American Citizens on U.S. Soil May be Indefinitely Detained...or Assassinated

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by AbsoluteVoluntarist, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    U.S. Says Americans Are MILITARY Targets in the War on Terror … And Says that Only the White House – and Not the Courts – Gets to Decide Who Is a Legitimate Target

    Of course, the boilerplate apology for granting Barack Obama a level of absolute power never granted to the "absolute" monarchical despots of the 16th and 17th centuries is that it will, naturally, only be used against "terrorists."

    But, since the only person with the authority to review Barack Obama's declaration that someone's a terrorist is Barack Obama himself, how on Earth is there any way for us to know whether his accusation that someone is a terrorist (and therefore an outlaw entitled to no right to whatsoever to protest the accusation) is accurate?

    This, of course, is the very reason for inventing the court trial, in which an accused person is able to protest his innocence, a right that predates the Bill of Rights and even the Magna Carta and is, indeed, also present in sharia law, the very law that this abolition of the right to a trial is supposedly being wrought to protect us against.
     
  2. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually you are lying, read the law.

    It requires 3 cabinet officials to detail in writing to Congress any waivers and the reason for such waivers.

    There are adequate checks and balances and it is only paranoia and fear mongering you are spreading, but of course. That is always the case with the libertarain "militia" types who hold Tim Mcveigh up as some kind of hero.
     
  3. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only waiver I know of is the waiver to allow the president to not militarily detain if he doesn't want to, which is hardly a check on absolute presidential prerogative to detain or assassinate whomever he wants.

    If you know of another waiver in the bill that checks presidential power, show me. But it still wouldn't justify stripping people of their right to a trial or any of the other numerous abominations in the bill, nor would it explain away the fact that the president himself argues that he has such power, with or without the NDAA.

    So now those of us critical of absolute presidential prerogative are too be painted as "militia types" who are all further painted as celebrators of Tim McVeigh? And you accuse me of fear-mongering?

    The difference is, of course, I'm "fear-mongering" against the powerful office in the history of mankind, whereas you are fear-mongering against powerless critics of the prerogatives of that office. In addition, you are subtly implying that those critics are supporters of terrorism (Tim McVeigh)--the very accusation which, if made by the president, would strip the accused of any and all due process protections, according to the law that you are defending. Hmm...
     
  4. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any other source besides that blog that supports this argument? Sounds like fear-mongering.
     
  5. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The President has had such powers since World War II. If we were going to magically transform into a totalitarian dictatorship. It would've happened decades ago. The fact is we have a stunning amount of checks and balances all the way down to the township level that it really is impossible for Government to take too much more authority. Our power really is pretty heavily distributed throughout the nation still to this day. The People have more power than you give them credit for.



    Except the Law doesn't say "anyone" it says specifically that you have to be associated with Al Qaeda or one of its subsidiary organizations. The Liberals already tried the "jackboot thug" route in the 90's at Waco and Ruby Ridge and you see where that got them. American opinion was quite indignant at such things.

    You must've (*)(*)(*)(*) your pants during the 90's is all I can say and started preparing for Black helicopters and UN helmets on the streets of American cities.
     
  6. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why not explore the links peppering the post the links back to the original sources? Here are more links he provides on the matter for what I have no doubt will be an exhaustive research project on your part: In Modern America, Questioning War Is Considered Terrorism
     
  7. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean when the president forcibly detained, without trial or charges, over 100,000 thousands American citizens? This is supposed to alleviate my concerns, the prospect of a repeat of that monstrous act of injustice? Exactly how much blatant iniquity is required before you would be willing to condemn it?

    In addition, Obama himself claims his powers here derive from the AUMF, passed in 2001, not from any legislation passed during WWII.

    They were not stunning enough to protect the victims of Roosevelt's internment camps, nor are they today stunning enough to protect the detainees in Guantanamo and Bagram, many of whom may very well be innocent of any crime, nor have they been stunning enough to protect hundreds of thousands, including American citizens, who have been killed in this ersatz "war" without legal proof of any sort of guilt.

