[quote]ssn0 wrote:
“I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp”
[/quote]
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Are you really this stupid? Anyone who cares about constitutional government and their rights as a citizen, not to mention what America stands for, is “pro-terrorist”? That’s beyond moronic.[/quote]
What is moronic is that the pro-terrorists think that a bill designed to address non-citizens has a fucking thing to do with your rights.
You guys are crying like a bunch of fucking babies over to isolated incidents and carrying them like a banner for a “Free The Terrorists” march.
My comment about Mexico was go there as a non-citizen - just like the bill in question addresses - and speed. Do anything to irritate the local police. Then come back and talk to me about how we are so mean.
But - back to the meat of my post: Tell me one right you don’t have now since the bill passed. Just one fucking right.
Tell me one thing you can’t do now that you could do on 9/10/2001 - with the obvious exception of going to the top of the WTC.
You peaceniks keep crying about losing your rights - but when pressed to do so can’t name a single fucking one. Pardon me if I think you are a bunch of pro-terrorist aympathizers that will cry about anything to keep us from getting information on those that might do us harm.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Are you really this stupid? Anyone who cares about constitutional government and their rights as a citizen, not to mention what America stands for, is “pro-terrorist”? That’s beyond moronic.
What is moronic is that the pro-terrorists think that a bill designed to address non-citizens has a fucking thing to do with your rights.
And Mexico? Nice non sequitur. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I don’t live in Mexico. I’m an American citizen, so I’m naturally gonna be a lot more concerned about the powers of my government, not the junta du jour. Again, are you really this stupid?
You guys are crying like a bunch of fucking babies over to isolated incidents and carrying them like a banner for a “Free The Terrorists” march.
My comment about Mexico was go there as a non-citizen - just like the bill in question addresses - and speed. Do anything to irritate the local police. Then come back and talk to me about how we are so mean.
But - back to the meat of my post: Tell me one right you don’t have now since the bill passed. Just one fucking right.
Tell me one thing you can’t do now that you could do on 9/10/2001 - with the obvious exception of going to the top of the WTC.
You peaceniks keep crying about losing your rights - but when pressed to do so can’t name a single fucking one. Pardon me if I think you are a bunch of pro-terrorist aympathizers that will cry about anything to keep us from getting information on those that might do us harm.
[/quote]
"Back in what was the Forum, a crowd of unconcerned-looking citizens is sitting on the last roof and just coming to the end of another appalling song.
CITIZENS …Te…Tum!
KING You know, I think we’re getting better.
CITIZEN 1 (with genuine interest) How can you tell?
KING (a bit stumped) Er…
AUD Father!
The King looks up.
KING ARNULF It’s all right! It isn’t happening!
AUD But, Father, it IS!
ERIK Get on board!
CITIZEN 2 No THANKS!
CITIZEN 3 Who do you think YOU are?
CITIZEN 1 Panic-monger!
The roof is now sinking rapidly, though the citizens appear as unperturbed as ever.
CITIZEN Leave us alone!
SVEN Yeah. Leave 'em alone.
AUD It’s sinking! Hy-Brasil is sinking!
KING ARNULF Well, my dear, I think you’ll find it’s all a question of what
you want to believe in… I have slightly more experience of these matters than you…
Unfortunately, at this point, the entire gathering of citizens, the
King and the Forum Temple disappear below the waves."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Are you really this stupid? Anyone who cares about constitutional government and their rights as a citizen, not to mention what America stands for, is “pro-terrorist”? That’s beyond moronic.
What is moronic is that the pro-terrorists think that a bill designed to address non-citizens has a fucking thing to do with your rights.
And Mexico? Nice non sequitur. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I don’t live in Mexico. I’m an American citizen, so I’m naturally gonna be a lot more concerned about the powers of my government, not the junta du jour. Again, are you really this stupid?
You guys are crying like a bunch of fucking babies over to isolated incidents and carrying them like a banner for a “Free The Terrorists” march.
My comment about Mexico was go there as a non-citizen - just like the bill in question addresses - and speed. Do anything to irritate the local police. Then come back and talk to me about how we are so mean.
But - back to the meat of my post: Tell me one right you don’t have now since the bill passed. Just one fucking right.
Tell me one thing you can’t do now that you could do on 9/10/2001 - with the obvious exception of going to the top of the WTC.
You peaceniks keep crying about losing your rights - but when pressed to do so can’t name a single fucking one. Pardon me if I think you are a bunch of pro-terrorist aympathizers that will cry about anything to keep us from getting information on those that might do us harm.
