POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

[TheWalrus]

I’m with NY on this one. I don’t believe the NSA isn’t looking at the information their spying on.

So, to my understanding, you’re not disputing the fact that American citizens are being spied upon, but rather that this isn’t evil enough to warrant not voting for X, Y, or Z candidate. I happen to disagree.

I'm against these laws and policies, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily "unconstitutional" as things stand. And I disagree with your use of the word "evil" as in this case being flippant. You want evil, go look at the firebombing of Germany and Japan.

As I said, I voted for Obama because I thought he'd be a better president than Romney. I don't have to agree with everything he does to still consider that true.

An interesting corollary to a law like the Patriot Act or the NDAA is the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII (though I consider the latter far more egregious), which began with an Executive Order signed by Roosevelt in 1942. I'm not sure how much, if any, you've read about it. But assuming you have, how does that change your opinion of Roosevelt as a president? Do you think you would have been able to vote for him in 1944?

Regardless of how complicated it is, under no circumstance do I think we should have the ability to detain any citizen indefinitely without right to a trial. This is a circumvention of our basic judicial system for the purpose of convenience.

I think the key is there doesn't seem to be a good understanding of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" or a "battlefield" in this day and age. If I were an American citizen during WWII and left America to fight on behalf of Germany, should I still expect to have due process respected on the battlefield or after I was captured? Or does my traitorous action mean that I forfeit some of my rights?

I think there is more gray area here than you're considering.

I’m saying if it wasn’t intentional, they need to be more prudent with whom they choose to target. These drone strikes are seriously affecting a way of life in other parts of the world, people live in absolute fear & we’re killing far too many innocent civilians for my tastes. I can never understand the people who believe the rest of the world hates us because “we’re free & awesome”. I also question the legitamcy of some of these wars in the first place.

So do I. Perfectly reasonable point. But if you're not saying that friendly fire deaths are reason enough to not engage in military actions or wars, then I have to question why you brought it up in the first place.

I don't know how correct this is, here's a quote from Jackson in regards to this:

"In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government.

The notion that banks privatize profits and socialize losses dates at least to the 19th century, as in this 1834 quote of Andrew Jackson":

"I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves."

—Andrew Jackson, 1834

Jackson's obsession with eliminating the Bank dated back to the 1824 Presidential election, where because none of the candidates (Jackson, John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay) got a majority of the delegates, the decision went to the House of Representatives. There, the third place finisher in the race, Henry Clay (who was Speaker of the House), shifted his support to Adams (who had finished 2nd in delegates) in return for being appointed Secretary of State, which at that time was seen as the surest path to the presidency.

This enraged Jackson, who called it a "corrupt bargain" and vowed revenge. Where the Bank comes in is that Clay supported the bank and it's president, Nicholas Biddle. Biddle and the Bank in return financially supported Clay for the presidency in 1828, though this time Jackson won outright.

I'll let Wikipedia take over from here (from Biddle's wikipedia page):

In early 1833, Jackson, despite opposition from his cabinet, decided to withdraw the government's funds out of the Bank. The secretary of the treasury,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, professed moderate support for the Bank. He refused to withdraw the funds and would not resign, so Jackson transferred him to the state department to become secretary of state. McLane's successor,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, was opposed to the Bank, but would not carry out Jackson's orders. After waiting four months, Jackson summarily dismissed Duane as well, replacing him with attorneys-general
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
when Congress was out of session. In September 1833, Taney helped transfer the public deposits to seven state-chartered "pet" banks that were friendly to the administration.

The Bank's charter finally expired in 1836, which was followed soon after by the Panic of 1837.

[JamesBW43]

Simply Google the section you're referencing. You'll find pages upon pages of articles debunking your misconception, it isn't just that author.




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've read these arguments before. They are not what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying US citizens are exempt. I'm saying, US citizens on US soil, will not be detained indefinitely. The purpose of that provision of the NDAA is for dealing with people like Al-Awlaki.

I'm not saying this is a good thing either, but the implication made by so many of these opinions, that US citizens can be arrested on US soil and held indefinitely is just not true.

[rob19]

An interesting corollary to a law like the Patriot Act or the NDAA is the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII (though I consider the latter far more egregious), which began with an Executive Order signed by Roosevelt in 1942. I'm not sure how much, if any, you've read about it. But assuming you have, how does that change your opinion of Roosevelt as a president? Do you think you would have been able to vote for him in 1944?

That’s a question I can’t answer in a vacuum. I’d need to know a myriad of other things in order to make that decision. It certainly wouldn’t help though. Ideally we’d all like to see that kind of behavior limited to the 40’s.

