George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Khan]

If its so obvious that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (don't forget about them, even though the republicans love 'em) have such strong links to international terrorism, while other countries, like, say, oh I don't know Iraq, had such tenuous links to any method of threatening any other country in the world, why not have them at the top of the hit list? Why go for Iraq? Heck even Pakistan would have been a better country than Afghanistan.

[GUNWOUNDS]

If its so obvious that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (don't forget about them, even though the republicans love 'em) have such strong links to international terrorism, while other countries, like, say, oh I don't know Iraq, had such tenuous links to any method of threatening any other country in the world, why not have them at the top of the hit list? Why go for Iraq? Heck even Pakistan would have been a better country than Afghanistan.

1.) Kill the little fish first... Iraq/Afghan were clearly the smaller fish.  Best to take them on first.

2.)Iran and Syria are next on the hit list.  N. Korea already has nukes so we cant just invade them... we have to starve them to death.

3.)Pakistan isnt an option either as they are nuclear as well..... however thats not teh main reason for not attacking pakistan.  The main reason for not attacking pakistan is beacause their leader is assisting us the best he can....he has survived many an assassination attempt doing what we ask of him.... if he tried any harder his whole country would rebel in protest.  We would rather he stay within his limits of helping us than to than to blow it and lose control of the country and have Pakistan turn into an "Iran or Syria".

You see, everything we do, we do for a reason.  Those strategists in teh pentagon dont get paid the big bucks for nothing.  If you guys would sit and think critically about it you would see that the US is going about this as best they can.

Guns

[Acriku]

If its so obvious that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (don't forget about them, even though the republicans love 'em) have such strong links to international terrorism, while other countries, like, say, oh I don't know Iraq, had such tenuous links to any method of threatening any other country in the world, why not have them at the top of the hit list? Why go for Iraq? Heck even Pakistan would have been a better country than Afghanistan.

That's what I'm saying, if Bush is really fighting for the people, he would be going for countries that actually have strong ties with terrorists.

Nice try at justifying your views with "oh its OVER there's nothing we can do"  What a crock of sh!t. Thats the problem with dems and people like you... you want us to WAIT for another attack.  And another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another....... you're all freaking masochists

I didn't say there's nothing we can do. I said there's nothing we can do to change what happened. We CAN go for countries that actualy have ties with terrorism, but don't sit here and tell me that invading Iraq is doing anything for the war on terror. We're fighting for a huge humanitarian project over there right now, not fighting the people involved with 09/11! I'm all for war that is justified, and fighting against countries that actively and intentionally harbor, promote, fund, and support the terrorist cells that have attacked our country. I'm NOT all for war in a whole different country like Afghanistan or Iraq. That was a political move, not a strategic move in the war on terror.

Btw i'm not a white christian male you assume once again like you always do and assume wrong... I'm Egyptian/Turkish/Irish  ... yea thats right i am half arab.. and you know what?  What they do pisses me the f*ck off.  I'm not gonna vouch for them cuz their arabs..... And i'm a f*cking arab.

Technically you do have european descent so I'm not entirely wrong that you are white. But anyway, if you were detained indefinitely without charge in an offshore jailhouse, would you tell them what you're telling me now - give me torture, give me sleep deprivation, I'm a big bad terrorist waiting to eat your children! Of course not. You would cry for your rights or for the torture to stop.

Sure alot of those people at the prison may not be terrorists.... BUT THIS IS NOT A CONVENTIONAL WAR.  You cant fight terrorists the same way you fight WWII.  Yea i want the Bush administrastion to knock the terrorist's d!ck in the dirt and play hardball.  You people try to compare the FBI and NSA and even our current administration to that of the terorrists and thats beyond unpatriotic.

That is actually so patriotic I'm bleeding red white and blue out of my ears. This country stands for freedom of speech, and free criticism of the government - federal government especially. Our founding fathers would scream if they knew how big the federal government has gotten, and how much freedom it's taking away from its people. To say what they are saying is unpatriotic is smacking John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in the face. And it's also not a bad comparison, the NSA, current administration, to being terrorists. They may not be terrorizing our people, but they are certainly destroying our country from within by stripping away the Constitution, and the rights of the people. What is America without our constitution and freedom?

Wanting freedom beyond the bounds of reason or responsibility is NOT patriotism.  Thats irresponsible behavior.

Sure, wanting freedoms like habeas corpus, the right to be sent to court to determine if the holding of the prisoner is lawful is so irresponsible. You're joking, I hope to God.

