J. Edgar Hoover Planned Mass Jailing In 1950

[Pabster]

Story here.

Interesting, to say the least. It certainly sheds some light on the fact that habeas corpus has been a contentious issue for quite some time. I wonder what a similar plan submitted to the President today would garner?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Interesting, to say the least. It certainly sheds some light on the fact that habeas corpus has been a contentious issue for quite some time. I wonder what a similar plan submitted to the President today would garner?

Same it would in any time in any country: some would see it as insane and grossly overbearing and others would defend it to the end of the earth as necessary to fight against evil, this time's version of it being the global war on terror. Anything to fight the war on terror!

 

[Auric]

Hmm, quite progressive compared to mass internment based soley upon ancestry. Kudos.

 

[Lemon law]

In J. Edgar Hoover, we are talking a real odd human being. Able to single handedly do some amount of great good, but personally totally morally bankrupt. As some have pointed out he built the FBI up from nothing and by in large it was an almost incorruptible organization. And any corruption in the FBI was found only in Hoover himself.

But morally what separates Hoover from a Stalin or a Saddam Hussein, is that Hoover loved his creation of the FBI, while a Stalin or a Saddam, would see a similar organization as a mere stepping stone to unlimited power. And Hoover got his wish, he died in May/1972, still director of the FBI.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In J. Edgar Hoover, we are talking a real odd human being. Able to single handedly do some amount of great good, but personally totally morally bankrupt.

That sounds exactly like a description of another politician. I'm not going to name him, but I think we both know

The question is...does the good outweigh the bad?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Interesting, to say the least. It certainly sheds some light on the fact that habeas corpus has been a contentious issue for quite some time.

Other than for certain wannabe pissant dictators and their turdly, ass licking sycophants, the principle of habeas corpus hasn't been "contentious" in American history, even centuries before it was enshrined in our hallowed Constitution on the founding of our own nation.

Habeas corpus
.
.
History of habeas corpus in England

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying:

• 'The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted."

.
.
United States

The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:

• "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Originally posted by: Pabster

I wonder what a similar plan submitted to the President today would garner?

If you seriously question the principle of habeas corpus, it puts you in the same league with J. Edgar Hoover a tyrannical closet drag queen who spied on Presidents and blackmailed them to retain his powers, Richard Nixon, the previous TRAITOR IN CHIEF, the worst President in our nation's history prior to George W. Bush, who authorized illegal "black bag jobs" against innocent American citizens, and of course, the current TRAITOR IN CHIEF, who has expanded illegal, warrantless spying on American citizens to levels unimaginable before the age of computers and the Internet.

All of them should have been tried and convicted of TREASON and other high crimes. Unfortunately, two of them are already too dead to do much about it. George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Berto The Clown Gonzales and everyone else in the Bushwhacko administration involved in their crimes should be tried, convicted and given lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride. It isn't torture. They said so, themselves, and we can believe them... right? :roll:

J. Edgar, Nixon and the Bushwhackos are the wannabe pissant dicators. If you agree with their views on habeas corpus, I guess that would make you one of the turdly, ass licking sycophants.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In J. Edgar Hoover, we are talking a real odd human being. Able to single handedly do some amount of great good, but personally totally morally bankrupt.

That sounds exactly like a description of another politician. I'm not going to name him, but I think we both know

The question is...does the good outweigh the bad?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now my curiosity is peaked on who Pabster would name and on what grounds. Richard Nixon or GWB certainly springs to mind. I can't quite name Ronald Reagan although certain individuals in his administration would qualify for the moral bankruptcy and villainy. And we have seen the thinking of Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Poindexter still active in GWB&co.
With new younger morally deficient idiots added to the mix.

And no, the good never outweighs the bad. But at least J. Edgar Hoover built something that was on balance a lasting good institution, and Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter only built monuments to total human depravity without a single positive accomplishment.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In J. Edgar Hoover, we are talking a real odd human being. Able to single handedly do some amount of great good, but personally totally morally bankrupt.

That sounds exactly like a description of another politician. I'm not going to name him, but I think we both know

The question is...does the good outweigh the bad?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now my curiosity is peaked on who Pabster would name and on what grounds. Richard Nixon or GWB certainly springs to mind. I can't quite name Ronald Reagan although certain individuals in his administration would qualify for the moral bankruptcy and villainy. And we have seen the thinking of Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Poindexter still active in GWB&co.
With new younger morally deficient idiots added to the mix.

And no, the good never outweighs the bad. But at least J. Edgar Hoover built something that was on balance a lasting good institution, and Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter only built monuments to total human depravity without a single positive accomplishment.

Well keep in mind that Pabsmear suffers from CDS so he probably means Bill or Hillary Clinton.

 

[Corbett]

And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Proud to be called a "BDSer" on AT P&N.

Ok, I'll bite WTF does BDSer mean?

Does it have something to do with you posting "traitor in chief" in all caps & bolding it all the time?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jerry Falwell
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Well to Fund A Mental Case Whack Jobs like you there's no difference between the two.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Corbett
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Isn't it funny how liberals hate the term? They run from it constantly. You don't see me running from the Conservative label.

"I'm a moderate!" :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Harvey
Proud to be called a "BDSer" on AT P&N.

Ok, I'll bite WTF does BDSer mean?

Does it have something to do with you posting "traitor in chief" in all caps & bolding it all the time?

You're afflicted by the disease so of course you wouldn't know what it is.

