Political Repression In The United States

[audtatious]

Civil libertarians are increasingly alarmed by the trend towards increased political repression in the United States. Political candidates and organizations that are out of favor with the establishment are now being labeled as "dangerous" and as "potential terrorists" in official government reports.

For example, on February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued a report entitled: "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement."

This shocking report labeled individuals who supported presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin as "dangerous" and inferred that those individuals are potential terrorists.

In addition, people of various ideologies were singled out as being potentially dangerous.

The report instructed police and other government officials that the following political views are "dangerous" could signal a potential terrorlst:

*Anyone opposing abortion

*Anyone opposing illegal immigration

*Anyone who believes that the New World Order is a threat

*Anyone who is against the North American Union

*Anyone who is against the income tax

*Anyone who has a negative view of the U.N.

No left-leaning political ideologies or organizations were identified in the report. Neither were Islamic extremists mentioned. Apparently the report only considered those who support candidates like Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin are dangerous.

This is exactly the type of tactics that were used in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to demonize and crush political opposition. When official government reports start labeling supporters of certain political candidates as "potential terrorists" we should all get alarmed.

It doesn't matter what you believe about those candidates. Perhaps you hate Ron Paul. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that when official government reports attack certain political groups, we are all being attacked.

Another example of this trend is the recent Department of Homeland Security report on "right wing extremism" that has created a firestorm of controversy across America.

Why was there such an uproar over that report?

Because it labeled tens of millions of Americans as "potential domestic terrorists".

You can read a copy of this sickening report for yourself here:

http://video1.washingtontimes....t.pdf

Below is a list of 14 characteristics of a "domestic terrorlst" that were pulled right out of the report.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, you might be a domestic terrorlst if.....

*you are a U.S. military veteran returning from duty in Iraq or Afghanistan

*you believe in "end times" prophecies

*you believe in state or local authority

*you are against abortion

*you are against illegal immigration

*you believe in the 2nd Amendment

*you criticize any of the free trade agreements the U.S. has made

*you are against same-sex marriage

*you believe that an economic collapse is happening

*you think that the U.S. may declare martial law someday

*you believe that the U.S. is creating detention camps

*you stockpile food, ammunition or weapons

*you believe that illegal immigrants are taking away American jobs

*you believe "New World Order" conspiracy theories

Quite a few of those apply to me, so it looks like I have made the list.

What about you?

Has your own government just labeled you a domestic terrorlst?

Even the big media networks are getting into the act.

In one of the most shocking comments uttered by a network anchor in recent history, CNN's Anderson Cooper used a graphic sexual slur to refer to the recent tax protests by conservatives. In fact, he used the slur more than once, and the fact that his guests laughed at the term means that they understood exactly what Anderson Cooper was trying to say.

The video of Anderson Cooper using the slur is at the end of this article.

This all happened when Cooper had David Gergen and Ali Velshi on his show to discuss the events of the day. Gergen was responding to a question by Cooper about the Republicans when Cooper blurted out his graphic slur.

Gergen apparently got the joke and then continued by saying this:

Well, they’ve got the (CENSORED). But there was an interesting Politico survey -- it was out today that said that, you know, the president -- the trust level in the president on economic issues is extremely high, and, you know, and everybody else in the administration is well below him. But the Republicans are a little below that. So, Republicans have got a way -- they still haven’t found their voice, Anderson. They’re still -- this happens to a minority party after it’s lost a couple of bad elections, but they’re searching for their voice.

At least Gergen was trying to get the conversation back on track.

The rest of the article with video is here:http://thetruthwins.com/archiv...tates

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems interesting and there are more and more reports coming out on this kind of stuff. Conspiracy theory or somewhat based on fact as those in charge want to ensure they remain in charge?

[themadscientist]

I dropped a comment and a plug for this forum

I would love to debate that goof. Libs should be embarrassed at the way he behaves. He make Al Frankin look composed.

[WDRacing]

Whether people admit it or not, we're all against some portion of the Gov or another. So I guess we all got labeled terrorists...don't speak out, get in line and color like the rest of the sheeple.

Funny, I went from rescuing hostages from terrorists to being labeled one by the very Gov that sent me oversea's to begin with. We need another large movement, something like the hippie movement, albeit not disorganized. But some of things they supported are the same, repression being one of them.

[themadscientist]

This guy has a thick resume, think we can get him on board?

Just some guy in the neighborhood.

[OriginalWheelman]

Taken from page two of that report.

"(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES informationshould be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardizeinvestigative activities.

(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, tored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with HS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

(U) All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected]."

Page 3 "(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specificinformation that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears aboutseveral emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the firstAfrican American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization andrecruitment.— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groupsduring 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carryout violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economicdownturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inabilityto obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwingextremists and even result in confrontations between such groups andgovernment authorities similar to those in the past.— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the firstAfrican American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit newmembers, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appealthrough propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities"

Translation "We haven't found evidence of violent intention but are acting as though it will.

