Randy wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:04 PM:Ramona has a fair?!?

Don't be fooled wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:12 PM:These are liberals, maybe commies. Not progressives.

coast watcher wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:14 PM:Good job! I'd like to see more groups feel free to speak out in our fascist state we are living in thanks to Mr. Bush and his cronnies. Most of us are scared to even put bumper stickers on our cars protesting the war because of the threats we get. Way to go Dave! Keep up the good work and exercising your freedom of speech.

Jack wrote on Aug 9, 2007 2:21 AM:Of course the citizen's who complained were practicing THEIR right of Freedom of Expression. They want to deny that right to those who disagree with them. Both ends of the radical spetrum are guilty of this. This is not news. There is now and has always been plenty of ignorance, intolerance and just plain stupidity to go around since the adoption of the Constitution. All the more reason however to not allow it to be eroded away.

Trouble is wrote on Aug 9, 2007 5:35 AM:You guys do not have ANY cause for impeachment! All of the fears you bring out in this "commentary" are just a bunch of conspiracy theories that someone else on a kook web site has been pushing. Gun rights for instance, the lame excuses for gun control that have been passed around this country are a fallacy! The same thing with "suspending" habeas corpus, it only applies to war criminals, not US citzens. Groups like yours are only there to cause fear instead of to help. Why doesn't your group stand up for traditional American values like marriage and stopping the errosion of our values instead of "cherry picking" these kinds of things?

Alf wrote on Aug 9, 2007 8:07 AM:Someone put into less strident words than I, that which has been gnawing at me for quite some time. Thank you Dave Patterson. How many more rights must fall under GWB's pen before it is too late? Regards, Alf.

liar liar pants on fire wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:15 AM:Dave, you almost had me until I actually read the Presidential order you referenced. You said"...that he has the right to seize the assets of anyone who is perceived to be getting in the way of the prosecution of the war in Iraq." That statement is a complete fabrication, and I am suprised this newspaper would print such lies! If the order actually claimed that authority, half of Congress would be in trouble! The order actually states"...to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:..." If you read this Dave, it specifically says 'an act or acts of violence...'. When you read the remainder of the order, it also catches people who give money to those committing acts of violence, etc. etc. etc., However, nowhere does it say anything close to your assertion! LIES I TELL YOU!!! WHAT DRIVELL!!!

Alf wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:24 AM:Well, "Trouble is", habeas corpus has been denied 2 "enemy combatants" (whether they are or not) WHO ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Even war criminals have rights, the 2 at gitmo don't. I do not call noting and being alarmed that GWB HAS ALREADY ATTACKED the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments as well as habeas corpus, "cherry picking", nor do I call GWB starting a war while our borders are not secured, "cherry-picking". It is YOU who fail to see that GWB is doing more damage to our country and the values of OUR CONSTITUTION than all your "cherry-picked" social issues. You are looking at the scratch in a corner while ignoring the "elephant" breaking everything else in your living room. Without a complete Constitution, your "social issues" are nothing. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 9, 2007 1:12 PM:I have a question for "liar liar pants on fire". Picture in your mind that it was a Democratic president who wote those same words, do you think ANY president should have THAT much power? By the way, read that executive order again. Here are the salient points "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense (all of these are part of the executive branch)... or to POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of (have not done ANYTHING YET)... (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts (What is undermining? In the opinion of ONLY the executive branch.) to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people...b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. " In other words - giving legal council, food, money or anything to someone who IS ONLY ACCUSED OF MIGHT, MAYBE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, BUT HAS HAD THEIR ASSETS SEIZED, WILL GET YOUR PROPERTY SEIZED AS WELL. Nice touch, becoming an "un-person" or an "un-CITIZEN" based on nothing more than a belief, not an action. Learn from history. Regards, Alf.

Disagree wrote on Aug 9, 2007 5:49 PM:I disagree with Alf in regards to his emphasis on "pose a significant risk" as some indication that we live in a fascist country. There's nothing fascist about the criminality of "complicity" or "conspiracy" even though both are not crimes for an actual action of violence but instead criminalize actions leading up to the act. Fortunately we are not so stupid in this country that we wait around for a person to commit their crime before jailing them. Fortunately we've decided to step in and incarcerate people when there is evidence that they will engage in criminal activity. Incarcertating people for conduct leading up to a predicate crime is just reasonable and common sense.

