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?
YOU! For asking the wrong questions.
I would have to say Mexicans.
Tea Partiers. They are already being discriminated by IRS.
Religious people. Especially gun owners.
Libertarians, Jews, rich people, gun owners, the typical targets of governments.
freedom loving citizens.
Especially those who might cause problems for the 1%.
That's naive. They're already in camps called "projects" or section 8 housing. They're a compliant group of sheep.
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.
The TEA Party is not about social issues. We're only about fiscal responsibility and accountability.
What pinky said
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.
So than how do you equate Taxed Enough Already wackos thats push a purely fiscal agenda with your original statement?
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.
Law Abiding, Armed citizens.
Straight white males that own fire arms.
And the ones that support them
Probably not the ones I want to go after. Especially since I am one of those.
The government killed children in Waco Texas. You'll do your job, if you know what is good for you.
Look out Cowboy. Sounds like someone's after you.
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
Why are we listening to Scalia?
Like a broken clock, he occasionally gets it right through pure happenstance. His dissent in Maryland v. King, for instance, was spot-on.
Havent hears that one before. I like it
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.
Muslims. We're already sending plenty of them to Gitmo.
Muslims and middle easterners I should say.
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 have the right to surrender. Otherwise you die.
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.
Any enemy on the battlefield. Has nothing to do with their faith or race.
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
Then we will talk about whatever group is predominate in that war.
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.
We only sent the terrorists to gatmo
Because if the government says they're terrorists, that's good enough for you? No need for a jury trial? You trust the government that much?
When at war, our enemies deserve imprisonment or a firing squad, not a trial.
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.
Ummmm do you guys not understand what happens at Gitmo and who gets sent 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.
And its still open despite Caesar Obama false promise to close it.
Seems as though the emperor wannabe doesn't have all the power. Or he lied again as he has done so many times
Wow. Listen to you guys drinking the gov't Kool-Aid. Guess liberals aren't the only ones eh?
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
Conspiracy theory's by a guy that's never even been to Gitmo
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.
Dittos means i agree
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.
I gotta hear what the conspiracy theory is. Let me guess its alex jones?
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).
And where do you want to put our foreign terrorist prisoners? How about we put them in your county jail?
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
Apply to them.
Oh and I was talking about Gitmo being reviewed
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
and avert the effects of these rulings.
Defend the government breaking the law all you want. What do you care, right? They aren't coming after you.
(The "wrong" was addressed to Komm's suggestion that I was arguing they should be treated as citizens)
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.
Jeeze one minute i think we agree then we dont then we do. Lol sometimes text msging sucks
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.
I agree with that Komm. The Geneva Conventions have some very important and sensible rules to ensure protection of basic human rights.
I think we do mostly.
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
Quite frankly this war needs to end, gitmo needs to close and the detainees should be freed or executed.
Freed, imprisoned, or extradited, I'd say. I'm opposed to execution. I know their own countries may do it, but that's a separate question.
I also object to calling our ongoing military actions a "war." It's gotten to the point where the executive
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?
People they see as smart enough to make a chanse
Good one. Thats for sure
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.
Veterans, Ron/Rand Paul & Ted Cruz supporters, 2nd amendment advocates, and anyone that questions the actions of government.
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. :)
No, you've misread my meaning. Snickers (at government or the TSA) will have the popo come a'looking fer ya!
Gun owners and Libertarians, for sure.
Fathers. Gun owners. Middle class
Fathers?? That's an odd one. And for them to round up the middle class they're have to stop destroying it first :-P
White Christian males.
Only if they have a bondage fetish since those are the guys making all the rules.
Which ever group of people are dear beloved government will blame for the next terrorist attack or crisis.
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.
Either way, Friends of Liberty of all stripes will likely be wrongfully deemed a threat and interned, or interred, at such camps.
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.
McCain is a RINO. He would never lock up a liberal.
Progressivism and authoritarianism are completely different things.
Authoritarians dont have to be progressive. But for progressive policy to be implemented.., we authoritarianism is the primary means
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.
Im not exactly trying to convince anyone here one way or another. Most of us have firmly chosen our positions and not likely to change anyways.
Progressivism breeds authoritarianism.
Right, sure, whatever pinky. Just keep saying things like they're arguments.
It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact.
Oh right of course. How obvious.
Glad to see you've come around.
Christians, Conservatives, Pro-Lifers, and Tea Partiers. I'm doomed on all counts. .o)
Lol. Run forest run!
You're such an extremist!! I hope we get placed in the same camp!
Like Tom said - that perhaps will be our SOH convention. ROFL
You two - Komm says if we're all in the same camp we'll be unstoppable! :o)
Conservatives--They will be called racist, bigots, idealogues, homophobes, whatever necessary to justify it.
Prepares, protestors, political dissenters.
Preppers and those considered to be prepping.
If i ever mysteriously disappear.... Well you know where ill be
At least i'll get to meet you!
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 AM Spartacus!
Have you watched Enemy of the State? I thought i had till last night when my wife put it in. Dang good movie way before its time.
Komm - I've seen it back when it came out in '98, but I'll watch it again. I know I liked it. You're right, the NSA stuff was spookily prophetic.
My 1,500 sf 3 bed 2 bath underground bunker has 2 foot thick concrete walls all inside a Faraday cage! :0)
Nice. Mine is still imaginary.... Someday
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.
In derelict sidings the poppies entwine
With cattle trucks lying in wait for the next time.
Do you remember me? How it used to be?
As long as WE remember and resist when the order is given we will never see camps again.
Fjolnir, that was marvelous. :o)
I can't claim the poetry. Credit to Roger Waters for the image and the poetry.
Thank you for sharing it anyway! :o)
Christian legal gun owners....Former military....preppers...outspoken libertarians. Im screwed.
By who? The other white men who make up most of our govt? That wouldn't make sense.
Idealogy trumps skin color. What kind of racist thinking do you have that you believe whites will never harm whites because they are white?
seriously? yeah, it's rough out there for white men.
What group has the largest amount on welfare? WHITE PEOPLE. Hows that pale pink skin workin out for them.
proportionate to population? I think not.
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?
sorry, aj. I should very clarified that I was responding to the "white males" comment, not yours.
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.
Oh wow excuse the typos..lol
Its all good but I'm still not sure that i get your point.
I either 100% disagree with you or im not understanding your meaning very well
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.
Yeah i think thats what i meant when i said ideology trumps race or whenever other physical attribute you want to choose
@bethany- thanks for elaborating! That's the angle I was coming from but you phrased it much better haha
Middle eastern people seem like a plausible guess right now.
I doubt it actually. To un pc considering the type in power now
Maybe 10-15 years ago but we the citizens have proven ourselves better than that.
The gov on the other hand has not. In fact i think its proven itself much more likely to do that in the near future than at any time since the 60s.
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.
Sad. I went to boot camp with two muslims who really got it hard sometimes. But eventually i think things lightened up for them.
That's good to hear. It's encouraging that people are at least becoming more aware of this and it's becoming less acceptable.
Comments: Add Comment