Terrorism and the Loss of the Law

Day 1,595, 18:46 • Published in Canada Canada • by SaraDroz

One only has to look at eCanada forums (which by the way I HAVE kept up with; http://ecanada.cc/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=16328) to find under 'Parliament Hill' subforums for the Ececutive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the Government. In the normal course everyday business the seperation of powers that this classifaction signifies is taken for granted. This seperation of powers is in fact vital for eCanada liberty and is currently under assault. The power of pardon derives from the President and only then can Congress approve it. When Congress, on it's own behalf, voted the pardon it clearly violated the law. It now sees itself as entirely soveriegn; rights of the President and of the Courts are usurped willy nilly and people labeled 'terrorists', denied forum access without trial and pardoned for terrorism on small majorities. Essentialy ANY faction that can gain a Congress majority of 1 in a vote can change ANY law, the terrorist one day can become de facto ruler the next. Of course with the buying of Congress votes this amounts to rule by bribery... The biggest crook wins.




Winning in The New System

So how would make yourself Master of eCanada in this 'new order'. Well first you have to buy alot of votes and get elected to Congress, this kind of rules our newer players... sorry. There you make some cogent sounding arguements about the 'rights of congress' etc and perhaps get some 'sweetners' voted through; extra funds for an MU or two to get some allies. You can the proceed to act against those who disagree with you; they can be labelled 'traitors', denied forum access, any MU they may belong to deprived of funding etc etc... If the President dares to veto you impeach him. By now you may need more funds so why not stand for President and steal some money. No problem there because with this money you can pay Congress to pardon you. Might also help to be able to have a few tame Congressmen as Judges which indeed the Speaker has recently become...



Of Terrorism

Sasha in here recent article 'The Election Debate- The Question It Comes Down To' says: "The result of Sara winning will be a step backwards in swapping militant terrorism for political terrorism". Presumably by 'political terrorism' she means PTOing Parties. Clearly she doesn't mean buying votes which she regards as "rewarding activity". Firstly this is an incredibly naive and frankly stupid point of view. Presumably Sashas answer to Al Qaeda would be to legalise and pardon them; give them a vote too perhaps. Would this make them stop? It is more likely to encourage them and as we see in eCanada our very Constituation is now violated by Congress with impunity.

Secondly let us return to "rewarding activity". Sasha agrees that this is not ideal but believes ot is better than returning to 'political terrorism'. Where does this end? Suppose that all eCanadas money is stolen - oops donated as a reward for activity... This isn't 'terrorism'? By turning a blind eye and reclassifying breaking the law as 'reawarding activity' and 'Congressional Democracy' you have not got rid of 'terrorism'. On the contrary you are so scared of terrorism that you have justified it. Btw I have never had my 'activity rewarded' but then again I don't sell my vote. Would Congress mind rewarding my activity? Perhaps activity rewards are for voting well I have voted in every election for the last 2 yrs... so you owe me... Get real.



Of course when Congress illegaly pardoned one terrorist for what Sasha calls, 'political terrorism', it created others; EPC or 'militant terrorism'. Thanks to this we have now lost our oil bonus. Those who even talk to old friends in EPC, including presumably Acacia, are accused of 'taking orders' from them, although I clearly said that I would NOT veto the pardon as EPC demand. Congressmen (Sweeta) who are lawfuly elected but who are said to be EPC members, even though no proof of them fighting against eCanada is provided, are barred from forums without trial. Should I be elected as President I would probably be impeached anyway for trying to uphold the law. For this I would probably be named as a 'terrorist'. In ALL this mess there is only one person who has broken the law and a Congress that has acted clearly above and beyond it's authority. There are those who argue and fight to uphold the law and we are told these are terrorists, or 'take orders' from terrorists. Then there is a terrorist sitting in Congress and manipulating it in breach of the constitution. Is there a Court case about Sweeta forum access? No... She is guilty of being named as a member of EPC although several of them have said on IRC that they have no contact with her. Those who voted for Sweeta have been effectively disenfranchised and we have had a summary 'trial by congress'. In the new eCanada any opposition MUST be 'terrorism' even though that verdict is reached illegaly. It is a little like living in Revolutionary France; pointing a finger at someone condemns them.



The 'apologists' who voted and support the pardon are now guilty of numorous breaches of law themselves, starting with the pardon itself. Nor is there any way to reclaim the supremacy of the law. I should imagine that I were elected to Congress I too would be denyed access under false charges of 'taking orders from terrorists'. If elected President impeachment would follow for trying to curtail the dictatorship of Congress: Hold a referendum and Congress will declare it invalid. This is where the naivity of the apologists have got us. We have NOT got rid of 'political terrorism'; we have legimitised it until it becomes the rule.