Federal Court: Bush Can 'Indefinitely' Detain Civilians!

reply to post by Rasputin13

I seriously wonder what you will do with yourself once Bush is finished his term. It seems like everytime that I sign on here lately, I find an anti-Bush or anti-American thread that you've started.

But it's not anti-American. It's PRO American, pro the way the country is SUPPOSED to be, the way the country's founding fathers envisioned. NOT the way it is now with more and more liberities stripped away becasue of power lust.

I'd rather face the threat of onstant terrorist attack than have these anti-constitutional pieces of legislation passed. I have the right to own a gun. I have the right to defend myself. I don't need the government to protect me. If people would get off their ass, we'd be a force to be reconed with for "terrorists". We wouldn't need the government to do so much for us.

Why do I often feel like I’m living in a world that will soon become much like the one described in Orwell’s 1984? Honestly I don’t see how people can not worry about the rode the US and the world is headed down. There is no good in all out panic but we need to start paying more attention to what is going on around us. We can not rely on our politicians or the media to inform us, they aren’t all working against us, but many sure as hell are not working for us.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

I seriously wonder what you will do with yourself once Bush is finished his term. It seems like everytime that I sign on here lately, I find an anti-Bush or anti-American thread that you've started. Now, I'm not discounting your right to post relevant and factual information just because it suits your personal beliefs and agenda. I just think it would help to see more balance on this site, especially from particular members who choose to constantly create threads of a particular theme.

As for the topic itself, it is disturbing. But, and I know that I will get bashed for this, I will really start to worry if and when I see a single American citizen without any ties to terrorism held indefinitely. Because regardless of the intentions you think our "evil government" has, I'm going to sit back and let things play out. If this law is truly unconstitutional and not a necessary act during dangerous times (remember that Lincoln, FDR, and many other presidents have suspended certain constitutional rights during times of war, whether justified or not), then I have enough confidence in our legal system to do the right thing.

Now I'm going to go finish drinking the rest of my Kool Aid!

It's because liberals hate America, they hate freedom and they love terrorists. Its clear and simpil... If they are rite then they should shut up and listen
If your all worried about being locked up as a terrorist stop thinking like one. I ain't worried one bit, heck I would probibly get a job locking um up or whatever they figure?
Just shut your months and you will be okay, stop winning like little babys!

reply to post by winged patriot


Why is it that when people disagree with Reps they call bigot and when people disagree with liberals they call them terrorist or say they are un-patriotic? Grow up. In case you weren't paying attention our conservative president is the one who has been going against this countries founded beliefs and constitution, the Dems have been total pussies and let it happen, and the liberals are put down for pointing out the obvious-- which mostly consist of them complaining and not doing # either. Everyone is at fault in this mess, pointing fingers doesn't solve anything, usually those doing the pointing are the ones who need one pointed right back at them.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
In case you weren't paying attention our conservative president is the one who has been going against this countries founded beliefs and constitution

Just for the record and for clarification purposes, Bush is NOT a conservative and is a long way away from being one.

reply to post by WhatTheory


He’s certainly more conservative with his platform because of his party, which was basically what I meant. In politics these definitions have shifted and been blurred dramatically, I’m sure others can see what I meant and why I used the term.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
In case you weren't paying attention our conservative president is the one who has been going against this countries founded beliefs and constitution

Just for the record and for clarification purposes, Bush is NOT a conservative and is a long way away from being one.

Well is not a liberal,,, thats clear as day!

Bush is certainly not a fiscal conservative! I'll give you that.
But he does practice a form of top down economics which is MODERN conservative.
He is ultra pro defense which seems conservative.

You usually bat for his brand of politics, you seem to take anti Bush comments to heart at times. Often you use word "liberal" like the "N" word??? You may not mean to but thats how it comes across.

Your party affiliation is never in doubt to me.

I have heard a few conservatives make the same statement as you.

So if Bush is not a conservative what the hell is he?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Sorry for the delay in response - had to sharpen my sabre.

It is precisely as I stated.

This applies to non-USA citizens period.

Regardless of where they are detained.

And yes they must first be determined to be an enemy combatant.

I handled vitriol of this caliber when I was a plebe.

Try any of the actions the detainees have in most countries and see how much you're cloak of NATO or UN protection applies.