"(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorlst groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that areattractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwingextremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order toboost their violent capabilities."

How???? WTF???? The VETERANS!!!??!!? This disgusts me.

"(U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons banslikely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

Then maybe these proposed changes shouldn't happen.

"(U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”'

This doesn't sound like a rightwing guy to me. It sounds like a guy who needs mental help.

"(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers."

So now if you are opposed to the views of the new administration you are potentially a Domestic terrorlst?

I can't keep doing this, I'll end up quoting the whole damned thing. This is disgusting. Days like this make me wish we could fire a president.
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 8:25 AM 4/20/2009

[Logan76]

I'm in, call me a terrorlst. I hate to say it but I dont forsee many good things in the future with the Obama administration. I hope he proves me wrong but I doubt it. I've always been a proud American, as I'm sure the rest of you have, now we are labeled as potential terrorlst's and a threat's to the very country that we loved so much.

[DJ Raijin]

I'm in, call me a terrorlst. I hate to say it but I dont forsee many good things in the future with the Obama administration. I hope he proves me wrong but I doubt it. I've always been a proud American, as I'm sure the rest of you have, now we are labeled as potential terrorlst's and a threat's to the very country that we loved so much.

QFT

[480sx]

Why was there such an uproar over that report?

Because it labeled tens of millions of Americans as "potential domestic terrorists".

Under the Patriot act, the Protect America act, and the newly restructured FISA courts, this can basically mean that anyone labeled can have their rights trashed. Warrentless surveillance is only the first step. This is the reason so many people are in an uproar. As if the those acts wernt bad enough, now a good portion of us are actually labeled as 'potential domestic terrorists' by our own government. Sounds kinda like 'Enemy Combatant' to me. We all know exactly what happens to those guys.. Oh wait, we actually dont at all, thats why its so f***ing scary.

Hope some people are waking up. This is the second thread on the exact same subject within the last month. This ish is going down, now, in view of the public. Probably not on network news, but its still there. Get your heads out of the sand.

Im a hard core domestic terrorlst as far as this government is concerned, you can believe that. Id love to read my files.
Modified by 480sx at 10:19 PM 4/20/2009

[C-Kwik]

Seems to me you guys are making more of this than what it is. As far as I can tell from reading though about half the report and skimming the rest, the report is basically stating that the extremist with rightist views could potentially try and radicalize and recruit for a movement. There are a lot of problems we are facing at this time. When normal people face such problems, they become much easier to influence (perhaps based on Maslow's theory on the heirarchy of needs). As a result, it could become easier for a radical group to recruit into their group using commonly held beliefs. Think about how Islamic extremists are able to convince people to give up their lives for their "cause". Don't think for a minute that Americans are less susceptible

No left-leaning political ideologies or organizations were identified in the report. Neither were Islamic extremists mentioned. Apparently the report only considered those who support candidates like Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin are dangerous.

Why would they be? A candidate that shares their beliefs is in power. What reason do they have to try and recruit for a movement and what mechanism do they have to try and create such a movement. At least one part suggested there is "internet chatter" regarding this issue. While the report seems to indicate that there are not any immediate threats, the potential and the environment is there for such an event to be mobilized. The point seems to be to raise awareness amongst our law enforcement in order to keep an eye out for potential problems. Such recruitment could actually be pretty harmless in intent, but all it takes is some radical to become motivated and have gained enough power and following to be able to take action. According to the report, its the lone wolves and small cells that pose the greatest threats.

The fallacy in the viewpoints I am seeing here is that the report is saying that people who have these beliefs are domestic terrorists. But the report is simply saying that extremists may try and use those views as a tool for recruitment during a time when people are more easily influenced.

Lastly, imagine if this report never went public or was simply buried under a bunch of political BS. If, a few years from now, some kind of bombing occurs under direction of some extremist group, imagine the backlash once they bring up the fact that such a report is ignored. Its a sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. And to further complicate it, it would seem more moderate right wingers are using it in for their own political purposes.

[audtatious]

Why is there a report only on "right wing extremism"? Is there now considered no such thing as "left wing extremism"?

[C-Kwik]

Why is there a report only on "right wing extremism"? Is there now considered no such thing as "left wing extremism"?

Consider who is in office. Consider who has the majority of congress. The left's ideologies aren't really threatened under the current government. As a result, what cause would there be for left-wing extremists to show some sort of rebellion? The underlying theme in the report is that an extremist group could use the current government's stances on different issues along with the susceptibility for a people to be influenced due to the tough economic time were in to try and recruit. While, this, in that of itself, is not necessarily a problem, if an influential person arises from within a group with the means to effect a violent act, then it could occur. Further, the report also indicates the high degree of worry over the smaller or lone-wolf groups because they tend to act on their own and are harder to detect.