"Back in what was the Forum, a crowd of unconcerned-looking citizens is sitting on the last roof and just coming to the end of another appalling song.
CITIZENS …Te…Tum!
KING You know, I think we’re getting better.
CITIZEN 1 (with genuine interest) How can you tell?
KING (a bit stumped) Er…
AUD Father!
The King looks up.
KING ARNULF It’s all right! It isn’t happening!
AUD But, Father, it IS!
ERIK Get on board!
CITIZEN 2 No THANKS!
CITIZEN 3 Who do you think YOU are?
CITIZEN 1 Panic-monger!
The roof is now sinking rapidly, though the citizens appear as unperturbed as ever.
CITIZEN Leave us alone!
SVEN Yeah. Leave 'em alone.
AUD It’s sinking! Hy-Brasil is sinking!
KING ARNULF Well, my dear, I think you’ll find it’s all a question of what
you want to believe in… I have slightly more experience of these matters than you…
Unfortunately, at this point, the entire gathering of citizens, the
King and the Forum Temple disappear below the waves."
[/quote]
If you wer only as clever as you thought you were.
once again - answer the question. How hard can it be? Try half as hard as you did to make this post, and you could get there.
[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Once a major disaster occurs (whether it is a real event or manufactured event does not matter) Martial Law is hurriedly put in place and we are all in the hands of the government agencies (FEMA) who thus portray themselves as our protectors. Yet what happens when we question those in authority and how they are taking away all of our freedoms? Will we be the ones detained in these camp sites?[/quote]
How was any of this relevant? FEMA has had this ability almost since its inception, long before 9/11, and well without the legislation in question. And given FEMA’s accounting and record-keeping abilities, they can’t even keep track of 2 million people.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you wer only as clever as you thought you were.
once again - answer the question. How hard can it be? Try half as hard as you did to make this post, and you could get there.
[/quote]
…i’m clever enough not to trust any politician that aimes at eroding civil rights to gain more power. No, i can’t give you examples, now wallow in your victory for all i care. If you are naieve [read stupid] enough to believe you won’t be subjected to the same treatment as those irrelevant foreign nationals when those in power feel like it JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN, than you are more than welcome to it…
…but come to think of it, you’d probably be one of those guys who wouldn’t think twice of getting his hands dirty, you know, spying on your neighbours, ratting friends out, beating the crap out of those who don’t follow party line. Are your brown shirts ironed already? The swastika is calling you!
…don’t you just love hyperbole?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If you wer only as clever as you thought you were.
once again - answer the question. How hard can it be? Try half as hard as you did to make this post, and you could get there.
…i’m clever enough not to trust any politician that aimes at eroding civil rights to gain more power. No, i can’t give you examples, now wallow in your victory for all i care. If you are naieve [read stupid] enough to believe you won’t be subjected to the same treatment as those irrelevant foreign nationals when those in power feel like it JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN, than you are more than welcome to it…
…but come to think of it, you’d probably be one of those guys who wouldn’t think twice of getting his hands dirty, you know, spying on your neighbours, ratting friends out, beating the crap out of those who don’t follow party line. Are your brown shirts ironed already? The swastika is calling you!
…don’t you just love hyperbole?[/quote]
Because you can’t answer a simple question, I am now a Nazi?
You admit you can’t support yout own pro-terrorist claims. But you “know” what the government is going to do?
How does that work? The more stupid you become, the more evil the government is?
You are a piece of work.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Because you can’t answer a simple question, I am now a Nazi?[/quote]
…perhaps you’re dyslectic? I did answer, you know…
…what pro-terrorist claims? You making stuff up again? History has a way of repeating itself, and a wise man learns from the past. Only a fool, like yourself, ignores the writing on the wall. But i don’t think you lack intelligence though, perhaps you’re just a sycophant who thrives on human suffering…
[quote]How does that work? The more stupid you become, the more evil the government is?
You are a piece of work. [/quote]
…worrying about the path humanity is forced to take at the hands of powermad individuals, beit christian or muslim, is stupid? Why?
“When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.”
[quote]ephrem wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Because you can’t answer a simple question, I am now a Nazi?
…perhaps you’re dyslectic? I did answer, you know…[/quote]
No, i can’t give you examples, now wallow in your victory for all i care.
you admit that you can’t answer. You admit that there is not one single right that has been taken from an American citizen since 9-10-2001.
