ronholm wrote: Saying that Mussolini and his version of 'right wing' politic'n is even remotely similar to American conservatives whose general aim is to conserve classic liberalism is quite a stretch.
That's fine to say, except that very few (if any) modern American Conservatives have a general aim that is even remotely close to Classical Liberalism.
If they did, I wouldn't bitch nearly as much as I do.
Drewsifer wrote: And people are just now getting concerned?
Better late than never. Propaganda works well, that is why they use it.
If you want to get more people up to speed you can't be all like "Maaan I was huge Metallica fan back when nobody ever heard of Metallica maaaan. You guys are tools - you only like them now that they sold out".
bravenrace wrote: First of all, you have to be skeptical of anything the Huffy Post publishes.
Better?
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/29/should-military-be-allowed-detain-americans-indefinitely
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
Uh, no. It's title is just as misleading.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to mad_machine: You and I have a very different view of this country.
How would you go through that check list then? (not being combative, just curious)
bravenrace wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Uh, no. It's title is just as misleading.
How so? Do you suddenly become "UnAmerican" when accused of being a terrorist?
ZOO wrote: How so? Do you suddenly become "UnAmerican" when accused of being a terrorist?
I think that is actually how we became Americans instead of Brits. The Boston Tea Party would be considered an act of Terrorism today. The Sons of Liberty, a secretive terrorist organization. The British called them traitors and hung the ones they could find.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:ZOO wrote: How so? Do you suddenly become "UnAmerican" when accused of being a terrorist?I think that is actually how we became Americans instead of Brits. The Boston Tea Party would be considered an act of Terrorism today. The Sons of Liberty, a secretive terrorist organization. The British called them traitors and hung the ones they could find.
I would agree -- GPS -- and that's how I ended up being Canadian (my family left the US because they were loyal to King George).
ZOO wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Uh, no. It's title is just as misleading.How so? Do you suddenly become "UnAmerican" when accused of being a terrorist?
The article is about holding terrorists, American or not. To be accurate, the title should have used "terrorists" instead of "Americans", but the authors chose to use Americans to get more people to read the article. The real problem is all the people that read the title and not the article, which go away with a skewed idea of what the article was saying. Sorry to those who already read this in my previous post for repeating it.
bravenrace wrote:ZOO wrote:The article is about holding terrorists, American or not. To be accurate, the title should have used "terrorists" instead of "Americans", but the authors chose to use Americans to get more people to read the article. The real problem is all the people that read the title and not the article, which go away with a skewed idea of what the article was saying. Sorry to those who already read this in my previous post for repeating it.bravenrace wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Uh, no. It's title is just as misleading.How so? Do you suddenly become "UnAmerican" when accused of being a terrorist?
The bone of contention which was not addressed very well by that article was the missing distinction between American citizens and foreign prisoners. The assignment of a label by whomever is in charge of making undesirable people disappear, for the purposes of skirting pesky trials is something we used to use to scare children into hating "commies". In a world where the US military sought, was granted and carried thru on the assignation of an american citizen without due process of law... (because that was deemed to be difficult and 'cmon, we all agree he is a bad guy...) it makes sense to get a clarification so we all know where we stand. With that one stroke - you can't really assume you get a fair trial anymore can you?
You're talking to the wrong guy. I don't think terrorists should be tried in a court of law. It's an act of war and should be dealt with accordingly.
bravenrace wrote: You're talking to the wrong guy. I don't think terrorists should be tried in a court of law. It's an act of war and should be dealt with accordingly.
Who are these terrorists? Arab bombers? Computer hackers from Berkeley with a political axe to grind? Occupy Wall Street? Anyone who doesn't fall in line?
How long before a terrorist is anyone who disagrees with officials over how they run the country? No distinction made about due process and american citizens is a recipe for disaster.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
There is a fine line between a terrorist and a patriot sometimes. People use the word terrorist a little too loosely.
I can't believe anyone would be ok with this law. What happened to right to a trial by a jury of your peers?
Ben Franklin said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
ThePhranc wrote: Left = more government Right = less The extreme left is pure communism. The extreme right is pure anarchy.
You've probably seen those "political graphs" with a left/right and authoritarian/libertarian axis. You're confusing the left/right axis with the authoritarian/libertarian axis. Fascism is far right + far authoritarian and communism is far left + far authoritarian.
93EXCivic wrote: I can't believe anyone would be ok with this law. What happened to right to a trial by a jury of your peers?Ben Franklin said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Yeah, but to the British he was just another berkeleyin' terrorist who ought to have been hung. Who cares what he said.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: There is a fine line between a terrorist and a patriot sometimes. People use the word terrorist a little too loosely.
Reuters (the news agency) had that problem and refused to refer to the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists.