LIke shouting fire in a crowded theatre.  Some freedoms you shouldnt have.... and many freedoms people would give up to ensure they were safer.  I'll give up being able to take a bottle of water on a plane so that i wont die from liquid explosives.  Why people like you and the dems cant understand that is beyond me.

I'm fine with that. And I'm sure the dems can understand that. But that's a far cry from removing rights like habeas corpus.

Sure maybe we havent fought this war perfectly but its something that had to happen.  FAR TOO LONG has terrorism been swept under the mat..... FAR TOO LONG have people not acknowledged its existence.  Its about time we busted open the doors and shouted "yea.... we know you're out there, and we're gonna make your life hell too."  I would rather the USA start practicing its urban combat and practice its war on terror now than 100 year later when all terror attacks are nuclear and funded by Iran and N. Korea who have become super powers.

Far too long eh? Then why did Clinton throughout his years as President try to eliminate Osama bin Laden? And then give the current administration plans for counter-terrorism when he left? It hasn't been swept under the mat. At least, until Bush got into office. But when we got attacked, he's all gung-ho now about it.

If we go by the dems playbook (and yours it seems) then  we'll have nuclearized rabid terrorists waiting to eat our grandchildren 40 years fromm now.  Oh but you dont care.... you're a middle class white male sitting in his house far from NY and knows that a terrorist attack will most likely never hit him in his lifetime, and doesnt care that his grandkids will have to deal with what you didnt.

Actually, if we followed the playbook by the dems (and me it seems), we'd be going after countries that actually have ties with terrorism, squelch the terrorists, and have our grandchildren wonder what the fuck Bush was doing in Iraq.

It works both ways ACRIKU... you can call me someone who is in their comfort zone far from the interrogations .... but i can say your in your comfort zone far with a low probability of getting involved in a terror strike.

Unfortunately not all americans live in the suburbs like you far inland.  Many people live in NY, NJ, and D.C., and have to worry about this terror shit day in and day out.... while you sit there in your little midwestern state free from harm playing Armchair quarterback to the nation.    Get real.

What works both ways? Flawed assumptions? I live in Orlando, FL, the home of Disney, Universal parks, Sea World, and you don't think terrorists would want to hit us here? We got tons of civilians! It'd be a great hit! For them. But you don't worry about it, as far as you know I'm in a little midwestern state free from harm.

Sometimes extreme measures have to be taken..... what do soldiers/police do when they want to make it easier to identify enemies/gangs after dark?  They enforce a curfue.  Oh thats violation of freedoms isnt?  Oh waa waaa my freedoms.

Lol you're a regular true blue American aren't you? Poking fun at people who actually favor rights and freedoms. Wasn't there a Benjamin Franklin quote for this type of situation?... oh yes: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. But he was just a cry baby, too, right? lol

Oh no bush is taking away more and more and more freedoms.... oh i just gotta have my bottle of water!...... and gee yea Bush hasnt done anything except:

1.) Give us a foothold in the Middleeast (Iraqi/Afghan bases)

1. Put us into a deadlock situation in Iraq/Afghanistan while the terrorists snicker at them from a couple countries away. Check.

2.) secured Iraqi airspace for our/Israel's use

2. Get us into a deadly war so that we can get into even more deadly wars in the future. Check.

3.) Taken down two regimes

Almost taking down the Taliban, who are still emerging as a powerful influence in Afghanistan; Taking down a dictator regime that hated our enemy, bin Laden, as much as us. A regime that wasn't involved in the terrorist attacks on 09/11. Check.

4.) Sent Bin Laden running for the hills and disgraced him

Letting bin Laden go into hiding, while maintaining powerful influences in global terrorism with an included heighten of hatred against America. Check.

5.) Kill tons of terorrist fighters/ and dozens of their top ranked leaders.

Kill thousands of civilians, and some leaders if we're lucky. Check.

6.) Supported Israel while Hezbollah showed their link to Syria and Iran, vindicating our claims.

Not much of an accomplishment here. Check.

7.) Pushed the Terror issue to the point that Iran and N. Korea have a microscope over them., and possibly sanctions/military action.

Pushed terrorism to the point that Iran and N. Korea may now have very good reason to be hostile and respond militarily (judging from our past of invading countries). Check.

8.) Made the entire globe aware of terror and has stopped everyone's denial of it

Told the world what they already knew. Check.