But you can set here and give all the Stuart Smalley quotes to let us know that our rights are being taken.
Parden me if I call bullshit.
We have a think in this country called the courts. It is part of the checks and balances that make it impossible for rights to be taken from the citizenry.
Thiws is not the middle east. This is not pre-war Germany.
You may hate those in power, but they are required to work with in the system.
The system works. Fear mongering and Daily Affirmations don’t.
.
…i have admitted nothing of the sort, sneaky bastard you (-: but let’s see what i can dig up: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/loss/loss_ch2.htm Very interesting, read it if you have time…
[quote]But you can set here and give all the Stuart Smalley quotes to let us know that our rights are being taken.
Parden me if I call bullshit.[/quote]
…i quoted who? Where? I’m claiming people like you are dumb enough not to see the writing on the wall. I’m not claiming those who are eroding civil rights are the dumb ones; they know that a nation like the US needs to be nudged and manipulated into the direction they want it to go. Take it slow and not too obvious, feed them lies and enough religion, and after a while no-one gives a damn. See, you adapt to a slowly changing environment without noticing the changes, that is the trick…
…high court judges appointed by the president make it possible. Trying to overturn Roe vs Wade for instance, interesting times…
[quote]Thiws is not the middle east. This is not pre-war Germany.
You may hate those in power, but they are required to work with in the system.
The system works. Fear mongering and Daily Affirmations don’t.
[/quote]
…i leave the hating to you, if you don’t mind. Those in power are changing the system. They are redefining rules and regulations in such a way that it gives them unlimited power, and the ones who are supposed to keep them in check are railroaded. Give it time, give it time…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They don’t consider possible actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.[/quote]
Precisely why Johnson and the Dems created the welfare state. Do you honestly think they created it to help the poor and helpless? LOL!
“I’ll have them ni##ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!!”
— LBJ
Glad to see you’re catching on, Prof!!
[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Are we all going to sit there and wonder what happened to this country of ours? Where did we go wrong? How could we let it happen? [/quote]
It began when people confused unselfishness with compassion. Libs created laws to force well-off people to help the poor. This, of course and by design, necessitated the creation of a powerful government to rob from one group to benefit another. Once a powerful government was created, it attracted those who enjoy wielding power over others. “I’ll never be rich but watch me put the squeeze on those bloated moneybays!!” You thus have a government evolving from Liberalism into Fascism; liberalism is the potting soil of Fascism. Simply look at the Weimar Republic and its vast welfarism.
Our only hope is that capitalism (rationality) will eventually prevail.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Are you really this stupid? Anyone who cares about constitutional government and their rights as a citizen, not to mention what America stands for, is “pro-terrorist”? That’s beyond moronic.
What is moronic is that the pro-terrorists think that a bill designed to address non-citizens has a fucking thing to do with your rights.
[/quote]
Who are these “pro-terrorists”? Do they exist? You can say the Democrats are weak on terrorism, or that Bush is incompetent at fighting terrorism, but can you find a “pro-terrorist”? Aside from a couple of fringe nutcases like Ward Churchill, they don’t exist.
And what we do to non-citizens does have an effect on our rights. Obviously citizens have different and more rights than non-citizens, but how we treat the people of other countries is not irrelevant. Why would it be?
Again, this is a point that has been made a million times, mostly in regard to torture, but when did America, Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and a country that should stand for democracy and liberty, judge itself by the standards of lesser countries? When did we decide that as long as we’re not as bad as others we’re doing OK? Can you explain this to me?
First of all, tossing labels like peacenik and pro-terrorist around is a nice way not to engage others as individuals, but to lump them into these crudely made little camps of yours. Moronic.
As someone who voted for Bush twice (regrettably), has worked in both Washington and on the campaign of a Republican senator, and supports the war in Iraq, how am I a “peacenik” exactly?
As for rights we’ve lost, how about the fact that the President was breaking the law by wiretapping us without court approval, or the fact that American CITIZENS have been held in military detention without charges? That really doesn’t bother you?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They don’t consider possible actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.
Precisely why Johnson and the Dems created the welfare state. Do you honestly think they created it to help the poor and helpless? LOL!
“I’ll have them ni##ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!!”
— LBJ
Glad to see you’re catching on, Prof!!