The way I see it, the report is merely a heads up for our law enforcement. If officers start seeing trends with certain groups, perhaps strange activity, then the proper action can be taken to make sure it doesn't turn into some kind of domestic terrorlst incident.

Its easy enough to interpret the document to be anti-right when you take exerpts from it, but in the context of the entire report, I don't see how anyone can take offense to it. Unless of course you are looking for an excuse to hate on the current government...

[480sx]

C, im not forming a full reply to your argument tonight.

I will however say, the scope of this declassified document goes far beyond simply right wing extreamists. Many of the things on that list are quite purple, and effect every citizen.

You seem to be trivializing what should be a pretty alarming thing to come out of your government. Even if the scope of this legislation is only to target right wing extreamists.. This means our country is, and has been watching us closely to have such an extensive list. Its probable that every jurisdiction and every officer has such a list available, your, 'rap sheet' without ever committing a crime.

Violating constitutional law seems to be a common practice in this current form of government. How can that be ignored, regardless of the reasons?

[C-Kwik]

Either you didn't read the report or you are misunderstanding it. Nowhere in the report does it target people who prescribe to the specific belief's. The context of the text in it is basically saying that the extreme groups (potential radicals) are using these beliefs as their openings to draw people in.

Consider:

"— (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations haveobserved an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons andexplosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested haddiscussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 aftercommunicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrantscrossing into the United States."

These are part of recent findings. Not speculation. They are concerned that the political and economic climate will produce another Timothy McVeigh:

"— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning militaryveterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwingextremist groups."

You seem to be trivializing what should be a pretty alarming thing to come out of your government. Even if the scope of this legislation is only to target right wing extreamists.. This means our country is, and has been watching us closely to have such an extensive list. Its probable that every jurisdiction and every officer has such a list available, your, 'rap sheet' without ever committing a crime.

They probably have a list of people they are watching. But they are not and can not watch everybody. So how would they detect and perhaps begin watching those that aren't known to them? The intent of this report appears to be to raise awareness levels and provide information about the trends to keep an eye on. In a nutshell, this is simply a form of profiling. I have to wonder how many of you have argued against profiling...

Violating constitutional law seems to be a common practice in this current form of government. How can that be ignored, regardless of the reasons?

Do we then ignore this instead?

[480sx]

Read up. This is the predecessor to this most recent event. Its the backing for my statements and level of alarm, that this is only the tip of a very nasty and unconstitutional iceburg of legislation and occurances.

zer...orist

Your once again trivializing the government profiling its citizens. With the patriot act, along with the new FISA court and the protect america act, there are no checks and balances to spy on innocent americans with legislation like this in effect.

They probably have a list of people they are watching. But they are not and can not watch everybody.

They are obviously doing a fantastic job of watching. Whens the last time you heard of a terrorlst cell in the US? Didnt that happen.. Like once? How many have we stopped? You have to know Terrorists have been trying. The legislation in action, and peoples apathy towards it have created a state where pretty much anyone at any time can be labeled a potential threat and have their constitutional rights violated in multiple different ways. What about hearing about a mass murderer? Or a really bad case of pedophilia?

I have argued against profiling, its arduous. Both sides make strong points that are hard to dismantle. But profiling on a scale of a whole country, with such a broad and invasive scope seems wrong.

GTFO with your plucking of the heart strings, your fallacious addition to an otherwise sound argument with that picture and words. Foul. You should remove it simply based on its content, i dont come to nico to see babies with bloody faces as part of a political argument. You would think you were a fvking anti-abortionist or something.

Frankly, there is a cost to pay for freedom. That cost is, a lot of times, innocent lives. This is reality. Not everyone can be saved, not every crime stopped. Or, you could say, s*** happens. Unfortunately instead of just saying that strait up, i have to say that in response to an argument formed with the picture of a dead baby being carried by a fireman.
Modified by 480sx at 5:20 PM 4/21/2009

[audtatious]

Who needs the Constitution when you have Judges in your pocket who will rule against it or you can simply ignore it and claim "for the greater good"? Tho I was shocked when the 9th Circuit upheld the Constitutionality of the 2nd Admendment recetly.

[C-Kwik]

Read up. This is the predecessor to this most recent event. Its the backing for my statements and level of alarm, that this is only the tip of a very nasty and unconstitutional iceburg of legislation and occurances.

zer...orist

Can you actually elaborate on the point you are amking and how it pertains to the points I made?

Your once again trivializing the government profiling its citizens. With the patriot act, along with the new FISA court and the protect america act, there are no checks and balances to spy on innocent americans with legislation like this in effect.