9.) And most importantly, its an issue thats been taken off the back burner and push to the forefront where it should be.  Terorr is something the globe needs to deal with, and it should have been dealt with 20 years ago.

Started a war on terror and then invaded Iraq for over three years to "help out" the people from their dictatorship.

Guns, I wholeheartedly agree that we should focus on eliminating threats of terror. Bush is just doing it the wrong way. And some of us are starting to get tired of it. And as for torture being a necessary part of our unconventional war, let me show you what our old buddy Bush has to say of it in 2003:

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech:

[Acriku]

1.) Kill the little fish first... Iraq/Afghan were clearly the smaller fish.  Best to take them on first.

2.)Iran and Syria are next on the hit list.  N. Korea already has nukes so we cant just invade them... we have to starve them to death.

3.)Pakistan isnt an option either as they are nuclear as well..... however thats not teh main reason for not attacking pakistan.  The main reason for not attacking pakistan is beacause their leader is assisting us the best he can....he has survived many an assassination attempt doing what we ask of him.... if he tried any harder his whole country would rebel in protest.  We would rather he stay within his limits of helping us than to than to blow it and lose control of the country and have Pakistan turn into an "Iran or Syria".

You see, everything we do, we do for a reason.  Those strategists in teh pentagon dont get paid the big bucks for nothing.  If you guys would sit and think critically about it you would see that the US is going about this as best they can.

Guns

I love your plan in this. Consider what the Pentagon officials make annually, and then just have faith that since it's a lot, they must be doing something strategic and progressive in their actions. Bend over naked and hope you don't get your ass struck by lightning. Go republican planning!

[GUNWOUNDS]

basically everything you said was just liberal media spin on everything i said... good to see the media brainwashed you good.

Also on your last post... i see you didnt have anything constructive to say there.... so i can only assume that you're jesting with your bare ass joke. 

My plan isnt that they make lots of money so lets trust them.. I laid out the plan FIRST, then explained why it made sense.... then said thats why they make the big bucks.  Thats why their running the government and not some kid from florida just starting college who thinks he knows everything.  Way to go!

It does sound nice when you say you want to go after the terrorists.... that does touch my heart and let me know that you're really patriotic... except for the fact that you dont offer a real alternative.  You say sure lets go kill the terrorists.... but something tells me that if we had attacked Iran or Syria first... you woulda still complained.  Fact of the matter is that hindsight is always 20/20 and nobody likes a monday morning quarterback.

Also saying that Iraq and Afghan are irrelevant is not true.  They are necessary footholds.  How in the hell will you fight Iran without some sort of intermediate base?  To me its a tactical move not a political move.  Altho if one is a Bush hater then it would make sense to call it a political move.

I'll repeat the plan for those who didnt get it:

1.) Kill the little fish first... Iraq/Afghan were clearly the smaller fish.  Best to take them on first.

2.)Iran and Syria are next on the hit list.  N. Korea already has nukes so we cant just invade them... we have to starve them to death.

3.)Pakistan isnt an option either as they are nuclear as well..... however thats not the main reason for not attacking pakistan.  The main reason for not attacking pakistan is beacause their leader is assisting us the best he can....he has survived many an assassination attempt doing what we ask of him.... if he tried any harder his whole country would rebel in protest.  We would rather he stay within his limits of helping us than to than to blow it and lose control of the country and have Pakistan turn into an "Iran or Syria".

You see, everything we do, we do for a reason.  Those strategists in the pentagon dont get paid the big bucks for nothing.  If you guys would sit and think critically about it you would see that the US is going about this as best they can.

Guns

[Khan]

If they're such little fish and America has such a big plan for this war why isn't it working? You've been in Afghanistan for nearly 5 years and Iraq will be 4 in march and yet you're no closer to stopping any kind of resistance movements and terrorist groups. If they're only the little fish not only does that mean you've been wasting time, money, and more importantly lives but you've also been putting the American public, which you so obviously care so deeply about, at danger. If you knew that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia were the 'big players' why would you waste your time going after the little fish, showing your aggressive intentions to the rest of the world and give them time to train more terrorists and plan more plots against the western world?

[Acriku]

basically everything you said was just liberal media spin on everything i said... good to see the media brainwashed you good.