Please.

reply to post by marg6043
Thanks for bringing this up again. I spent a number of personal hours insuring that the laws do not overlook our domestic enemies.

I acknowledge that it is difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys when thay all wear suits instead of the respective white and black hats.

It is much easier to fortify yourself in a stasis opinion and take pot shots at the figureheads rather than look behind the curtain at the way gorvernment really works.

It is very comfortable to have a support team that helps you paddle toward the falls especially when you all busily compliment each other on the cerebral and open minded manner in which you have made the correct decision to take the easier route downstream.

I disagree and actively oppose a great deal of the USA government actions of the past 40 years. I also however have not found a better offer of citizenship though I have seriously considered no less than 7 others.

What I find is a continuation of citizens who demand all the benefits of a constitutional representative republic without offering much of the required feeding and nurturing that such a friable offspring needs.

I agree that quite a percentage of existing bureaucrats need replaced; and what do you propose should be put in their stead? All that the greater majority offer is more of the same or worse.

The electoral college was put into operation by some well intentioned politicians that did not think the average citizen could select a competent public leader; and a few existing bureaucrats that siezed the idea as a way to insure they could more easily promote their own tenure.

IMHO there is no easy or short term solution. I do not think a majority of USA citizens will tolerate the pain involved in first tearing down their own house prior to beginning construction on a new home.

I await constructive suggestions.

Originally posted by kerontehe
Uh, excuse me people.

This allows indefinite detention of NON-USA civilians on USA soil IF they have been determined to be "enemy combatants".

And this worries you why?

Are you an enemy combatant?

Are you a foreigner on USA soil?

Are you continuing to promote a fear mongering anti-USA agenda?

Do you have a suggestion to improve or are you also being a part of the problem?

If nothing else it serves as a pep rallye for disgruntled spoiled brat USA kids. IMHO.

Well, in the following post to this one you find this stated:

Under that reading of the AUMF, the President would be able to subject to indefinite military detention anyone, including an American citizen, whom the President believed was associated with any organization that the President believed in some way "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the September 11th attacks, so long as the President believed this to be "necessary and appropriate" to prevent future acts of terrorism

Answer your question?

reply to post by winged patriot


Man, it's idiotic responses like this that make me wish we had a 'negative' star option.

Wow. that's All I can say. Wow. Big statements from someone who obviously doesn't understand what liberalism truly is. Me, I'm not liberal. I'm actually right where the majority of good sound Americans fall. Smack dab in the middle. Sure, there are ultra liberals that probably do hate this country. I can say the same thing for the ultra conservative.

This thread has NOTHING to do with either. It's about our Constitution, that piece of paper that the president so nonchalantly dismissed as such, and about what freedoms we have left.

Granted, as some other posters have stated, I want to wait and see when an actual U.S. citizen is held without charge or trial. The crappy thing would be if that citizen happened to be me. But most people who support this thought process will simply say "I'm not a terrorist so I don't have to worry."

The problem with that line of thought is simply this. If you are taken into custody by this government under this law, who are you going to tell that you aren't a terrorist? Hmm? The people that incarcerated you in the first place? Why the hell would they listen? You going to get that phone call to your lawyer? Heck, if they pick you up on the street and take your butt straight to their jail who will ever be the wiser? The government won't have to explain why you are there. They just have to say that you are suspected of terrorist activities. Period. Bye bye! Throw away the key. No one will ever be the wiser. If your family were to find out then the government would only have to say that you are a terror suspect.

Good luck to you if you just happen to be that unlucky fool who believes he lives in a free nation with a fair and unbiased government.

reply to post by winged patriot

Originally posted by winged patriot

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Want to get depressed? After what you said (which was immediately after I had said pretty much the same thing) people keep on showing ignorance. Just read the two posts after yours.:shk:

The reputation of ATS is rapidly sliding downward from any respectability it might have ever had.

I can't tell what you mean, but I'm sure it is another ingnerent terrorist loving liberal!
You don't think at all maybe president Bush should concider you liberals terrorists because you hate the red, white and blue! I hope you are rite liberals, and I think my conservative friends don't have the guts to say the same! Well I think your hate speach is just as bad as a terrorist shame on you all!

BWAHAHAHA!!