This report isn't legislation. Its simply a report.

They are obviously doing a fantastic job of watching. Whens the last time you heard of a terrorlst cell in the US? Didnt that happen.. Like once? How many have we stopped? You have to know Terrorists have been trying. The legislation in action, and peoples apathy towards it have created a state where pretty much anyone at any time can be labeled a potential threat and have their constitutional rights violated in multiple different ways. What about hearing about a mass murderer? Or a really bad case of pedophilia?

Forgive me if I misinterpret what you are saying here. Its not quite clear and some of it feels contradictary to itself. But there are domestic terror cells in the US. On both ends of the politican spectra.

http://www.foxnews.com/project...t.pdf

I have argued against profiling, its arduous. Both sides make strong points that are hard to dismantle. But profiling on a scale of a whole country, with such a broad and invasive scope seems wrong.

Again, read the report carefully. They are being quite specific as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, people are tying to reinterpret the intent and its wording to read that right wingers are terrorists rather than seeing that the report actually states that right-wing extremists tend to prescribe to certain beliefs stated in the report and are also using these beliefs coupled with current economic problems as a way to recruit and motivate. The report isn't stating specific threats (though I suspect if they had such specific groups they were concerned about, they would already be watching them), but that there is potential for this type of activity to escalate into violent acts.

Further, between the OKC bombing and 2005, 60 right-wing extremist's plots have been prevented. And with a scenario that they claim parallels some of the political and economic climate of the 90's, they feel there could be reason to be concerned and who/what it is they are concerned about.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/n...c.htm

GTFO with your plucking of the heart strings, your fallacious addition to an otherwise sound argument with that picture and words. Foul. You should remove it simply based on its content, i dont come to nico to see babies with bloody faces as part of a political argument. You would think you were a fvking anti-abortionist or something.

Somehow, you seem to miss the point.

Frankly, there is a cost to pay for freedom. That cost is, a lot of times, innocent lives. This is reality. Not everyone can be saved, not every crime stopped. Or, you could say, s*** happens. Unfortunately instead of just saying that strait up, i have to say that in response to an argument formed with the picture of a dead baby being carried by a fireman.

Sure, we can't stop everything bad event from occurring. Does that mean we stop trying? Furthermore, how does the report in question even infringe on your freedom? From all your ranting in this thread, I'd have to say either you are a terrorlst and are on some list becuase of some intent, or you are completely paranoid. Put things in perspective here. There are 306 million people in the US. Unless you are actually planning to do something drastic, you are not even a blip on the radar.

As for the dead baby, that's reality. Perhaps more than you can handle. I'll tell you what though. I'll make it more real for you. He was alive in that picture. He died at the hospital later. His name is Baylee Almon. The people who died in that incident are very real. As are the people who died in 9/11. As are the people dying all over the world in similar fashion. I don't believe we can stop killing all over the world or even in this country. But I'll be damned if I ignore the fact that the people who died lost their freedom to live and the freedom to die under their own terms. I hold that in much higher regard than some ***hole's freedom to take all that away from them. Keep in mind. This wasn't Baylee's fight...

[480sx]

Can you actually elaborate on the point you are amking and how it pertains to the points I made?

The point of linking you to that occurrence was to establish that this is the current governments way of dealing with its citizens. This is not some off the wall out of no where report. There is legislation and practice behind this report, as the link i showed you demonstrates.

In the link, that was a LEAK. The press was blasted for releasing the story and the guy who leaked it is being hunted. Thats ONE list, sent to the local PD's from the Feds about a list of potential 'domestic terrorists', a label handed out far to liberally from the report. Would you believe that the federal government is only doing that in Missouri? Profiling people, giving them rap sheets without ever really doing anything against the law. A clear violation of 4th amendment rights, along with a plethora of ethical issues that are ignored.

This report isn't legislation. Its simply a report.

But the rest of the stuff in that quote is legislation. The report is simply how the legislation has evolved into something more usable on the domestic front.

Forgive me if I misinterpret what you are saying here. Its not quite clear and some of it feels contradictary to itself. But there are domestic terror cells in the US. On both ends of the politican spectra.

Some of it does seem to contradict itself, but its speaking to a greater point. That point being, the government is watching its citizens, closely. No terrorlst attacks at all since 9/11? Not to many columbines or VT's since then either. In comparison, Japan has that type of crap happen monthly on a scale thats 10 times anything we saw at either of those two events. It just doesnt hit the world news. Whats going on? The worlds not getting saner.

Again, read the report carefully. They are being quite specific as far as I can tell.

Your right, this single report is being pretty specific. However, the leak that happened in Missouri made it clear that they are not being specific at all, so these reports are just fuel to the fire. They are sending out information to law enforcement that was most likely procured by the feds through unconstitutional means.