Really? Everything? Even quoting the main man, Bush, on torture? I'll quote him again:

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech:

[GUNWOUNDS]

If they're such little fish and America has such a big plan for this war why isn't it working? You've been in Afghanistan for nearly 5 years and Iraq will be 4 in march and yet you're no closer to stopping any kind of resistance movements and terrorist groups. If they're only the little fish not only does that mean you've been wasting time, money, and more importantly lives but you've also been putting the American public, which you so obviously care so deeply about, at danger. If you knew that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia were the 'big players' why would you waste your time going after the little fish, showing your aggressive intentions to the rest of the world and give them time to train more terrorists and plan more plots against the western world?

Who says it isnt working? YOU?  Show me your personal statistical analysis of the war... show me the expected terrorists/day kill quota that you would find to be sufficient... show me where it says wars that go over 5 years are automatic failures..... show me your statiscal data showing that the killing of prominent terror leaders has not helped... show me your data, show me your mean average of expected progress marks versus actual, show me your graphs, .... oh wait?  You dont have any?   Whats that?  You only base your remarks off what the liberal media which hates bush says?

Oh gee.... now we see what the problem is.  People not having sufficient facts to back up their remarks.   It makes sense to take out the easiest threats first.... which act as a deterrent to the others.  Thats why you show your agggression to the smaller fish first to make the bigger fish know you are serious.

Why do you think Pakistan Leaders do our bidding?  Because over the years they have learned its better to be on the US's side.  Same with Saudi.  Pakistan and Saudi denounce islamic terror while Syria, Iran, Hamas, etc rejoice.  Why would we attack the people who atleast try to comply with us (saudi, pakistan), and let the most radical , easier to destroy regimes (iraq, afgha, iran, syria) to be left alone?

Training and Plotting of the terorrists has been going on whether we show them our "aggressive intentions" or not.  Thats a moot point.  So no need to address that any further.

Same goes for ISRAEL.... why did they attack hezbollah instead of IRAN or SYRIA outright?    Derrrrr becuz its easier to attack Lebanon and it shows Iran and Syria that you mean business. I dont think we'll be seeing a hezbollah misisle attack anytime soon as they definitely dont want ISRAEL blowing the sh!t out of the Lebanese airport anymore.  Why dont you think they attacked Tel Aviv?  Because ISRAEL made the threat that if Tel Aviv was hit they would attack ALL lebanese infrastructure thats why.  Deterrents work.

Anyways we keep rehashing the same stuff.... you guys hate bush and will listen to whatever the media says... I personally am not a Bush lover nor a Bush hater... i prefer to take a third person view of the situation and see that this was something that had to come about.

ALSO everyone keeps forgetting the REAL reason we attacked Afghan and Iraq.... which is................

The United Staes stated it will hunt down terrorists and ANY COUNTRIES THAT HARBOR THEM

did you hear that?  HARBOR........ guilty by association.... even if we havent "won" (whatever the f*ck that means, how do you win a global war on terror? Its a constant fight.) we have disrupted terror camps in these areas.... and even if we havent disrupted them 100% atleast we are in the area and can do something about it when it comes to our knowledge.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Really? Everything? Even quoting the main man, Bush, on torture? I'll quote him again:

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech:

[TMA_1]

you just had to show a cartoon attacking oliver stone, you bastard! hehe jk :)

[Khan]

Tell me gunwounds which media syndicates do I follow? You clearly seem to know how I gain my information about the world so some links to the news articles which I read would be kinda fun to post just to show the rest of the forum what kind of articles I'm reading. It would also be useful just to show that you have sufficient facts to back up the claims you make, wouldn't want to be seen not doing that now would you? If you cant tell me about all the liberal, long haired, hippy columnists which I so clearly worship it would probably be best for both of us if you didn't just make things up in your head which had a nice media soundbite quality about them.

www.icasualties.org/

Almost 3000 American troops dead and does it show any signs of stopping?... err no. London got bombed after you showed the muslim world how serious you were about stopping terrorism... and if thats anything to go by what you did to those little fish has the terrorists quaking in their boots! Just ask the people who were on that underground carriage!

http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html

The number of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who have died is in the hundreds of thousands and will probably reach millions fairly soon. But at least they aren't being subjugated by evil regimes it's much better to be afraid to leave your house for fear of terrorist bombings killing you... or terrorist bombings killing your wife and kids while you're gone! Go freedom!

My only request would be that you show some facts from you're rebuttal of my previous posts which you so vehemently back. Otherwise it would seem to my, albeit admitedly, untrained eye that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing.

