Justice Scalia recently said that "you are kidding yourself if you think internment camps wont return" referring to the US citizens illegally imprisoned in ww2. What group do you think is mostly likely to be rounded up and thrown in camps?
If we get a right wing tea party paranoid racist dickpole as a president I can see him putting Islamic people in internment camps. They are bigots and proud of it.
Dave seeing as how you probably don't understand big words allow me to explain what "fiscal responsibility and accountability" means a balanced budget is a budget with revenues equal to expenditures, and neither a budget
deficit nor a budget surplus. More generally, it refers to a budget with no deficit, but possibly with a surplus. And accountability- an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions
Carter, appreciate the insult. In case you haven't noticed, we have interment camps in Guantanamo. Set up by George the 43rd. And I do understand fiscal responsibility. I'm a moderate independent because I'm fiscally conservative.
Ok Dave, we only put FOREIGN terrorists captured on the battlefield or that are convicted of terrorism/ war crimes, and where else would you put them? And Presidents before president Bush didn't have that prob So there was no need.
When waco happened i was a kid. Now as an adult when i found out how it really happened, im just completely disgusted about every single part of how that came to be
Because i read it in the news and thought it was interesting someone at the top of gov power is warning of future gov atrocities that most stupidly believe can never happen again.
Yeah... They were killing people...back in the day we would have just killed them on the battlefield. Now we are so pc castrated we read rights to foreign terrorist
You would kill people on the battlefield just for being Muslim and/or middle eastern? If you consider a lack of constant war and killing a bad thing, we may just be too far apart on this issue to have a discussion.
How do you know you would've killed them on the battlefield? Assuming you're of white European ancestry, they have not always throughout the entirety of history been at war with the Middle East.
Hello. Did i miss a new war we are in? Weve been at war in the middle east for almost 15 years. Obviously im taking about our current situation. When we go to war in europe or russia or asia or Africa or south america or the moon or where ever
I assumed by "back in the day" you meant some historical period rather than modern era. And we aren't "at war" with the Middle East. We're involved in wars in some parts of the Middle East. Modern warfare is not as clean as country vs country.
Thats exactly my point. I don't trust them to run a prison for "terrorist" real or not. The military shouldn't be acting like police serving a warrant. If someone surrenders on the battle field them set up an official POW camp over there.
You act as though the CIA/FBI/NSA is aimlessly rounding up POMEDs at will and shipping them to Gitmo. Spies YES, known terrorists with a history of terrorism YES, PoMEDs on the No-fly list YES, POWs YES! There are no PoMED/USCitizens at Gitmo.
I understand, we send *KNOWN* al qaeda, Taliban, and other terrorist operations members there, I have a few Muslim friends, they aren't discriminated against, by me or anyone else, the majority of Muslims in Gitmo aren't even from America.
& Bethany they are not Americans under international laws they only have the right to contact there embassy, and most of there home countries won't help them, if their embassy does then there is a trial.
No Bethany we're believing common knowledge, proven by multiple sources (multiple news stations, UN ~insert correct name here~ committee, as well as foreign news and foreign governments, as well as our government), your believing half-assed
And komm Gitmo is run by our MPs (military police). MPs are normally stationed in foreign occupied countries to act as the police, and we need big guns when the people your imprisoning are irrational, possibly insane, and very dangerous.
I'm not talking about conspiracy theories. I'm talking about believing that there is sufficient evidence despite the lack of any meaningful review. Higher courts have found the procedures at Gitmo illegal. This is public knowledge.
Bethany it's been reviewed by multiple sources (multiple news stations, UN ~insert correct name here~ committee, as well as foreign news and foreign governments, as well as our government).
What has been reviewed by multiple sources? And it seems you misunderstand my objection. I don't particularly care WHERE they imprison people; I just want to see actual trial procedures properly followed. That's all.
Ok Bethany all of there Legal rights are awarded, under international law if a persons embassy does not provide assistance to the person (this is most cases) then a quick military trail is allowed, if their embassy does send over a lawyer then they
Have an extended trail, remember they aren't Americans, they only have the right to a military trail, in some cases we do allow civil trials but normally for anyone going to Gitmo they have military trials, again because our constitution doesn't
Sounds to me the fundamental difference is that beth wants american citizenship rights automatically awarded to foreign enemies captured on the battlefield as if a swat team swerved a warrant to a drug cartel in LA.
In regards to a review by the SCOTUS reported June 2012, "Without comment, the justices refused to take a fresh look at the "habeas" petitions by the suspected foreign enemy fighters and what rights they have to make their claims in federal court.
Wrong. American citizens are not the only ones who have rights under US law. Gitmo has previously been found to violate the Geneva convention. The Supreme Court has held the right of habeas corpus applies. Yet the gov't consistently tries to thwart
The 169 detainees have no standing under the US Constitution and are subject to military law as enemy combatants. It's shameful that they have been held for 10+ years. Their Taliban colleagues only understand public execution, so...do it.
Geneva convention is good and we should follow it. Foreigners dont get us citizen rights but if they are captured and imprisoned they should receive some basic human rights. We all agree on that much?
Hahaha, Komm, I would think you and I would be on the same side on this one. I think the Obama administration's actions in regard to Guantanamo are a total violation of the law *and* a complete disregard for separation of powers.
But this thread has covered a lot of ground. One of my original objections was the practice of the military being pressure to capture rather than kill targets. We shouldn't be at war if we aren't willing to kill every single that stands in our way
branch calls something a "war" and uses its own characterization to justify suspension of the law. It's illegal, it's wrong, and it's something we should not get used to. Today it's foreign "combatants." When does it become domestic martial law?
Political dissidents are always at risk. The first amendment has held it at bay admirably for a while, but the power of the Internet is stirring things up too much for some in power.
Mr Diogenes - while I know we share a deep affection for each other - please be aware that in my many many many responses that include the word "snicker" it in no way shape or form will will ever refer to the popular candy bar. :)
Depends on the regime in power. If it's an Obama, then it'll be conservative Friends of Liberty. At first.
If it's a McCain, or a McConnell, or a Graham, or a Corker, etc. it'll be liberal Friends of Liberty. At first.
If there's one thing that progressive, statist authoritarians in both parties hate, it's friends of Liberty who just want to mind their own damn business, and expect others to do the same.
If you say so. But your generalizations and perceptions don't leave me convinced. I'm progressive and not authoritarian. I can think of plenty of ways to implement progressive ideals while respecting freedom. It's all about what you choose to see.
Seriously though it would be dangerous to put us all together. We would all be united literally physically together with a common cause.... Can someone say sparitcus?
I wish, Komm. Comment was driven by how GHackman's character lived. I loved his loft and all the gadgets and fail safes. Wiring it to blow if compromised and the movie effects were brilliant. WSmith was excellent. Great movie all around.
I'm not saying white people don't hurt white people. I'm saying they wouldn't pass a law to imprison themselves. Why would white males target white males for being white and male?
It's all good! I didn't but should've put @komm but I should've. I was responding to him taking my first comment to mean I don't think white people hurt other white people.
I think the point is that to say that a group as broad as "white men" is at risk - apparently simply for being white and male - is ludicrous in light of the fact that the majority of powerful people are themselves white and male. This doesn't mean
all white men are therefore safe, but it means their whiteness and maleness are not vectors of vulnerability for them. It would be other things, such as political views, that could put them at risk.
Exactly. I don't think most citizens would support such a thing but that doesn't always matter. I had a roommate who was Pakistani and although other students are perfectly nice he's still run into institutional problems.
Comments: Add Comment