Yeah, pal, I'm another ingnerent terrorist loving liberal. Just ask around, anyone will tell you that jso is as left-wing as they make 'em.

reply to post by dariousg

Originally posted by dariousg
The problem with that line of thought is simply this. If you are taken into custody by this government under this law, who are you going to tell that you aren't a terrorist? Hmm? The people that incarcerated you in the first place? Why the hell would they listen? You going to get that phone call to your lawyer? Heck, if they pick you up on the street and take your butt straight to their jail who will ever be the wiser? The government won't have to explain why you are there. They just have to say that you are suspected of terrorist activities. Period. Bye bye! Throw away the key. No one will ever be the wiser. If your family were to find out then the government would only have to say that you are a terror suspect.

The problem with what you say is that it is not true. The very case cited as the OP proves otherwise.

How can you possibly extract what you said about throwing away the key, end of story, etc., from the article? al-Marri had lawyers, he won his appeal to have his case presented before the court, so what more do you want?

Please read the article before you respond. That goes for all memnbers. If you have questions just ask.

Originally posted by mental modulator
So if Bush is not a conservative what the hell is he?

He is a republican and not a very good one. But he is in no way a conservative.

I'm really started to get agitated with some of this nonsense. I have never seen propaganda used so well in my life. I'm upset by both sides of american government... well they act like their is two sides to american politics but i'm really starting to believe thats all a facade. Our government has failed us. How come there is noone attempting to stop this nonsense? I guess everyone is in on the take...the people are the ones that are gonna end up suffering because of this stuff that has been going on. And noone that has any power cares...

Also, There is no such thing as a "War on terror"...Terrorism is not something you can't go to war with...and labeling everyone that disagrees with you a terrorist and trying to kill them does not constitute a "War".

[edit on 17-7-2008 by AgnosticX]

reply to post by WhatTheory


Bush is a fascist...

Originally posted by AgnosticX
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Bush is a fascist...

Okay, so then I was correct in saying he is not a conservative. Thanks for helping me make my point.

reply to post by WhatTheory


As long as were on the same page...

reply to post by jsobecky


Quote: BWAHAHAHA!!

"Yeah, pal, I'm another ingnerent terrorist loving liberal. Just ask around, anyone will tell you that jso is as left-wing as they make 'em. "

I knoweded it, I jus' knowded it!!! Yur one of dem thar leeberil fuulz what alays sez we's here are ijuts cuz we like dem conserveetif type stuffz. Yur one of doz rot wingd guys Juz like i iz!!


Zindo (tongue in cheekz)

Originally posted by AgnosticX
I'm really started to get agitated with some of this nonsense. I have never seen propaganda used so well in my life.

There's a particular technique called 'fronting the wave'... works like this: say you have an agenda of social change, large enough that it can't be completely hidden. What you do is begin to advance that agenda, slowly. As events unfold, take the particular events, and spin them as if they were from a point far in advance in the agenda. Then, wait for anger and outrage, and counter it with the actual facts, showing that the reaction is overblown.

This 'plants the seeds', of objections to the agenda as being irrational and extremist. Takes the wind out of the opposition's sails. Then, later on, when events actually do match up to the previously unfounded objections, the opposition can be painted as "oh, you're just being reactionary, like last time; haven't we been over this before?"

As with all techniques, the agenda isn't always negative. You can see this effect in history, for example in various social change movements. MLK, in particular, advanced racial equality quite effectively by presenting situations in which the threat of interracial conflict could been seen by extremists, and defused by the reality of events.

In this case, we can perhaps posit a similar effect, intentional or not -- contrasting the perception of significance of 'enemy combatant' detention with the actualities of the court's tendencies and opinions.

Originally posted by Ian McLean

As with all techniques, the agenda isn't always negative. You can see this effect in history, for example in various social change movements. MLK, in particular, advanced racial equality quite effectively by presenting situations in which the threat of interracial conflict could been seen by extremists, and defused by the reality of events.

I agree. Only thing,i think Malcolm X presented more of the threat of conflict than MLK, making Martin Luther King more effective. I feel they were both needed. But that is irrelevant to the topic. Just a random thought. But i understand what you were talking about. Seems to be whats been going on alot lately, makes sense to me.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by AgnosticX]