[Acriku]

He doesnt consider alternative interrogation techniques to be torture.  I think he's referring to oh i dunno.... acid baths, mutilations, chopping off people's hands and feet, drilling into their skulls.  You know TORTURE?  In the US,  police stations have heavy handed interrogations techniques as well.... they shine the bright light in your face... keep you disoriented, dont let oyu have anything to drink or eat for hours, constantly berate you, play good cop bad cop, play psychological games,  this isnt torture, its just tough interrogation.  But leave it up to you and the dems to exaggerated and blow everything out of proportion just because you cant remember that US politics is supposed  to be partisan differences and not illogical hatred.

Just goes to show how little you know about what is going on in the world. There was a report in 2003 for a prisoner held in a secret prison that died from being beaten to death, where his legs were so badly beaten they were pure pulp. How's that for your pretty word "alternative" interrogation techniques? It is torture, and you are too blind to see it.

Are the Taliban influential?  really?  Define influence.  Think about this for a minute... there will always be some measure of influence no matter how small until every single radical muslim is killed.  That may be never.  So guess what?  Taliban has some influence.... well so do we.... before it was just taliban influence and ZERO USA influence... atleast now we have some influence as well.  Who will win in the long run?  Fallujah is a major example of what we can do when we REALLY want to.  We bombed the sh!t out of Fallujah and its no longer a uber terror base like it once was.... piece by piece we are achieving our goal. Its the bush-haters who are distorting the progress.

Over 5 years and we still haven't gotten rid of the Taliban. Does that seem like a Mission Accomplished to you?

Your images are hilariously sad.

[Andrew]

Canadian troops (well NATO, but it is mostly canadian there I think) are around 20 times more likely to be killed in Afghanistan than American or British troops in Iraq (I remember reading that in an article).

That shows what a success Afghanistan is. It has been like 6 years since it was invaded, and now  the attacks are more often, with soldiers being killed everyday. I'd say it is becoming a failure, and I would blame it on US leaving afghanistan to invade Iraq.

The taliban are back as well, so it shows how successful they were in removing them.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Casualties are relatively low compared to other wars, 5 years is not the longest war ever fought, a resurgence of an ousted regime is not unheard of, and an unconfirmed "report" about a "secret" prison is laughable.  I heard a report about Santa claus being in a secret location of the north pole.  None of these factors constitute a failed war no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish it to be.

Also even if i were entertain your "report" of "torture" in "secret" prisons then i could easily dismiss it as overzealous marines who over-stepped their bounds.  Obviously disorienting sounds and sleep deprivation are nowhere near beating a man's leg to a pulp.  If its true then its most likely a case of marine misconduct rather than "run of the mill" interrogation (altho for the terrorists to beat someone to a pulp would be normal). Lets not use strawmen.

Guns

[Acriku]

Casualties are relatively low compared to other wars, 5 years is not the longest war ever fought, a resurgence of an ousted regime is not unheard of, and an unconfirmed "report" about a "secret" prison is laughable.  I heard a report about Santa claus being in a secret location of the north pole.  None of these factors constitute a failed war no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish it to be.

Also even if i were entertain your "report" of "torture" in "secret" prisons then i could easily dismiss it as overzealous marines who over-stepped their bounds.  Obviously disorienting sounds and sleep deprivation are nowhere near beating a man's leg to a pulp.  If its true then its most likely a case of marine misconduct rather than "run of the mill" interrogation (altho for the terrorists to beat someone to a pulp would be normal). Lets not use strawmen.

Guns

The bottom line is, you believe that this is not a conventional war and interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation, water-boarding, and disorienting noises/lights are necessary. I call that torture. Torture includes extreme mind and body anguish. You don't have to beat somebody to death to be called torture. And so what if the terrorists use worse tactics? That's no excuse for us to start using torture. Our old buddy Bush says the same thing. When I agree with Bush, it's something significant. We don't usually see eye-to-eye.

[Andrew]

Lowered Bar Helps Army Meet Recruiting Goals

So when recruiting is down, just decrease the entry level required and then say we beat our goals!

;)

[Acriku]

The Army has been having problems for a while on getting enough recruits, it was only a matter of time before they did that.

[Andrew]

Person tells Cheney "Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" and gets arrested for assault

So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice,

[Khan]

Good to see the secret service going all out to catch the bad guys.