Alf wrote on Aug 9, 2007 6:21 PM:I disagree with "Disagree". Do we arrest someone who is driving because they might have an accident? No. Do we arrest someone who showed signs of DUI? No. We arrest someone who commits a crime. Then, we try the person and AT ALL TIMES they have Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Not so with GWB's "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" which tramples the Constitutionally guaranteed 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights. In this Executive Order there is no burden of proof, there is no trial, GWB authorizes going straight from suspicion to penalty. We might as well have no Constitution with that sort of barbaric decree. Even those who conspire to commit murder must be PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW to have conspired even if no murder took place. GWB cuts out the entire judicial system and has the gall to claim that it is in the interest not of National Security but for a foreign country. Who is GWB president of, the United States of America the Constitution of which he swore to uphold and defend, or Iraq? Or has he declared himself above the highest law of this land? I already know the answer to that last question, do you? Regards, Alf.

Mary wrote on Aug 9, 2007 7:34 PM:Hey, you guys are getting your shorts in a knot. George Bush will no longer be President in less than 18 months, not enough time to do all the stuff you think he is going to do, BUT your Democratic President will be able to do all these things. Right, like Bush all by himself is going to come out here to Encinitas and put us in jail because we don't like the war. LOL. You guys are tilting at windmills. I think Bush is counting the days until he is no longer President and he can go back to Texas with all his money. Fascist?!? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha , ha.. You guys definitely don't know enough about the Consitution and the laws of government because what you are saying is impossible and can't happen. Bush must be the smartest man in the world if he can pull this stuff off single-handedly. Now, if you really want to be worried, wait until Comrade Hillary gets into office. Now the Clinton Socialist Machine is really something to be scared of.

Alf wrote on Aug 10, 2007 5:23 AM:The problem, "Mary", is that once done, something similar can also be done AS WELL AS I do not concur with your benign assessment of GWB, his ACTIONS are not benign AT ALL. If GWB was simply "counting the days until he is no longer President and he can go back to Texas with all his money", why would he issue that Executive Order in the first place? Just to prove that he can get away with it? I don't think so. Regards, Alf.

Disagree wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:57 AM:Alf, you're arguing an unreasonable position. By your logic "we arrest someone who commits a crime," then a whole lot of our statutes and laws would have to be stricken down. Basically you would cut out the whole area of criminal law known as "Conspiracy" and "Attempt". Under your theory, the FBI wouldn't have been able to arrest those terrorists for conspiracy when they were conspiring to blow up Fort Dix. Your's is an extremely unreasonable position, that fortunately liberals, democrats, politicians, just about anyone with common sense doesn't agree with. Fortunately those people aren't so stupid that we wait for someone to commit the crime. So, I guess by your logic, if we have a plethora of evidence that someone is about to kill their neighbor and we even see this person walking to their neighbors house with a gun and aiming the gun through their neighbors window to shoot them...I guess by your logic we would have to wait until this criminal killed his neighbor before we did anything. Such unreasonable logic is why our country and just about every country out there has criminal laws regarding "Conspiracy" and "Attempt." There is nothing unconstitutional about what Bush did, he has the authority per Article II of the Constitution to issue such executive orders. Also, his first paragraph cited several laws which grant him such authority. So long as he has a reasonable basis for issuing an executive order, it is constitutional to do so, at least until a Court determines otherwise. A Court has not decided otherwise, so Bush is within his rights. And as far as I know, no group has challenged the Order, including the ACLU, which tends to indicate that Bush was within his rights.

One More Thing wrote on Aug 10, 2007 4:39 PM:Almost forgot to mention. Alf you keep talking about how this is a huge violation of Constitutional rights. Specifically you said the executive order: "tramples the Constitutionally guaranteed 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights." You might learn something here. The 14th Amendment only applies to the states. An executive order is part of the Executive Branch's federal power, thus the 14th Amendment is inapplicable (to federal actions). Read the first section of the 14th Amendment, it says "no state shall..."

Alf wrote on Aug 12, 2007 5:52 AM:I stand corrected, "One More Thing". However, the spirit of "equal protection under the law", ("the law", in this case refers to the Constitution) whether applied to states or the federal government, does not matter, the Supreme Law of the Land- the United States Constitution - does not allow for UN-equal protection. In other words, EVERY citizen has the SAME rights UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW, NOT BY DECREE OF GWB. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 12, 2007 6:02 AM:Regarding your supposition, "Disagree", that "it is constitutional (for GWB)to do so, at least until a Court determines otherwise", that adds a severe an interesting point. If I do something that violates the spirit of a dozen laws yet I can honestly say that I have not violated the letter of those laws, have I violated those laws? Can GWB, via your rationalizations, do exactly what the Framers did NOT want, trample all over the 4th and 5th Amendment as well as habeas corpus, simply because he found a way of violating the spirit POSSIBLY without violating the letter of the law? Does the Supreme Court have to intercede, via a case brought to them and slam GWB down, does it have to go that far, or further, to stop that madman? Regards, Alf.