Further, between the OKC bombing and 2005, 60 right-wing extremist's plots have been prevented. And with a scenario that they claim parallels some of the political and economic climate of the 90's, they feel there could be reason to be concerned and who/what it is they are concerned about.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/n...c.htm

Thats great. Really. But at what point do you draw the line between protecting people and protecting civil liberties? Doesnt protecting civil liberties in effect, protect people? Here is an interesting case for you to read, if you havnt read it already. K, it involves a canadian citizen and not a US citizen. Its still along the same lines of the discussion were in.

Google Maher Arar. His case displays multiple violations of international law, along with some serious ethical issues. It is also ONE example that the press somehow got their hands on. There are a few other similar examples, but none with nearly the evidence or meaning that this case had.

This was a real event that occurred and reverberated through every world news network except the major US ones. I picked up the report from NPR.

My question to you is, in counter point to your dead baby argument, how many innocent people have had their lives destroyed, been tortured, or even killed because of the policies that our government is currently in acting? Does this somehow justify saving a baby?

Missed the point of the dead baby argument? No, i just simply failed to address it because its a fallacious argument and has been played out a million times. You can find my response to that argument on countless forums all over the internet. Your dead baby argument holds some water, but again, its no nail in the coffin. There is a counter point to it, and its above, and below.

I also remember a doctor of arab-american decent who had his life turned upside down because DHS was sure he had terrorlst ties. I cant find the link right now, you may remember the story.

Sure, we can't stop everything bad event from occurring. Does that mean we stop trying?

O/C we dont stop trying, thats what the FBI and local PD is all about. However, violating the supreme laws of our land to achieve said goal should be out of the question. Now if someone wants to rewrite the whole constitution, let them go nuts. Until they do, the current implementation of legislation is in violation of the Constitution.

Furthermore, how does the report in question even infringe on your freedom?

Again, i have brought up a lot more than simply this report. Broaden your scope.

From all your ranting in this thread, I'd have to say either you are a terrorlst and are on some list becuase of some intent, or you are completely paranoid.

Shows what you know.

Put things in perspective here. There are 306 million people in the US. Unless you are actually planning to do something drastic, you are not even a blip on the radar.

Thats a pretty big assumption. One that has been proven to be wrong with the leak in Missouri.

But I'll be damned if I ignore the fact that the people who died lost their freedom to live and the freedom to die under their own terms. I hold that in much higher regard than some ***hole's freedom to take all that away from them.

You forget, those people who died in 9/11 are cut from the same swath of fabric as the so called '***hole'. At the time of 9/11, pre-patriot act, pre-revamped FISA courts, pre-protect america act, those people died with more rights than we posses now.

The act of 9/11, as horrible as it was, does not justify these attacks on constitutional law.
Modified by 480sx at 4:59 PM 4/22/2009

[Armelius]

Who wrote that?

I can't find a name of the author.

Is it anonymous or you?

[C-Kwik]

The point of linking you to that occurrence was to establish that this is the current governments way of dealing with its citizens. This is not some off the wall out of no where report. There is legislation and practice behind this report, as the link i showed you demonstrates.

In the link, that was a LEAK. The press was blasted for releasing the story and the guy who leaked it is being hunted. Thats ONE list, sent to the local PD's from the Feds about a list of potential 'domestic terrorists', a label handed out far to liberally from the report. Would you believe that the federal government is only doing that in Missouri? Profiling people, giving them rap sheets without ever really doing anything against the law. A clear violation of 4th amendment rights, along with a plethora of ethical issues that are ignored.

Talk about fallacious. Because there is one other report, which also appears to be subject to misinterpretation from its intent, that there is a huge conspiracy to put all of America under seige? Leak or not, I went ahead and looked up the report and this is what people are in an uproar over:

"These members (militia) are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

What people seem to be trying to interpret this as is 'Supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr are (usually) terrorists.' The whole thing is absurd. I would concede that they could have worded it better, but read in its context, it is harmless in terms of the politicians mentioned and the people who support them (outside of the intended targets of the report).

And what rap sheets are we speaking of here? Do you have a copy of yours? Or anyone else's that fit into the profile listed in either report? If so, lets see it? I doubt any you find will be created based on either report unless they actually engaged in illegal or suspicious activities...

But the rest of the stuff in that quote is legislation. The report is simply how the legislation has evolved into something more usable on the domestic front.

Really? Please point it out. I see nothing that in the quote (Jesda's post) that speaks of any legislation. Can the report have evolved from legislation? Sure. But you haven't proven that it is. All I see is speculation. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, then please share...

Some of it does seem to contradict itself, but its speaking to a greater point. That point being, the government is watching its citizens, closely. No terrorlst attacks at all since 9/11? Not to many columbines or VT's since then either. In comparison, Japan has that type of crap happen monthly on a scale thats 10 times anything we saw at either of those two events. It just doesnt hit the world news. Whats going on? The worlds not getting saner.