Stephen Jukes said: We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist.
Reuters later admitted it amended use of the term as appeasement to "terrorists" in an effort to help keep its' journalists safe from angered "freedom fighters".
Now, we have a Congress that wants to blur the lines between the two terms and a President who has vowed to veto the bill. Of course, this same President has decreed it OK to assassinate American citizens without due process while outlawing waterboarding as a means of torture.
It's all a bit murky and beyond infuriating.
93EXCivic wrote: I can't believe anyone would be ok with this law. What happened to right to a trial by a jury of your peers?Ben Franklin said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But it's to protect our freedoms! Don't worry Citizen, the Government knows best.
@GPS
Yeah man, I was worried about the government before a bill you've probably never heard of. 
Drewsifer wrote: Yeah man, I was worried about the government before a bill you've probably never heard of.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
No, I"m talking abou terrorists. You know, the ones who commit violent acts with the intent of killing Americans.
BTW, I find it interesting that so many people seem to defend the angry, violent, unreasonable occupiers and had no problem with the peacful, reasonable Tea Party protesters being demonized by the media as being racist and voilent when it is not true. Pathetic.
Not saying you're one of them, but you did mention the occupiers, that while not terrorists by any stretch, are way closer to that end of the spectrum than the Tea Partiers.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: No, I"m talking abou terrorists. You know, the ones who commit violent acts with the intent of killing Americans.
What is the difference between an alleged perpetrator of a bank robbery and an alleged perpetrator of an attack on a political figure ?
Hint: One of them would not get a trial before sentencing with that law on the books. Innocent until ... DOH.
4cylndrfury wrote:Drewsifer wrote: Yeah man, I was worried about the government before a bill you've probably never heard of.
Absolutely. In these types of discussions, we all seem to gravitate to the left or the right, but they should be about Americans uniting against the corrupt politicians on both sides.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Exactly. By federal law, acts of terrorism are acts of war. Robbing a bank is not.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Exactly. By federal law, acts of terrorism are acts of war. Robbing a bank is not.
So you are cool with the government being free of the burden of proof and just putting people in jail for whatever they say they did? Do you not see a problem with that?
I do not want to live in your Amerika. Due process is one of those biggies that keep Tyranny at bay.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:93EXCivic wrote: I can't believe anyone would be ok with this law. What happened to right to a trial by a jury of your peers?Yeah, but to the British he was just another berkeleyin' terrorist who ought to have been hung. Who cares what he said.Ben Franklin said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
'To the British' is the really important part of that. To the fledgling America he was (and still is) a hero.
I have seen in this thread a lot of black/white rhetoric. In life, there are shades of gray and sometimes you have to do things you don't necessarily like because it's become a neccessity.
I guess everyone thinks the TSA likes having to finger everyone's stuff? Not bloody likely. So what's the alternative: another 9/11? Yeah, right. Great idea. It sounds so manly to holler about how you'd rather die than get prodded at a TSA checkpoint but when it gets right down to where the bear E36 M3s in the buckwheat you want nothing more than to be reasonably assured you'll get back to your family alive rather than become a statistic as part of some jihadist 'statement'. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Tom Clancy wrote a very good description of how terrorists (and yes I will use that word, because it's what they are) use the fabric of their host society to their advantage and its disadvantage. I won't belabor the point about them purposely not becoming part of a nation-state's military. While we are on the subject, I agree the term suicide bomber is wrong. It should be replaced by homicide bomber because that's what they are.
It comes down to this: at some point something's got to give. That guy Anwar Awlaki who was just droned over in Yemen is a good example. We had here an American citizen who went off and became a terrorist yet refused to give up his US citizenship because he wanted its protection while he joined an organization that was plotting the overthrow of our country (and I specifically did not use the word 'government' on purpose). Hypocritical bastard. He could have lived here in America as a citizen, free to come and go as he pleased, free to do any damn thing he wanted, pursue any religion he wanted, as long as he didn't harm another person. Instead he chose the path that led to his death. He got what he deserved.
But this government (in its different guises, from small towns all the way to Washington) shows remarkable restraint. For all the yelling and bitching in gov't from the far left and far right sides, for the most part it actually does a pretty decent job of not killing and/or maiming its constituents.
Good example: everyone is all up in arms about how the 'Occupy' protesters were pepper sprayed in California. They should be happy they weren't in just about any other country in the world because instead of being pepper sprayed they probably would have had the E36 M3 beat out of them. (And for the record, in many ways I agree with their group's stated grievances.) Close to home, our own Gov Haley had them removed from the State House grounds on flimsy excuses but they immediately (like the next morning) got their day in court and are right back where they were but this time with a judge's blessing. Try THAT E36 M3 anywhere else in the world. Let me know how it works out.
You'll need to log in to post.