So do I. Perfectly reasonable point. But if you're not saying that friendly fire deaths are reason enough to not engage in military actions or wars, then I have to question why you brought it up in the first place.

We were discussing evils. Not only friendly fire, but the repeated killing of innocent civilians through questionable tactics; such as double-tapping.

Jackson's obsession with eliminating the Bank dated back to the 1824 Presidential election, where because none of the candidates (Jackson, John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay) got a majority of the delegates, the decision went to the House of Representatives. There, the third place finisher in the race, Henry Clay (who was Speaker of the House), shifted his support to Adams (who had finished 2nd in delegates) in return for being appointed Secretary of State, which at that time was seen as the surest path to the presidency.
This enraged Jackson, who called it a "corrupt bargain" and vowed revenge. Where the Bank comes in is that Clay supported the bank and it's president, Nicholas Biddle. Biddle and the Bank in return financially supported Clay for the presidency in 1828, though this time Jackson won outright.

I’m not saying he didn’t hate the guy, but I also believe it wasn’t just because he hated the guy, as you had indicated.

I think the key is there doesn't seem to be a good understanding of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" or a "battlefield" in this day and age. If I were an American citizen during WWII and left America to fight on behalf of Germany, should I still expect to have due process respected on the battlefield or after I was captured? Or does my traitorous action mean that I forfeit some of my rights?

I think there is more gray area here than you're considering.

These aren’t only POW’s & enemy combatants. This applies to anyone suspected of terrorism. Are you aware of what could officially qualify someone as a terrorist according to the military?

You’ve recently changed your “choices in entertainment.”
You have “peculiar discussions.”
You “complain about bias,”
You’re “socially withdrawn”
and you’re frustrated with “mainstream ideologies.”
Your “Risk Factors for Radicalization” include “Social Networks” and “Youth.”
Being young (if you live near a battle zone, you are fair game)
Reporting or doing journalism
Speaking out against government policies
Protesting anything
Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)
Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)
Asking questions about pollution (even at a public Congressional hearing?)
Paying cash at an Internet cafe
Asking questions about Wall Street shenanigans
Holding gold
Creating alternative currencies
Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food, and most Hawaiians store up on extra food)
Having bumper stickers saying things like “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them”
Investigating factory farming
Infringing a copyright
Taking pictures or videos
Talking to police officers
Wearing a hoodie
Driving a van
Writing on a piece of paper
(Not having a Facebook account may soon be added)
Being frustrated with “mainstream ideologies”
Using social media
Valuing online privacy
Supporting Ron Paul or being a libertarian
Liking the Founding Fathers
Being a Christian
Being anti-tax, anti-regulation or for the gold standard
Being “reverent of individual liberty”
Being “anti-nuclear”
“Believe in conspiracy theories”
“A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”
“Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
“Insert religion into the political sphere”
“Those who seek to politicize religion”
“Supported political movements for autonomy”
Being “anti-abortion”
Being “anti-Catholic”
Being “anti-global”
“Suspicious of centralized federal authority”
“Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
“A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”
Opposing genetically engineered food
Opposing surveillance

These are all official signs of being a terrorist from the U.S Military.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


These could apply to almost anyone, & they've made it like this purposefully. So it’s not that there’s grey area I’m not accounting for, I believe there’s entirely too much grey area all together in regards to whom exactly we can legitimately suspect of terrorist activities.

I've read these arguments before. They are not what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying US citizens are exempt. I'm saying, US citizens on US soil, will not be detained indefinitely. The purpose of that provision of the NDAA is for dealing with people like Al-Awlaki.

I'm not saying this is a good thing either, but the implication made by so many of these opinions, that US citizens can be arrested on US soil and held indefinitely is just not true.

‘A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.

The ACLU notes:

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”’

[TheWalrus]

That’s a question I can’t answer in a vacuum. I’d need to know a myriad of other things in order to make that decision. It certainly wouldn’t help though. Ideally we’d all like to see that kind of behavior limited to the 40’s.

Okay. Because from what I've been gathering from your posts about this election is that Obama and Romney's positions on civil liberties were in and of themselves enough to disqualify them from getting your vote. Perhaps I misunderstood. Because internment, at least to me, is/was far worse than the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

We were discussing evils. Not only friendly fire, but the repeated killing of innocent civilians through questionable tactics; such as double-tapping.

Friendly fire isn't an evil. It's a mistake.

What's double tapping? I mean, does it have another meaning other than as a method of shooting someone so you know they're dead?

I’m not saying he didn’t hate the guy, but I also believe it wasn’t just because he hated the guy, as you had indicated.

You're free to think that. Not that it matters much either way, as it's off topic. I was just using Jackson as an example of a bad president who -- despite being an admirer of Jefferson -- expanded the power of the presidency. He was so hated by a section of the population in his day they formed the Whig party, which became the forerunner to the Republicans (which in those days was the Northern, liberal party).