[/quote]
I truly fear for whatever children you claim to be teaching. Your comments aren’t witty, funny, clever, or any other adjective that would denote something admirable or desired. I keep waiting on you to reveal that this is all some deep seated joke for you as far as your comments on this site. The more you type, however, the more I realize that this is why God limited the amount of time humans can spend on this planet in one lifetime. I mean, could you imagine the damage you could do if you lived forever?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
Are we all going to sit there and wonder what happened to this country of ours? Where did we go wrong? How could we let it happen?
It began when people confused unselfishness with compassion. Libs created laws to force well-off people to help the poor. This, of course and by design, necessitated the creation of a powerful government to rob from one group to benefit another. Once a powerful government was created, it attracted those who enjoy wielding power over others. “I’ll never be rich but watch me put the squeeze on those bloated moneybays!!” You thus have a government evolving from Liberalism into Fascism; liberalism is the potting soil of Fascism. Simply look at the Weimar Republic and its vast welfarism.
Our only hope is that capitalism (rationality) will eventually prevail.
[/quote]
Republicans are in the white house, not “liberals”. If there is that much damage to the ideals of this country going on right now, it is coming from one aisle of the church alone.
Zap Braningan,
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I keep hearing the 2 examples of people being kidnapped over and over again. It is statistically insignificant.[/quote]
It seems statistically significant enough for the European Parliament to issue a resolution against it:
European Parliament resolution on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, adopted midway through the work of the Temporary Committee (2006/2027(INI))
The European Parliament,
[…]F. whereas European and international human rights law prohibits enforced disappearances, including secret detentions, in which an individual is held incommunicado, without information about his or her fate or whereabouts being revealed to his or her family or the public, outside the purview of any legal process,[…]
- Is led to believe on the basis of evidence presented to the temporary committee that, in some cases, the CIA or other US services have been directly responsible for the illegal seizure, removal, abduction and detention of terrorist suspects on the territory of Member States, accession and candidate countries and for the extraordinary rendition of, amongst others, European nationals or residents; recalls that these actions do not correspond to known international law concepts and are contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights law;
[…]12. Is disturbed by the testimony given to the temporary committee by the Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who was arrested by the US authorities, transferred by the CIA through a European airport and detained for twelve months in Syria, where he was subjected to torture; notes at the same time the statement given by US legal adviser, John Bellinger, who stated during the visit of the temporary committee delegation to the USA that the Arar case was dealt with under US immigration and customs law and had nothing to do with the alleged cases of rendition;[…]
- Is deeply concerned that all the work of the temporary committee so far seems to indicate that European airspace and airports have been used by CIA front-companies in order to bypass the legal obligations for state aircraft as set out in the Chicago Convention, thus enabling persons suspected of terrorism to be transferred illegally to the custody of the CIA or the US military or to other countries (including Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan) which frequently use torture during interrogations, as is recognised by the US government itself(12);
[…]
-
Considers it equally implausible, in the light of the results of the judicial enquiries and of the testimonies and documentation examined, that the abduction, by CIA agents in Milan on 17 February 2003, of the Egyptian national, Abu Omar, who was subsequently taken to Aviano and later to Ramstein, could have been organised and carried out without the Italian authorities or security services being informed thereof in advance;
-
Calls on the Italian Government, assuming that the conditions which prompted the earlier decision are no longer deemed to apply, to seek the extradition of the 22 CIA agents implicated in the abduction of Abu Omar in order to assist the judicial proceedings in progress and help establish the truth;
-
Condemns the abduction by the CIA of the German national, Khaled el Masri, who was held in Afghanistan from January to May 2004 and subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment; notes further the suspicion ? not yet allayed ? that Khaled el Masri was illegally held before that date, from 31 December 2003 to 23 January 2004, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that he was transported from there to Afghanistan on 23-24 January 2004; considers the measures that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia claims to have taken to investigate the matter to be inadequate;
[…]
-
Deplores the fact that the Swedish state relinquished control of law enforcement on 18 December 2001 at Bromma airport when the Government’s decision to expel two Egyptian citizens, Mohammed Al Zary and Ahmed Agiza, was executed and US operatives were allowed to exercise public authority on Swedish territory, which, according to the Swedish Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, is not compatible with Swedish law;
-
Deplores the fact that Sweden’s expulsion of the Egyptian nationals, Mohammed Al Zary and Ahmed Agiza, in December 2001, was based solely on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government, which did not provide effective safeguards against torture;
-
Urges that investigations be continued to clarify the role of US soldiers, who were part of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR), in the abduction and transfer to Guant?namo Bay of six Bosnian nationals and/or residents of Algerian origin, contrary to a binding interim decision by the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina and despite the decision by the Bosnian Supreme Court to release the suspects, as testified by Manfred Nowak, who was a member of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time; calls for the possible role of the Bosnian government in this case to be examined further; highlights the need for more information on the possible involvement of NATO and the United Nations International Police Task Force (IPTF) in this connection;
So let’s summarise: Abu Omar extracted from Italy (with 22 warrants out for the CIA kidnappers), Khaled al-Masri (we had this one before), Canadian citizen Maher Arar (arrested in the US while in transit and brought to Syria of all places!), Egyptian citizens Mohammed Al Zary and Ahmed Agiza (kidnapped in Sweden) and 6 Bosnians of Algerian origin. That’s 11 that were documented enough to be taken up by the EU parliament.