And some countries experience genocide. Does that make this acceptable?

Your right, this single report is being pretty specific. However, the leak that happened in Missouri made it clear that they are not being specific at all, so these reports are just fuel to the fire. They are sending out information to law enforcement that was most likely procured by the feds through unconstitutional means.

I read it. Its pretty specific as well.

Thats great. Really. But at what point do you draw the line between protecting people and protecting civil liberties? Doesnt protecting civil liberties in effect, protect people? Here is an interesting case for you to read, if you havnt read it already. K, it involves a canadian citizen and not a US citizen. Its still along the same lines of the discussion were in.

Google Maher Arar. His case displays multiple violations of international law, along with some serious ethical issues. It is also ONE example that the press somehow got their hands on. There are a few other similar examples, but none with nearly the evidence or meaning that this case had

This was a real event that occurred and reverberated through every world news network except the major US ones. I picked up the report from NPR.

I'll take a look at the case when I get a chance.

My question to you is, in counter point to your dead baby argument, how many innocent people have had their lives destroyed, been tortured, or even killed because of the policies that our government is currently in acting? Does this somehow justify saving a baby?

I don't know. How many? I'd wager you are making a speculative argument here. Feel free to search for fact on it though.

However, I do agree that it is wrong, but they are two distinctly separate issues anyways. We can make great progress in intelligence against terrorism without resorting to torture.

As for the baby, its not just a baby. He was someone's son. All of the people who died in OKC were someone's son, daughter, mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin, husband, wife, friend, etc. How can one accuse someone of trivializing profiling and then turn around and trivialize life?

Missed the point of the dead baby argument? No, i just simply failed to address it because its a fallacious argument and has been played out a million times. You can find my response to that argument on countless forums all over the internet. Your dead baby argument holds some water, but again, its no nail in the coffin. There is a counter point to it, and its above, and below.

I also remember a doctor of arab-american decent who had his life turned upside down because DHS was sure he had terrorlst ties. I cant find the link right now, you may remember the story.

It seems vaguely familiar and I'll just go with you on this one. And I agree, it was wrong and that we need to do our best to prevent that from happening. As do we need to do our best to prevent another terrorost attack from occurring. Somehow, it seems you believe one cannot exist without the other.

O/C we dont stop trying, thats what the FBI and local PD is all about. However, violating the supreme laws of our land to achieve said goal should be out of the question. Now if someone wants to rewrite the whole constitution, let them go nuts. Until they do, the current implementation of legislation is in violation of the Constitution.

Violating what law or what part of the Consitution? Releasing a report that outlines observations and potential problems? Its not dissimilar from those who try to modify science to fit policy. I won't attest to the validity of the report because I had no part in it, however, if the research and findings are credible, should we ignore them for the sake of policy and political correctness?

Again, i have brought up a lot more than simply this report. Broaden your scope.

Narrow yours. My response was purely pointing out the intent of the report. You took it somewhere else. My thought would be that those who share your mindset on the braoder issue are probably the same trying to use this report to further their cause...

Shows what you know.

Then by all means, enlighten me...

Thats a pretty big assumption. One that has been proven to be wrong with the leak in Missouri.

As I stated above, it proves nothing.

You forget, those people who died in 9/11 are cut from the same swath of fabric as the so called '***hole'. At the time of 9/11, pre-patriot act, pre-revamped FISA courts, pre-protect america act, those people died with more rights than we posses now.

Really? What rights have been taken away from you? None of the things you mentioned has affected me in any way. Unless you count having to take off my shoes at the airport. Which I am glad to do. And that wasn't the government taking away my freedom to walk through a metal detector with my shoes on. The terrorists took that freedom away. One of the biggest freedoms anyone can take away from someone else is the freedom to feel safe. Think of Utopia here. If noone harmed anyone else, what need would we have for all these laws? This is of course purely theoretical, but I'm only using this logic to make the point. Our security and feeling of safety, even if only perceived, is one of the biggest freedoms we have. And I certainly don't fear the government.

The act of 9/11, as horrible as it was, does not justify these attacks on constitutional law.

Lets be more specific here. Which laws do you speak of and how do they violate. I'd prefer to be able to speak about this more specifically so no assumptions are made here...

[Armelius]

Who wrote that?

I can't find a name of the author.

Is it anonymous or you?

Worth repeating.

[audtatious]

I don't have time to write stuff. I'd say it was Michael Snider who owns the domain.

[Armelius]

Sounds like a puss, if he can't put his name on it. It's bs anyways. Probably only applies to St. Joseph police department.

[audtatious]

Dismissal is the easiest form of insecurity

[Armelius]

Dismissal is the easiest form of insecurity

So what is the hardest? Not putting your name to something that sounds sketchy?