These aren’t only POW’s & enemy combatants. This applies to anyone suspected of terrorism. Are you aware of what could officially qualify someone as a terrorist according to the military?

These are all official signs of being a terrorist from the U.S Military.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


These could apply to almost anyone, & they've made it like this purposefully. So it’s not that there’s grey area I’m not accounting for, I believe there’s entirely too much grey area all together in regards to whom exactly we can legitimately suspect of terrorist activities.

Oh, c'mon, Rob. That pamphlet applies to people in the military observing the behavior of other people in the military for evidence of radicalism. Not only that, but your quoted "list" includes stuff not in the pamphlet.

You link to the wrong thing or something? 'Cause I don't this pamphlet is relevant to anything.

[WVDolphan]

Don't listen to him, Buddy. All 9954 can do is engage in stupid false equivalencies and bring candidates down. But when asked to talk about a specific aspect of Johnson's record on it he shows just how ignorant he is on the issues he claims to care about. Hating the Republicans and the Democrats does not make you automatically interesting or relevant.

I don't get this "anti-American" **** I see conservatives throwing around so casually right now. Do they really think the President and the new Democratic members of the Senate are actively engaging in sinister and evil activities? What a frightening vision they must have of the world, and a stupidly childish one. These are differences in policy, not in good and evil. Get over yourself.

If anything, the "American" thing to do is to educate yourself on both sides of these arguments so you won't be so tempted to demonize the policy and the people of the other side. Propaganda feeds on ignorance, and you seem to be one of it's victims.

Wow. The Walrus just got ****ing real.

[TheWalrus]

Wow. The Walrus just got ****ing real.

If you're going to post in the PoFo again, your first stop needs to be the "eat crow" thread.

[Dolphins9954]

Wow. The Walrus just got ****ing real.

He's a bitch that can't face me like a man. He has to resort to ignoring me and attacking me through another people's post. Grade A *****. Not real at all.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

Amazing watching Obama supporters carry water for clear attacks on our liberties. The same way Bush supporters did. Nothing has changed at all.

[JamesBW43]

‘A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.

The ACLU notes:

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”’

There's nothing in this argument that supports that title or refutes the fact that existing laws regarding arrests on US soil will remain unchanged. It's still just arguing that the section applies to US citizens, which I'm not refuting.

[JamesBW43]

Amazing watching Obama supporters carry water for clear attacks on our liberties. The same way Bush supporters did. Nothing has changed at all.

I'm sorry man, but that is a ridiculous interpretation of the conversations going on right now.

[rob19]

Okay. Because from what I've been gathering from your posts about this election is that Obama and Romney's positions on civil liberties were in and of themselves enough to disqualify them from getting your vote. Perhaps I misunderstood. Because internment, at least to me, is/was far worse than the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

There’s too much I don’t know about the 40’s to be able to give an educated answer on the matter, but given some of the alternatives we have today, not even in regards to over-all party choices, but simply different candidate choices as well; shouldn’t it seem like someone who wants to digitally track & monitor the entire populous, not be someone the majority of people want to elect to rule them? Is what the NSA doing even remotely defense-able? Is it to be accepted & tolerated as fact of life?

I understand all candidates are a compromise of sorts, but what’s worth losing some of your basic civil liberties for?

What's double tapping? I mean, does it have another meaning other than as a method of shooting someone so you know they're dead?

It’s believed that a large portion of the percentage of civilians killed are in double-tap strikes. It’s where they strike an area, & possibly hours later, will strike again once the people who live in the area begin to clear the rubble & remove the bodies.

One of the most horrifying tactics reportedly used by the United States in the prosecution of the death-by-drone program is the so-called “double tap.” The Stanford/NYU report brought this to light and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
accurately summarized the practice: “A drone fires one missile — and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had a six-hour delay before going to the scene.” According to the story this insupportable and inhumane tactic is resulting in the death of “49 people for every one known terrorist in Pakistan.”

Oh, c'mon, Rob. That pamphlet applies to people in the military observing the behavior of other people in the military for evidence of radicalism. Not only that, but your quoted "list" includes stuff not in the pamphlet.
You link to the wrong thing or something? 'Cause I don't this pamphlet is relevant to anything.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It’s relevant when the bar of suspicion for terroism is so low it could apply to anyone. Remember, the NDAA doesn’t state you need proof to detain someone, just to suspect them of it.

There's nothing in this argument that supports that title or refutes the fact that existing laws regarding arrests on US soil will remain unchanged. It's still just arguing that the section applies to US citizens, which I'm not refuting.

‘The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.’


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.