This country is seriously fucked

[Quantum Windbag]

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so fucking easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the fuck over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

If you have a gun pointed at a kids head and a cop shoots you, and it later turns out the gun was empty, the cop was still right. On the other hand, if you talk about going out and buying a gun, kidnapping a child, and using him to face down the police, the cop would be wrong to shoot you, and should face charges if he actually does it.

At this point in time Obama is arguing he has the right to kill American citizens in the latter situation if he thinks they are serious. I disagree.

Well, to each his own.

A guy threatens to kidnap MY child, I'm thrilled if a cop shoots him, especially if that's the only choice.

But if you want to wait until the guy actually kidnaps YOUR child, then great, you run with that.

You have amazingly naive expectations if you believe we will always have the luxury of investigating whether threats of violence are promises or not.

You are happy to have the state break the law as long as it serves your goals, I don't want the state breaking the law even if it serves my goals. Guess which attitude will get us to tyranny faster.

By the way, if it was my child, and I thought he was serious, I would fucking splatter his brains all over the place and brag about it, I wouldn't wait for a cop to show up and do the job for me. Guess which attitude is more likely to end up with a kidnapped child.

There is nothing naive about my attitude at all.

There is, however, an immense amount of naivety in your attitude that the state will never do anything wrong, especially when you factor in the fact that nothing in history indicates that any government that ever existed never abused its authority.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Hey, maybe the next President will expand these powers again. Won't that be great?

You know, when the Patriot Act was passed, people like myself said this ain't a good idea. That the next President would expand those powers and the next will expand them more and more.

We shouldn't have been so damned scared of a bunch of illiterates in Afghanistan with AK47's.

But really, the Patriot Act wasn't really for terrorists. It's for us.

And I absolutely hate having to agree with Quantum.

One has tyo admit that with all the whining, hand wringing and cries from the Democrats about the Patriot Act.

Civil libertarians on both the left and right opposed the legislation. Political analyst Michael Freeman called the proposal one of the “worst assaults on civil liberties in decades,” and the Houston Chronicle called it a “frightening” and “grievous” assault on domestic freedoms. Many Republicans opposed the bill, and forced a compromise that removed increased wiretap authority and lower standards for lawsuits against sellers of guns used in crimes. CNN called the version that finally passed the Republican-controlled Congress a “watered-down version of the White House’s proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate’s anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers’ concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.” [CNN, 4/18/1996; New York Times, 4/25/1996; Roberts, 2008, pp. 35] An unusual coalition of gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) led the opposition to the law. [New York Times, 4/17/1996] By the time Congress passed the bill, it had been, in the words of FBI Director Louis Freeh, “stripped… of just about every meaningful provision.” [Roberts, 2008, pp. 35] The law makes it illegal in the US to provide “material support” to any organization banned by the State Department. [Guardian, 9/10/2001]

[Excerpt]
Read more:
US Civil Liberties: Patriot Act

Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms​

- CSMonitor.com

www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act...

Mar 01, 2010 · Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms ... Why is Patriot Act under fire if homegrown terror threat is rising? Patriot Act: ...

 

[Samson]

.

There is, however, an immense amount of naivety in your attitude that the state will never do anything wrong, especially when you factor in the fact that nothing in history indicates that any government that ever existed never abused its authority.

Did I ever say the, "state will never do anything wrong?"

No.

But your posturing certainly is appreciated.

Go ahead with your farce. Convince yourself, childlike, the world is made of simple choices.




I will stand by the process of electing leaders who take an oath to protect the country, and (not that any US Citizen has a choice) we will continue to in the US Senate to hold the President accountable for his actions.

You can support second-guessing-utopian-bullshit from partisan opportunists like yourself and continue to babble about "a state that does no wrong."

 

[Polk]

Feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong, until you do I will accept the complete lack of any evidence that Bush targeted Americans as evidence in and of itself.

By the way, if Bush had done it, why did Obama feel a need to rationalize it as a policy unique to his administration?

The legal reasoning used by the Obama administration here is the same legal reasoning used by the Bush administration to hold American citizens without due process at GITMO.