[Andrew]

The 10 stories the nation's mainstream news media ignored, neglected or missed last year

Kinda scary. Makes me think the Us Gov loved the fact that Jon benet "killer" came into the spotlight so Bush could go for a power grab and no one would know about it.

It says Haliburton sold nuclear technology to Iran (just like Clinton administration sold nuclear technology to North Korea).

Also, one agency says that 600,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion.

600,000 dead

Although most are disuputing that number, along with Bush who was asked about it yesterday and went in state of denial and said he stands by his 30,000 dead figure.

[GUNWOUNDS]

the problem is that when you have someone with the balls to go up to the Vice president and make a rude opinionated comment, based on limited information on the issue means that:

1.) You are just a ballsy citizen exercising free speech in a rude manner.

2.) You are potentially a crazy person preparing to do something to Cheney.

Now i know the circumstance of this situation make the fellow seem pretty harmless.... but people have said LESS and done more.  The gunman that gunned down Robert Kennedy point blank didnt even say two words to him..... yet he shot him.   This guy actually said something to Cheney in public... so he may or may not have been plotting something.  If he was passionate enough to criticize Cheney to his face in public, who knows what else he may have been passionte enough to do.

The Secret Service takes these things very seriously..... they even take jokes about assassination seriously.  Our Vice President of the United States's security...is more important than your free speech rights. If Secret Service personnel dont like the way you look they can ask you to leave the premises that the President is on.  People have been calm, cool, and collected when speaking to someoen and then just suddenly lashed out... its not unheard of.

C'mon you have to be stupid to do what this guy did and not expect some recourse..... even if it was nothing more than petty revenge by Cheney.  Call me crazy, but you'd have to be naive to think you can piss off the 2nd most powerful man in the US and not have him atleast return the favor.

But you gotta admit the guy was stupid to say "arrest me" ... he should have just said "no i didnt assault or physical attack anyone".  So he deserved to go to prison for being a moron, who the f*ck says "arrest me" to a SS agent.

Guns

[Andrew]

So when Cheney is in public, no one is allowed to talk to him unless they have something good to say?

Even if they really thought he was a threat, why did it take 10 minutes to go find and arrest him?

If he was such a threat they should have arrested him on the spot immediately after speaking to him. (of course I doubt they would want to do this because probably bad publicity if cameras were present).

[Acriku]

Being able to practice free speech in a rude manner is what we should all be able to do. There was no just cause for the SS to arrest him, although to be honest with Bush's bill passed to eliminate habeas corpus (so, he's here to protect our constitution, eh?) they can do exactly that - hold people indefinitely without cause.

Habeas Corpus: Pronounced dead in 2006.

[GUNWOUNDS]

doesnt matter..... even WITH Habeas Corpus they can do whatever they want..... they just need to make up a fake cause.  A police officer can just say "oh he was approaching me in a threatening manner".

A cop can pull you off the side of the road anytime ... they have a generic charge called "improper lane usuage" which is so damn VAGUE that it can apply to anything and is under the discretion of the arresting officer.

Please quit with the Habeas Corpus rant.... whether it exists or not is irrelevant as law enforcement will stil do as they please.  And go up to a cop and yell at him and call him a PIG... and say "OINK OINK... i smell baaaaacoooon."    Yea see what free speech will get you there.  Habeas Corpus my ass.

[Acriku]

doesnt matter..... even WITH Habeas Corpus they can do whatever they want..... they just need to make up a fake cause.  A police officer can just say "oh he was approaching me in a threatening manner".

A cop can pull you off the side of the road anytime ... they have a generic charge called "improper lane usuage" which is so damn VAGUE that it can apply to anything and is under the discretion of the arresting officer.

Please quit with the Habeas Corpus rant.... whether it exists or not is irrelevant as law enforcement will stil do as they please.  And go up to a cop and yell at him and call him a PIG... and say "OINK OINK... i smell baaaaacoooon."    Yea see what free speech will get you there.  Habeas Corpus my ass.

After they detain you for calling them a pig, you can go to a judge and ask why you are jailed. The judge will find no just cause and release you. That's the writ of habeas corpus. That's in the Constitution. You know, that silly document that Bush was sworn to protect. The one that says the habeas corpus writ must never be suspended, save for invasion or rebellion. Neither is the case here, so Bush's elimination of habeas corpus is doing more damage to our country's freedom and Constitution than the terrorists right now.

Watch his Olbermann video for more on the matter:

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/59094/Olbermann_Why_Does_Habeas_Corpus_Hate_America.html