginning, and I'm sure you know it.  But those who freely use the abortion rights granted under Roe v. Wade, don't violate any law, and you know it.

    Here's my summary of what Roe v. Wade did.  I'm sure that you can read this and sling around all sorts of wild-eyed claims.  But, be more careful this time.

    "The decision in Roe v. Wade recognized a woman's abortion decision to be a part of fundamental personal privacy rights.  Personal privacy is a core right derived from and guaranteed by many provisions of the Constitution, regardless of the fact that privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution.  The abortion decision right is not open to challenge by state action for the first trimester of pregnancy.  It is not overshadowed by important state considerations -- the woman's health and protection of potential life -- until the fetus has life-sustaining viability, usually from 24 to 28 weeks after fertilization.  The moment that life begins is not an issue.  While the woman's personal privacy is her own, and not shared with the fetus -- prior to fetus viability -- the state has no compelling interests and the abortion decision remains the woman's right."

    Before personally attacking me again, concerning the above summary, please read and study the Roe v. Wade decision.  You can find a copy of it on the FindLaw site at --

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge tcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol= 113

    In the philosophy of law, there is a very old adage -- "We settle arguments based on facts with facts".  You might think of it in terms of getting all your ducks in a row -- before you attack.

    Stephen Neitzke
    Direct Democracy League

  • on a comment on One Fine Day over 8 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback on this essay!  We're proud to offer James' work here and on our website, and urge you to email him directly with any comments.  


  • thanks for your reply on that.  although a long debate could ensue regarding a soldier's duty to refuse illegal orders, that's best left elsewhere.  the only point to make is this - if an order violates the Constitution, we hope that the People of this country will support their decision to refuse service - that is truly supporting the troops.

  • You state that soldiers don't "take orders from the Constitution" yet at induction, their oath is:

    "I,__, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"


Advertise Blogads