Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Neo Con Terrorist Bloggers"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Let me try and put a bit of perspective on this for our right-wing friends.


If some one on ATS was posting to explicitly promote hate or violence to someone or some group then I would expect that threat to be followed up on, if deemed necessary. To simple spout theories or ideas that do not espouse hatred toward one group or another is comparing apples and oranges IMO. Debate of ideas is fine, promoting hate against some one should not be fine.




posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Are we going to be funny?

Well, it really is funny when people try to claim that Gore invented the internet, don't you think?



Since Bush does not want Al Gore to present his slide show on global warming, he should perhaps ask Al to give him a master class of using 'the google' and 'the internets'.


Following his enthusiasm earlier this week for “the Google” - and two years after his talk about “the internets” - George Bush has been interviewed by America’s MSNBC about his use of technology.



This seems to be an incomplete post, or maybe you forgot to add a source link or something? What point are you trying to make?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
JSOBECKY!!!

They were right!!!

There is a knock at my door now... I think it's the... WAIT!!! It's the NEOCONS come to take my computer...

If you don't hear from me.. please... let someone know.. OH YEAH< your probably next....

LOL

I have yet to see an answer to the posters question as to what rights we have lost on the internet..

Semper



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragongirl724

Originally posted by Nygdan
So basically the complaint here is that people that are conservatives have the audacity to speak their minds on the internet, and that it just must be a secret plot by evil mr. bush.


yup. its the "you're either for us or against us" policy.


unbelievable....

-DG724


Perhaps you didn't notice, but I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic....

Sorry to bring you back to reality but "prisonplanet" is as reliable as "Alex Jones"" or "Rense.com"....

Who knows maybe there are people out there who think that "Pravda" is also a reliable news source......



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
I don't know.......no one still can list any 'rights' they have lost.


um.. how about our right to privacy, free speech and freedom of expression. the right to protest has been taken away from animal rights activists labeling them as terrorism, and hello, the PATRIOT ACT, you might wanan check it out. it basically labels everyone in their own way a threat to national security. its BS!

-DG724



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
also the victims in Louisiana protecting their homes had their right to bare arms stripped from them. They were handcuffed and treated as criminals even if they were quietly in their homes tryin to protect themselves from looters. Military barged in and took their guns from them. screw that!

-DG724



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Uh, guys?

Let's not forget that your "great writ" has basicly been plowed under.
When you combine the Military Commissions Act of 2006 with USA Patriot Act, just about anyone can be declaired an "unlawful enemy combatant" and be locked away without trail!

The wording on these Acts are so broad and they are so loosely written, they are open to abuse at massive levels.
The MCA2006 does require Presidential consent in order to suspend Habeas corpus. However, it does not specify that it must be specific consent! What this means is that general consent can be given in the form of Standing Orders. It would be a simple matter for the president to make "the definition of a Terrorist as per the Patriot Act" the desiding factor for the application of the MCA2006.

Bang.
Police State.

Now, I'm not trying to be all Alex Jones about this, but I'm simply amazed that more people in the US aren't ticked off about this abuse of one of the most noble acts America ever enacted.

I suspect that many people don't really understand what Habeas corpus really means. It's not unique to America, but it was important enough to the Founding Fathers to be mentioined specificly in the Consitution. ["The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."].


In common law countries, habeas corpus (/'heɪbiəs 'kɔɹpəs/), Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Source

It's your right to a trail. It prevents you from being held without reason. It means that legal process must take place. Without it, you could be locked away without charges. Forever.

Applying Habeas corpus is one of the defining attributes of a free sociaty vs a facist state.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
And I'm from Quebec and we don't want to merge with the USA... sorry.

And what the government is planning for suppressing free speech on the internet is internet 2. You'll have to do like in China and identify yourself to go on the internet with your fingerprint and your real name. If you say something against the dear leader, you they know who you are and where you live. Also, website like ATS and Prisonplanet, forget it, forget also 9/11 truth or any future terrorist attack from Al-CIADA.

They want to implement the ID card so we they can block everything you have if you're labelled as a terrorist for going against the government.

Seriously, we're heading towards a real sophisticated police state and if there's not a big chance at this election and the next, we're screwed to submit or to a revolution.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragongirl724

Originally posted by ferretman2
I don't know.......no one still can list any 'rights' they have lost.


um.. how about our right to privacy, free speech and freedom of expression. the right to protest has been taken away from animal rights activists labeling them as terrorism, and hello, the PATRIOT ACT, you might wanan check it out. it basically labels everyone in their own way a threat to national security. its BS!

-DG724

I have not lost any of my First Amendment rights. Can you give specific, concrete examples?



also the victims in Louisiana protecting their homes had their right to bare arms stripped from them. They were handcuffed and treated as criminals even if they were quietly in their homes tryin to protect themselves from looters. Military barged in and took their guns from them. screw that!

-DG724

Military did not barge in. That was the action of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass. And what was the outcome of all that? They were taken to court and successfully prosecuted. Lawyers from the NRA were a key part of that, I might add.

For a summary of what happened, look a these clips. They are short and to the point.

www.givethemback.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
dragongirl724

The theme of your thread seems to be some vague claim that the US gov't will be using the internet as a propoganda tool, and that dissenters, such as left-wing bloggers, will be labeled terrorists. Correct? I want to make sure I understand your argument before I respond further.

Edit to add

What I fear is the forums, personal bloggers, independant news sites simply posting information that are to be considered 'terrorists'. THAT is what the problem is all about.

This is an example of where I'm confused. WHo is proposing this, and where has it been written?