One problem with that assertion, the courts have clearly ruled that due process applies even at Gitmo, and have actually agreed with the arguments of both Bush and Obama over the detainees who are still there.

Not really. If you read the decisions, the court claims due process still applies, but then allows so many special definitions to define it away to nothingness.

 

[Polk]

Imminent danger?

Opposed to only 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?


How about we take a revolver, only fill half the cylinders with shells, hold it against some kid's head? Where does that fall into your tidy little definition of "imminent?" What if we just use a toy gun half the time? Not so fucking easy to define "imminent" now, is it?


You people need to get the fuck over your trust issues: You elect a President to protect the country. Let him do his freakin' job, regardless of your absurd partisan associations. You elect a Senate to impeach the President if he's abusing power. Let them do their jobs.

A murder could occur in anyone's house. Should we install cameras in all homes to monitor people? If not, why not?

What a great thread that would make, in a purely academic forum.

Sadly, the topic is a bit more realistic here, and the question's irrevelence probaly means it will be ignored.

The question isn't irrelevant. Your argument is that we should just be willing to give away out liberties if it will provide any additional measure of protection. I'm asking why we shouldn't go that far.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

There is, however, an immense amount of naivety in your attitude that the state will never do anything wrong, especially when you factor in the fact that nothing in history indicates that any government that ever existed never abused its authority.

Did I ever say the, "state will never do anything wrong?"

No.

But your posturing certainly is appreciated.

Go ahead with your farce. Convince yourself, childlike, the world is made of simple choices.




I will stand by the process of electing leaders who take an oath to protect the country, and (not that any US Citizen has a choice) we will continue to in the US Senate to hold the President accountable for his actions.

You can support second-guessing-utopian-bullshit from partisan opportunists like yourself and continue to babble about "a state that does no wrong."

Let me get this straight, you trust the government, and I am being simple.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The legal reasoning used by the Obama administration here is the same legal reasoning used by the Bush administration to hold American citizens without due process at GITMO.

One problem with that assertion, the courts have clearly ruled that due process applies even at Gitmo, and have actually agreed with the arguments of both Bush and Obama over the detainees who are still there.

Not really. If you read the decisions, the court claims due process still applies, but then allows so many special definitions to define it away to nothingness.

Which is standard for the courts in all criminal cases, so it is business as usual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"This country is seriously fucked" even if true, not as fucked as the OP

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

The fact is that no individual who resists arrest has a right of due process. That is the same here as overseas.

Remember that drones don't kill people. People kill people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

The fact is that no individual who resists arrest has a right of due process. That is the same here as overseas.

Remember that drones don't kill people. People kill people.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't make sense.

Go look it up 'due process' and get back to us, mmmkay?

 

[Freewill]

I'm absolutely sure you can find plenty of hypocrites on this issue. Several of them have been active in this thread. The claim that "Bush did not use drones to target Americans" is supposition based on non-disclosure.

Feel free to provide some evidence to prove me wrong, until you do I will accept the complete lack of any evidence that Bush targeted Americans as evidence in and of itself.

By the way, if Bush had done it, why did Obama feel a need to rationalize it as a policy unique to his administration?

The legal reasoning used by the Obama administration here is the same legal reasoning used by the Bush administration to hold American citizens without due process at GITMO.

Two very different situations. BTW Obama is doing exactly the same thing. Difference is Bush never said he would not. Where is KSM these days? Why is the trial of the Fort Hood terrorist taking so damn long?

 

[JakeStarkey]

freewill makes no sense here with his questions. try again.

 

[Antares]

You are an idiot, one who has no concept of what "due process" is.

I don't know what else to say when 45% of Americans and 44% of Democrats want to give the government the power to target American citizens with drones on American soil without any judicial review or due process at all.

Sad isn't it? Guess what, it doesn't get much better if they ask if the president should have the power to do this on his own.

Sorry about the picture being so small, the full poll is here. It turns out that this entire country loves drones, and almost no one cares if it kills a few innocents because that is better, and easier, than making sure we get the right person.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/

The fact is that no individual who resists arrest has a right of due process. That is the same here as overseas.

Remember that drones don't kill people. People kill people.