Are all these people as innocent as Khaled al-Masri? Probably not - but that question is in this context pretty irrelevant: What is relevant that CIA operatives illegally seizsed them and brought them into countries where torture is well documented - sometimes disgustingly accepted and covered up by complicited European authorities; accepting a crime against our laws probably out of misunderstood loyalty.
This is what I (and others) take massive offense with: The US’ authorities clear disregard for our laws. Your systems (as above) only apply within your borders to your residents - the current and well documented practice of outsourcing the dirty work totally belies the mission of spreading democratic values and destroys the US’ credibility on the issue. That’s very sad.
Makkun
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They don’t consider possible actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.
Precisely why Johnson and the Dems created the welfare state. Do you honestly think they created it to help the poor and helpless? LOL!
“I’ll have them ni##ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!!”
— LBJ
Glad to see you’re catching on, Prof!!
I truly fear for whatever children you claim to be teaching. Your comments aren’t witty, funny, clever, or any other adjective that would denote something admirable or desired. I keep waiting on you to reveal that this is all some deep seated joke for you as far as your comments on this site. The more you type, however, the more I realize that this is why God limited the amount of time humans can spend on this planet in one lifetime. I mean, could you imagine the damage you could do if you lived forever?
[/quote]
Someone who doesn’t think as you do is causing damage? Isn’t that a rather arrogant viewpoint, Prof?
Why does pointing out that black people have been duped by a power-mad maniac mean that I’m damaging children? Sorry if attacking someone you revere upsets you, big guy, but he was really cornholing black people, and you didn’t know it.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Are all these people as innocent as Khaled al-Masri? Probably not - but that question is in this context pretty irrelevant: What is relevant that CIA operatives illegally seizsed them and brought them into countries where torture is well documented - sometimes disgustingly accepted and covered up by complicited European authorities; accepting a crime against our laws probably out of misunderstood loyalty.
This is what I (and others) take massive offense with: The US’ authorities clear disregard for our laws. Your systems (as above) only apply within your borders to your residents - the current and well documented practice of outsourcing the dirty work totally belies the mission of spreading democratic values and destroys the US’ credibility on the issue. That’s very sad.
Makkun[/quote]
I am wondering if anyone is crazy enough to tell him that this is “irrelevant”. It is very relevant if the US is trying to show itself as the good guy in the face of evil. Otherwise, it is all a show and others don’t seem to have much of a problem seeing through it.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week’s version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those “engaged in hostilities against the United States.”
…
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.
This won’t scare many because far too many don’t think ahead of “fear of terrorists”. They don’t consider possible actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.
And yet if they didn’t go to these more extreme measures to stop terrorism or protect US citizens and someone from your family died as result, you would probably be the first to say that they should have done more.
It is any easy thing to cry about freedoms being lost due to increased security measures when you have not lost any family members as a result of a lack of security.
You know what, you are right. We should ban all foreigners. Toss everyone of middle eastern descent into detainment camps until they can be deported. Ban Islamic organizations. Want me to go on?
I’ll take freedom any day. People come to this country to remove the shackles of persecution, not get locked up in new ones.[/quote]
Nowhere in my post did I advocate doing what you have stated. My point is that it is easy to talk about freedom and preserving everyone’s rights to do whatever they want until someone you care about dies as a result. For example, the right to have guns is a freedom, but many would like to drop that freedom because people are and do die because of it.
So the point is that in a free society there is always an ongoing cost of freedom and those who have not had to personally (or family) pay that cost are much quicker to say exactly just what you have stated. And when it does hit your family then you cry that the government is not doing enough. You can’t have it both ways.
Freedom will and does cost lives!