[edit on 28-10-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The theme of your thread seems to be some vague claim that the US gov't will be using the internet as a propoganda tool


Why should the possibility of governments using internet as tool for propaganda activities be ruled out? Internet has become an important, if not, the most important medium for instant communication. Even more important is the fact of enabling ''common people'' to share political ideas and thoughts. This aspect in particular makes it harder for governments to hide secrets and sell political stories.

Ask yourself how much you would have known about the existence of 9/11 conspiracies if you wouldn't have access to internet facilities? Without internet, mainstream media channels would probably not even have paid attention to conspiracy theories.

The following example dates back to the Israel - Lebanon conflict of last summer. The possibility of other governments using similar e-strategies does exist; I wouldn't personally be surprised if certain governmental agencies would be using similar tactics


MESSAGE FROM
Amir Gissin,
The Israeli Public Affairs Department

Dear friends,

Many of us recognize the importance of the Internet as the new battleground for Israel's image. It's time to do it better, and coordinate our on-line efforts on behalf of Israel. An Israeli software company have developed a free, safe and useful tool for us - the Internet Megaphone.

Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc.

We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.

Do it now. For Israel.

Source



Regarding the question about the rights we have lost. Apart from the infringement on privacy rights I myself (as European Union citizen) haven't lost any rights that prevent me from living my life as usual. Nevertheless, I don't like the fact that officials could abuse their right of tapping my phone. No I don't have anything to hide, but it is rather easy abuse it.

However, the fact that we haven't lost many right isn't he point those sites are trying to make. The current changes in acts and laws allows the US government to easily label one as enemy of the state, imprison one and torture one. What if governments are starting to misuse those rights against citizens with different thoughts?

You might also want to read the following story:



A month ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.

That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.

We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.

"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.

The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.

After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.

I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.

In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

Story continues



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by jsobecky
The theme of your thread seems to be some vague claim that the US gov't will be using the internet as a propoganda tool


Why should the possibility of governments using internet as tool for propaganda activities be ruled out? Internet has become an important, if not, the most important medium for instant communication. Even more important is the fact of enabling ''common people'' to share political ideas and thoughts. This aspect in particular makes it harder for governments to hide secrets and sell political stories.

And I ask you: why should the gov't be prohibited from using the internet? Why should it be freely available for us and off-limits to them?

Please, give me a good reason, and not just the fact that you "don't like it".


However, the fact that we haven't lost many right isn't he point those sites are trying to make. The current changes in acts and laws allows the US government to easily label one as enemy of the state, imprison one and torture one. What if governments are starting to misuse those rights against citizens with different thoughts?

You are vastly oversimplifying the laws and their intent. There was nothing before these laws to prevent someone from being labeled a terrorist; these laws actually clarify the definition.


You might also want to read the following story:


As for the story, it is impossible to make a judgement without further detail. Quite possibly they working on a case. As for being held and patted down, law officials have every right to hold you until they have established your identity and to pat you down for their protection.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
we shouldnt have lost any of our rights, the job of the president is to protect our Constitution, NOT dismantle it! we have no privacy and anyone of us against the administration & their policies can be labeled an enemy combatants and terrorists, and sent away, if that doesn't set off a red flag that we are being stripped our rights then I don't know what else to say.

-DG724



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragongirl724
we shouldnt have lost any of our rights, the job of the president is to protect our Constitution, NOT dismantle it! we have no privacy and anyone of us against the administration & their policies can be labeled an enemy combatants and terrorists, and sent away, if that doesn't set off a red flag that we are being stripped our rights then I don't know what else to say.


How do you propose we battle the real actual terrorists that have plainly made their intent clear. Do we not try to intercept communications, monitor the flow of money or gasp, even spy on said terrorists?

I know you think there is a slippery slope that we are already sliding on, but the fact remains that there are actual terrorist groups out there who are intent on doing major damage to the U.S. and Western governments and their peoples. They know of our love of freedom and cherished rights and have/are exploiting this as a weakness of ours to be used against us.

Again, how do you propose we battle this threat in the modern technological age?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Some of you are really pubescent in your beliefs and expectations...what you think you deserve.

I got news for you folks ..even up in Canada...

If they flag you for some reason ...you wont have any rights either and will be called in for questioning...even without your lawyer or parents.

So many of you are preaching and attempting to teach "Victimization" but dont realize this stuff was going on during WW1 and also WW2. It was going on in other administrations.

The fears and concerns you are mentioning here have been going on for years..no matter who is in office.

What the computer and internet has done is make it easier to check up on you if you are flagged for some reason. You have to be very pubescent and immature in your thinking not to understand this.


It's simple..if you want more privacy ..dont use the internet. Dont count on a hard wired telephone for privacy either. Most certainly dont account count on a cell phone for privacy. The non privacy features are already built into the telephone system ..also the cell phone system.

Many computers still use regular phone lines...this should also tell you something about privacy.

If you want privacy and not being intruded on you must teach yourself. Dont count on public education or politics to get this for you because you think you "Deserve" this or that. If you want it..you must learn about it then earn it and then keep it private. Dont tell on yourself.

Privacy includes "Private Property" The ownerships and discretion over the use of private property.

Educate yourself..and stop blaming this administration or other administrations. I have seen so much of this drivel of blaming others. No one wants to look inside themselves for the real problem. You have trusted your privacy to a government who has consistently demonstrated that they are unworthy to be stewards of the public intrest. And I mean no matter who is in office.
You are responsible for your privacy and welfare...dont ever count on any government to do this for you ...Governments work for governments first ...not the public intrest. This is your first big oversight.

Educate yourself ..it is a lifelong task,
THanks,
Orangetom





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join