[audtatious]

It took me 30 seconds to find his name so I don't see it being a major point. I posted it for discussion and not for people to try and dismiss it simply because he did not put his name on it.

[Armelius]

Part of the discussion is the source. Would you post something from Nation of Islam and expect someone not to say anything about the source?

[WDRacing]

Part of the discussion is the source. Would you post something from Nation of Islam and expect someone not to say anything about the source?

It depends on the topic of conversation. If we were dicussing Islam then they would certainly be a credible source. Or one that could be used for conversational purposes. Audatious used this source to spur on a conversation, that is all.

If you have dismissed this because of the source, then STOP posting. This thread isn't about whether or not the source is credible. Discuss the topic and contribute to the thread or don't post in it. I'll not see another topic derailed.

WD

[audtatious]

It's someones viewpoint for discussion, not like we are going to have the author on here anyway. Instead of questioning who or why it was written why don't you comment on the content as was asked in the opening post?

[Armelius]

It's someones viewpoint for discussion, not like we are going to have the author on here anyway. Instead of questioning who or why it was written why don't you comment on the content as was asked in the opening post?

That is a very good question, Mr. Audtatious. Man carries a heavy burden in his reputation. For some it's all he is worth. For others it precedes him. If a man cannot stand by his decisions and his reputation then not only is he not a man but a dangling statement made by no one and meant for everyone.

For you, I will look further into a claim of what first appears to be a conspiracy but later I will ask you the same should I make a claim that I know is fact.

First the report: I cannot comment on this at the moment. Hmmm, it appears there is an attempt to put me on the list if I am not already on it.

I will go after all those who would trample my freedom. I will defend all those who are with me. Pain and suffering awaits those who do nothing.

Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.Lord Byron

Is this satisfactory Mr. Audtatious and Mr. WDRacing?

[480sx]

Talk about fallacious. Because there is one other report, which also appears to be subject to misinterpretation from its intent, that there is a huge conspiracy to put all of America under seige?

While the argument i made might seem to follow along the lines of the fallacy you illustrated, i believe my argument is still valid. You are also exaggerating what im saying, a lot.

My argument is simple. The federal government created a list of people to be treated by local PD as potential domestic terrorists. Are you seriously thinking that the focus of the entire DHS was on one pissant county in Missouri? That this is just some isolated incident, instead of being a standard practice of our government?

The main problem that i see here is this. We keep getting all these warning signs that our government has moved away from constitutional law, and is seriously into some sht that we the people do NOT want them to be in, yet we do nothing. Torture memos, water boarding, the WHOLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, secret CIA prisons around the world, GTMO, Abu Ghraib. When you look at all of these things together, it should paint a pretty atrocious picture of our government but yet, no one cares. We ignore the evidence, trivialize it, and move on with our lives because simply, most of us have it pretty good. The stories really dont effect a normal citizens day to day lives, or so they think.

I mean what do you people need? A signed document from the POTUS saying something along the lines of 'We are violating your constitutional rights in so many ways, torturing people on the regular, its a fvking circus up here in DC. All the while you fools play partisan politics, ingesting CNN and network news like its strait from God, if you only knew!'

Its like a long term bad relationship that ends in disaster and or heartbreak. Each party, or at least one of them sees the warning signs years before the eventual and inevitable blow up, but yet, because their day to day lives arnt that bad, the sex is good, the relationship continues. Eventually, the s*** hits the fan. You know what 90 percent of those people say post relationship? Oh yea, i should have seen that coming and got out years ago. Whats the first thing you say to a friend who gets out of a bad relationship? Whats the first think you WANT to say..? // <--- Charlieo, thats how you do it.

And what rap sheets are we speaking of here? Do you have a copy of yours? Or anyone else's that fit into the profile listed in either report? If so, lets see it? I doubt any you find will be created based on either report unless they actually engaged in illegal or suspicious activities...

Telecom companies have given untold amounts of supposedly secure information to the government, thats all been made legal. Interestingly enough, they made it legal after the press caught wind of it, it being illegal before hand.

These profiling reports come out. These declassified documents which, while read alone might not be some huge atom bomb speak to a larger problem. That being, we have become a surveillance state, and that constitutional law is, at best, interpreted wayyy to liberally.

Your asking me to do the impossible. You want me to get my(anyones really) real rap sheet? Id love it if YOU could do that for me. You know why neither one of us will most likely never find out? Because it would be stupid to let any of that information out for multiple reasons. However, with all this legislation that sets up the legal grounds for literally free reign as far as wiretapping and information gathering goes, the government most likely has one hell of a 'list'.

Really? Please point it out. I see nothing that in the quote (Jesda's post) that speaks of any legislation.

I was talking about the quote you took from myself.