    But, again, without any judicial review, there is no process or procedure to demonstrate whether or not someone is truly "associated with Al Qaeda" beyond the claim of the executive branch. You made a vague appeal to some sort of waiver but have not expanded on this claim.

    First you describe Waco and Ruby Ridge as the acts of "jackboot thugs," but then, in the very next sentence, you mock the idea of someone being fearful of tyranny due to those very acts. Much as you attempted to alleviate my concerns of oppressive tyranny by the US government by appealing to the oppressive tyranny of the US government in WWII.

    In short, you appear to be trying to demonstrate that Washington is not tyrannical by pointing to acts of Washingtonian tyranny. A very strange argument, isn't it?
     
  8. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, his links are to prisonplanet.com?

    How about just one halfway decent source for the claim that US citizens are being indefinitely detained, assassinated, or being labeled terrorists for holding gold assets or supporting Ron Paul.

    Before I venture into an "exhaustive research project", I'd like to know that I'm not on a wild goose chase by yet another overly paranoid conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time.

    Which reminds me, do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job, like many Ron Paul supporters believe?
     
  9. What is free

    What is free New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The issue is that there is a possibility for this to happen. Maybe it's not today, maybe it's not tomorrow, maybe it's not for 10 years... But someday, this will be abused. Humans are not perfect.
     
  10. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's always a possibility for anything to happen at some indefinite point in the future. The question is — is this worth having a conniption or not, at this point?
     
  11. What is free

    What is free New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, seeing as it violates our rights we should be very angry right now.
     
  12. Teutorian

    Teutorian New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is only one leader I can think of that had the legal authority of life or death over all of his citizens and that was Adolf Hitler and he didn't even acquire that power until well into WWII. I don't see how any sane American can support this. It is completely unnecessary and with great risks.

    The authority to assassinate American citizens on American soil is not an authority that is by any stretch of the imagination necessary to wage the "war on terror." George Bush did not have this and he did fine, disagreements in military decisions aside.
     
  13. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll reserve judgment on that. I'm not too convinced by prisonplanet articles, as of now.
     
  14. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that's referring to the so-called MIAC report, a secret (leaked) document by a "fusion center" suggesting that Ron Paul bumper stickers, among other things, could be used to identify "domestic terrorists."

    This is hardly as great a concern as the NDAA, but it does show how the state apparatus uses the fear of terrorism to increase power and stifle dissent. We are understandably worried about the government painting dissenters and protestors with the inherently broad and vague brush of terrorist, a tendency encouraged by the rhetoric of this document and by that of such influential private groups as the SPLC.

    You, of course, brusquely dismiss this concern as "fear-mongering," but the much clearer example of fear-mongering is the fear-mongering indefatigably peddled by various government agencies, private groups, and *certain* internet commentators, regarding faceless, nameless, nebulous "terrorists" the are portrayed as lurking behind every bedpost. The state and its allies wish us to focus our fears away from the unparalleled power of the state to these declared enemies of the state, so that we worry that the state has too little power, not too much. It all the natural and predictable attitude of those in power and those that venerate those in power. If there were no terrorists, it would be necessary for the ruling class to invent them.

    Like "terrorist," "conspiracy theorist" is another very convenient entry in the dictionary of the ruling caste. It means someone possessing views outside the bounds of respectability as defined by the social elite and who, therefore, can be summarily dismissed and mocked, without actually bothering to analyze, logically and scientifically, the views in the question.

    No, I buy into the CONSPIRACY THEORY that 9/11 was conducted by a conspiracy of Islamic fanatics, stirred to attack the United State by such actions as the sanctions against Iraq that led the deaths of half a million children.

    This, of course, does not justify the fact that said Islamists chose to attack innocent civilians themselves, despite disingenuous portrayals of criticism of Washington's bloody foreign adventures as somehow excusing reprisals by disgruntled parties that target innocent bystanders. At any rate, I am--with you, the New York Times, and the White House--a Al-Qaeda conspiracy theorist.
     

Share This Page