In America it has always been that one is presumed innocent until proved guilty

The Bush* Doctrine has derailed that idea. Now it is a matter of pre-emption. If Bush* even thinks you might commit a crime he want to arrest and confine or attack if you happen to be a sovereign nation. Remember Jose Padilla, he was charged for thinking of setting off a "dirty bomb". He did not set one off or even have such a thing in his possession. He was held for over four years without his constitutional rights being observed. There is a story in LBN about a boy that owned a book. The boy is being charged with a crime even though he did not commit one other than owning a book. It is the idea of pre-emption. They seem to think because he owns such a book he will commit a crime. Kind of a thought crime I guess but while this is happening in the UK it seems also to be policy here in the USA. Just one more very BASIC American tenet that Bush* has thrown out the window. Is this good? I understand the rational for such a policy just to me it does not hold up to critical review..I like the idea that you must actually commit a crime to be charged and not just if they think you may commit a crime because of literature you read.

had to discard because of the Waronterra(TM).

Sorry. Get used to it.

We did it secretly before, but now it's out in the open.

Thought crimes are nothing new here, but all dictators declare that they may imprison on suspicion of crime- their suspicion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

Bush himself with this famous quote: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." And Republican votes have essentially found a way to screw us over by showing the world that they despise humanity to such an extent that they would elect this kind of human garbage to various positions in government.

But why wouldn't he- he was handed the presidency on a silver platter by SCOTUS. Unelected dictator in truth.