Can the report have evolved from legislation? Sure. But you haven't proven that it is. All I see is speculation. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, then please share...

Reports like this are generated from mass amounts of raw data that is digested by whomever. The mass amount of data is poured through until reasonable conclusions are made. Think about it backwards. For a report like that to come out, how much information had to come in? Think about it from not only the OP's source, but also the leak in Missouri. They are aiming these 'reports'(which would not exist unless there was some legislation behind them in most cases[or legislation thats trying to be passed], thus the need for the report) with huge scopes that could potentially fall on a wide variety of completely innocent Americans.

Can i give you definitive proof that reports such as the self titled 'Memo's of Doom' or these more recent DHS reports come directly from legislation such as the patriot act, protect America act, and the new FISA court system? No. Doing so would require me to be an insider to all of this. I can however draw logical correlaries between said legislation and the reports we are talking about, as i have done.

And some countries experience genocide. Does that make this acceptable?

Some countries citizens cook out of pans they smelt lead in. We are not these countries.

We are the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, and i hold us to a slightly higher standard. Atrocious acts around the globe, from terrorists, nut jobs, ect, do NOT equal senseless acts by our own government. The later is far, far more disturbing and should be dealt with in a manner most unforgiving.

but they are two distinctly separate issues anyways.

In this case however, they have to be considered together. Its the thin line that should have to be walked when dealing with terrorlst suspects, or suspects in general. From everything that i have seen, there is no thin line currently. Those checks and balances have been completely removed and the government is free to do as it pleases.

Again, its the question of, to save one life is it worth destroying another? Some lives arnt savable. But by following constitutional law and walking that fine line, many lives can be saved, or simply, not trashed. Again, a random senseless act does not equal a senseless death carried out by our government. The latter is much more atrocious and preventable.

We can make great progress in intelligence against terrorism without resorting to torture.

You would think.

As for the baby, its not just a baby. He was someone's son. All of the people who died in OKC were someone's son, daughter, mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin, husband, wife, friend, etc. How can one accuse someone of trivializing profiling and then turn around and trivialize life?

No. Im not trivializing life at all. Im putting it up on a pedestal. One life, be it a baby or anyone in more cases is a terrible thing to lose. Im trivializing your argument.

What is worse, 10 people being killed in an 'act of god' or one person being killed by our governments wrongful action?

One out of those 11 deaths was preventable.

Somehow, it seems you believe one cannot exist without the other.

I dont believe that at all. I believe that they simply dont exist without the other currently.

Violating what law or what part of the Consitution? Releasing a report that outlines observations and potential problems? Its not dissimilar from those who try to modify science to fit policy. I won't attest to the validity of the report because I had no part in it, however, if the research and findings are credible, should we ignore them for the sake of policy and political correctness?

Again, i have a really, really wide scope in this thread and you dont. I took it somewhere else, and i suppose i didnt lay down a path that could be followed as i should have.

Again.. Patriot act, Protect America Act, the new FISA courts, all have brought questions of constitutionality but yet not a single case has been filed to the Constitutions defense.

Where did PC come from...? This is about our constitutional rights that no one seems to give a s*** about anymore. Believe me, if there is a credible source, and the intel community goes through a set of streamlined legal hoops to check this person up, down and inside out, then thats fine by me and is in our best interests. Instead of legal hoops however, its just open season. When you let the dogs loose, sometimes they dont always bring back what you were aiming for. // <---- You can write these down if it helps.

Narrow yours. My response was purely pointing out the intent of the report. You took it somewhere else.

Id rather not, because politics and our government is such a massive topic that narrowing your scope means that you miss, ignore, and forget certain things that should never be overlooked or forgotten.

As I stated above, it proves nothing.

... So your assumption is somehow still valid? Prove it please?

None of the things you mentioned has affected me in any way.

Exactly. No one gives a damn until its their personal problem. Then you got the rest of the people like you, which is granted 98 percent of all humans on the earth(*********this percentage may be exaggerated considering the military and terrorism, still its a small fraction of the world population) who just say, oh, f***ing sucks for you buddy and does absolutely nothing.

Our security and feeling of safety, even if only perceived, is one of the biggest freedoms we have.

Until its ripped out from underneath you as if it was never there at all.

And I certainly don't fear the government.

Its to bad you cant walk a day in my shoes.

Then by all means, enlighten me...

Really? What rights have been taken away from you?

Finally. Someone asks me the questions iv been dying to be asked for the last 3 years. To bad i cant fvking answer it. Thats life for ya. Still, props for being the first person with an open enough mind to ask. Im afraid i leave you with no other choice but to label me a paranoid nut job.

Im just going to ignore any more questions prying into my nonsense. Gotta walk the walk if i want to talk.

**********Edit
Modified by 480sx at 1:32 PM 4/25/2009