Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (208113)	12/7/2001 10:28:18 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

buddy, there is mounting evidence that that all charges being made are based on nothing more than hot air. The only facts. The FBI were made to follow the law and any of those detained who wished to reveal they were detained have revealed it. So you can post all the fabrications of the imaginary mounting evidence you like. But it is very foolish. There is a big difference than a discussion or possible abuses of power and the lead off that abuses already exist. You don't seem to understand the difference between reasoned caution and slander on the border of treason. That's what I call lefty loon. mr. bill rape the truth. tom watson tosiwmee.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (208113)	12/7/2001 11:41:25 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Instead of offering your opinion on the issues that you feel are trashing the constitution you justed posted a lot of links. I'll comment on why I think the claims regarding the detainees is ridiculous since you posted more info. "Civil liberties groups this week filed the first lawsuit requesting disclosure of basic information about individuals arrested and detained since September 11" No surprise here, but I am almost SURE that providing the names of these people is not a constitutional issue. If it were it would be cut and dry and Ashcroft would have to do it. Please provide evidence if you think this is un constitutional. I will back you on this if it is. "There is mounting evidence that secrecy is being invoked to shield serious violations of individual rights and not for legitimate investigative purposes" That is a serious charge and I would like to see the evidence. If they have it, they have a case and I would like to see it. If they do not, they are performing the type of politics that "give comfort to the enemy" imo. I am sure that you would agree that making a false allegation against our government in a time of war is not "constructive criticism". "Justice Department officials have repeatedly stated that the rights of all detainees are being upheld. But at every turn, the options for independent oversight of the Department's activities have been curtailed." Is independent oversight a constitutional right? If so, they should get it. If not then let's see some evidence that the justice department is lying (which is what they are implying). Curious. Why wouldn't they show the evidence if they have it? "Instead of the Attorney General simply announcing that they are respecting the Constitution, we need the evidence that will show whether that is true," said Ms. Martin. They need evidence to prove someone is telling the truth? I view America as a place where you have to have evidence to state that someone is not. Liars and hypocrits are what I see. Sorry about the length. I get carried away.