Bush Disease Syndrome

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Corbett
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Well in your world of partisan hackery I can see why you think there are only two pieces of the political landscape... :laugh:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Isn't it funny how liberals hate the term? They run from it constantly. You don't see me running from the Conservative label.

But any true "conservatives" would run as far and fast as they can from asslicking Bushwacko sycophants who have been methodically destroying our Constitution and replacing it with their facist dictatorship. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

I repeat -- J. Edgar, Nixon and the Bushwhackos are the wannabe pissant dicators. IF you agree with their views on habeas corpus, that would make you one of the turdly, ass licking sycophants.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Harvey
Proud to be called a "BDSer" on AT P&N.

Ok, I'll bite WTF does BDSer mean?

Does it have something to do with you posting "traitor in chief" in all caps & bolding it all the time?

No. It's a label they've adopted to apply to rational human beings who aren't afraid to call the Bushwhackos what they are -- TRAITORS, MURDERERS and LIARS.

I and others have posted the facts that establish those charges. Their responses are predictably lame. If I don't repost the entire list of charges and links to evidence supporting them, they demand proof, regardless of the fact that I've posted them so many times, before. If I do repost them, they claim I only post "macros."

If the Bushwhacko sycophants want to apply the label, "BDSer" to me, I'll wear it proudly.

If they don't like that, they're welcome stick one thumb in their mouths and sit on the other one and twirl. Then, at the count of three, they can exchange thumbs.

1...

2...

3!

:laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Isn't it funny how liberals hate the term? They run from it constantly. You don't see me running from the Conservative label.

"I'm a moderate!" :laugh:

No but you sure deny that you're a Neocon even though you constantly defend them. On the other hand I rarely defend Liberal Politicians. Just because I think the current version of Republicans, especially the asshole in the Whitehouse, have fucked us royally doesn't make me a Liberal, just right!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Isn't it funny how liberals hate the term? They run from it constantly. You don't see me running from the Conservative label.

"I'm a moderate!" :laugh:

No but you sure deny that you're a Neocon even though you constantly defend them. On the other hand I rarely defend Liberal Politicians. Just because I think the current version of Republicans, especially the asshole in the Whitehouse, have fucked us royally doesn't make me a Liberal, just right!

35 years ago I was economicly conservative and socially moderate. Still am - but now I'm a "librul" . . .

Go figure . . .

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Just because I think the current version of Republicans, especially the asshole in the Whitehouse, have fucked us royally doesn't make me a Liberal, just right!

Before political distortions of the word, conservative means:

con·ser·va·tive

adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
   
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
   
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Any thoughtful, true conservative should be appalled by the Bushwhackos' assault on our Constitution and our centuries old tradition of the motto enscribed on our Supreme Court Equal Justice Under Law.

The best word to describe what the Bushwhackos have done would be the second and third listed definitions of radical:

rad·i·cal

adj.

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
   
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
   
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

Those calling themself "conservatives" while pimping the Bushwhackos' monstrous criminality are either fooling themselves, or they are part of the conspiracy to deceive others into surrendering their Constitutional rights to the wannabe tyrannical dicatators. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Lemon law]

The GWB administration in some way is a triumph of the ultra conservative agenda. With regulations and reforms dating back to the administration of Teddy Roosevelt now either gutted or demolished. In other words, the very reforms that made the capitalistic system work now leave us vulnerable to another great depression or similar collapse of the entire economy.

In other ways, GWB is a radical departure from conservative ideals by advocating huge deficit spending financed by piling on public debt. Making GWB&co even worse than the most spendthrift tax and spend democrats. And added to that is nation building bungling of the worse sort.

And now we see a GOP strategy that is puzzling indeed. Because GWB, much like Nixon is just out for themselves, and GWB seems uninterested in any future past 1/20/2009 when GWB&co. must pack up their bags and depart leaving everything to some not yet known successor. Yet the GOP strategy seems to be to keep GWB's ego in tact as the decider for the rest of his term. And prevent any discussion of what to do post GWB.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harry Belafonte
Well to Fund A Mental Case Whack Jobs like you there's no difference between the two.

Actually, there is a huge difference between moderates and liberals. Thats why you are a liberal.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bush Disease Syndrome

Actually its Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Corbett
And Red Dawn suffers from a severe case of "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate!" disease.

Well in your world of partisan hackery I can see why you think there are only two pieces of the political landscape... :laugh:

Actually, no. See your partisonship can only see party lines. Im talking about beliefs. Im a conservative, not a republican.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Corbett


Originally posted by: Harry Belafonte

:laugh:

Isn't he supposed to be down sipping drinks with Chavez and singing his one hit song? :laugh:

PS I do see the resemblance to a certain poster here

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett


Originally posted by: Harry Belafonte

:laugh:

Isn't he supposed to be down sipping drinks with Chavez and singing his one hit song? :laugh:

PS I do see the resemblance to a certain poster here

Day-O..Dayyy-OOO. Chivas Regal yes but Chavez no. We don't need no steenkin fat South American Dictator.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Actually its Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Which is appropriate because George W. Bush is uniquely deranged. :roll:

Unfortunately, his derangement keeps him from understanding just how sick and perverted he is, leaving the American people, their beautiful but betrayed Constitution and all of humanity as the as the true victims of his illness.

May 2008 be the year we find the cure for BDS when that PERVERTED POS of a President and his entire criminal adminstration of TRAITORS, MURDERERS and LIARS are impeached, tried and convicted for their heinous crimes.