Patrick.net

If Obama doesn't veto this, he is evil

By Dan8267   Follow   Mon, 28 Nov 2011, 5:03pm   2,672 views   35 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

You are now all enemy combatants!

Termed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and drafted behind closed doors by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

Full Article

Any senator who votes for this should be recalled. If the bill goes to the White House and Obama doesn't veto it, he should be impeached. To even attempt to pass such an evil bill is paramount to treason. Communists and Nazis were never as much threat to America as the two jackass senators Carl Levin and John McCain who authored this bill. At least now we all know that McCain would have been a tyrant. May he never come close to being the president.

Viewing Comments 1-35 of 35     Last »     See most liked comments

1. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   1   5:50pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   LOL

2. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 102 threads 3,759 comments

   2   6:37pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says How so? Again read your Constitution...the definition of treason is very explicit. This bill ain't it. If enough Americans want it, anything can be a treason really. Wouldn't supreme court throw this out, this conflicts with the bill of rights due process clause.

3. Travis Bickle Follow Befriend (1) 9 threads 64 comments Anaheim, CA

   3   7:16pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Seen this same issue on the aclu webite yesterday: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being Not surprising - Big Bro is already here, this is just a formality... But nobody seems to notice, and nobody seems to care. Welcome to Dystopia. Perhaps I can get a choice spot in a FEMA camp... You know, shit man . . . I'm just waiting for the sun to shine....

4. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 102 threads 3,759 comments

   4   7:26pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Dictatorship delivered wrapped in red white and blue. Some of us care, not enough of us though and that's a shame.

5. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   5   9:26pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Dan8267 says Any senator who votes for this should be recalled There are no recall systems for Reps or Senators. Read your Constitution. All Recall Elections Held in the U.S. for State Legislators 1913: California state senator Marshall Black was recalled. 1914: California state senator Edwin Grant was recalled. 1914: California state senator James Owens survived a recall election. 1932: Wisconsin state senator Otto Mueller survived a recall election. 1935: Oregon state representative Harry Merriam was recalled. 1971: Idaho state senator Fisher Ellsworth was recalled. 1971: Idaho state representative Aden Hyde was recalled. 1981: Washington state senator Peter von Reichbauer survived a recall election. 1983: Michigan state senator Phil Mastin was recalled. 1983: Michigan state senator David Serotkin was recalled. (Technically he resigned from office before the results of the recall election were certified, but the results were sufficient to recall him.) 1985: Oregon state representative Pat Gillis was recalled. 1988: Oregon state senator Bill Olson was recalled. 1990: Wisconsin state assembly member Jim Holperin survived a recall election. 1994: California state senator David Roberti survived a recall election. 1995: California assembly member Paul Horcher was recalled. 1995: California assembly member Michael Machado survived a recall election. 1995: California assembly member Doris Allen was recalled. 1996: Wisconsin state senator George Petak was recalled. 2003: Wisconsin state senator Gary George was recalled. 2008: California state senator Jeff Denham survived a recall election. 2008: Michigan house speaker Andy Dillon survived a recall election. 2011: Wisconsin state senators Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling, Dave Hansen, Sheila Harsdorf, Jim Holperin, Luther Olsen and Robert Wirch survived attempted recalls, while Senators Randy Hopper and Dan Kapanke were recalled. 2011: Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce was recalled on November 8. 2011: Michigan sate representative Paul Scott was recalled on November 8. Read your Google http://bit.ly/tbXM6z

6. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   6   9:32pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says the definition of treason is very explicit. If they can pass bills that completely undermine the Constitution, I can use a more reasonable definition of treason: undermining the Constitution. This is far worse than giving aid an comfort to an enemy, especially when enemy is ill-defined nowadays. I feel far more betrayed and threaten by someone who would destroy the Bill of Rights than to some smuck who"liked" Al-Qaeda on FaceBook.

7. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   7   9:34pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   FortWayne says Wouldn't supreme court throw this out, this conflicts with the bill of rights due process clause. If the Supreme Court does its job. However, I do not have a lot of confidence in that. The fact is that George W. Bush filled the court with nut jobs for the purpose of letting such draconian and Unamerican legislation stand. The Supreme Court does not command a lot of respect from those who believe in liberty.

8. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   8   9:40pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike

9. Rew Follow Befriend 8 threads 143 comments San Jose, CA

   9   11:29pm Mon 28 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   ***** FACT CHECK **** http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112ShwaKV:e464889: Current section revision is 1032. Fact check: controversy is over a now dead/defunct/gone language in the bill. The current version authorizes the military to detain persons who fall into previsions defined by subsection b. Subsection b states words to the effect that the person must be an illegal immigrant and or person under temporary work visas or tourist visas. NOT A US CITIZEN. This section of the bill isn't that great, but this post, and others like it are "rabble rabble" blatant sensational political BS. I'm not a fan of extending powers of detention and increasing the grey area of who the constitution protects. But come on! No sane politician could sign into law something which would violate the 6th and 14th amendments. Even if they did, the supreme court would squash it like a bug, and then the majority of the defense budget, personnel benefits, and things locked part and parcel with the NDAA would be in question until the bill could be revised. Stop. Think. Use your head. Read it for yourself. The intent of this would be to sweep up illegals and non-citizens IF any acts/crimes/hostilities committed by them could be considered an act of war. Like, oh say, shooting a bunch of people, or blowing something up. Gee, that almost sounds reasonable now doesn't it? EDIT: Flagging OP out of principal.

10. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    10   12:04am Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   rewrew7 says Fact check: controversy is over a now dead/defunct/gone language in the bill. The current version authorizes the military to detain persons who fall into previsions defined by subsection b. And you don't find the fact that the original version of the this bill did allow for U.S. citizens to be seized by the military to be a bit scary? And you don't find that tourists can still be seized under the current wording scary? I'd bet many potential tourists would. rewrew7 says Even if they did, the supreme court would squash it like a bug You give far too much credit to the Supreme Court. It is quite willing to let the innocent be framed and executed. John Thompsonz spent 14 years on death row in Louisiana because New Orleans prosecutors hid evidence that exonerated him. It sounds like the plot of this week’s episode of ABC’s Castle, except in the Hollywood story, the D.A. gets his comeuppance. In real life, the “conservative” block of the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the jury decision against the prosecutor’s office: Conservative justices prevailed in the 5 to 4 ruling, which shielded the district attorney’s office from liability for not turning over evidence that showed John Thompson’s innocence. Full Article

11. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    11   12:04am Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   rewrew7 says No sane politician No sane politician would select Sarah Palin as a running mate, either.

12. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,181 threads 6,153 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    12   8:42am Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rewrew7 says The intent of this would be to sweep up illegals and non-citizens IF any acts/crimes/hostilities committed by them could be considered an act of war. I disagree. This is a reaction to the OWS threat to the the economic power of the 1%. If you won't submit to debt and other forms of economic control, then they are going to label you "Al Queda" and use the military against you instead. Either way, the 1% will attempt to force the 99% to remain their permanent servants. I think that's the real intent. The big question is whether the military and the whole bureaucracy will go along with jailing peaceful US citizen protesters. The military and bureaucracy are all part of the 99%.

13. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,181 threads 6,153 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    13   8:54am Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rewrew7 says ***** FACT CHECK **** http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112ShwaKV:e464889: Current section revision is 1032. That link doesn't work. Got a permalink for that section?

14. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,181 threads 6,153 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    14   9:03am Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Here's the text of those sections, from http://liquidzoot.tumblr.com/ Not sure it's the most recent text. Subtitle D—Detainee Matters SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has direct supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–12 84)). Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.— The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2). SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.— IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined— (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. (c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.— IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

15. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 49 threads 2,625 comments Premium

    15   11:04am Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   FortWayne says Dictatorship delivered wrapped in red white and blue. Some of us care, not enough of us though and that's a shame. Yup. People think dictatorship is going to come under a hammer and sickle, or under a turban, or a crescent. It always comes disguised in the symbols of the very country it seizes in its iron grip.

16. TPB Follow Befriend (1) 65 threads 1,209 comments

    16   12:37pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   This is why it WAS important for the OWS assholes should have had an agenda with names and dates. While they were relevant. Now they aren't so much, and the KGB wants to send them to the Cuban Gulag.

17. Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq Follow Befriend 53 threads 658 comments

    17   1:24pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Patrick says I disagree. This is a reaction to the OWS threat to the the economic power of the 1%. If you won't submit to debt and other forms of economic control, then they are going to label you "Al Queda" and use the military against you instead. Either way, the 1% will attempt to force the 99% to remain their permanent servants. You are all already permanent servants to men of stature and merit. We pass laws like this to piss in your face for our enjoyment. Now go eat your fried foods and watch your moving pictures like a good underclass wretch.

18. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    18   1:34pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   The GOP says Now they aren't so much, and the KGB wants to send them to the Cuban Gulag. What color is the sky in your world? The KGB hasn't existed since the failed Russian coup in 1991 led by Vladimir Kryuchkov, the KGB's chairman. Please tell me that you don't fear the rise of the Soviet empire like Bachmann.

19. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    19   1:37pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says Now go eat your fried foods and watch your moving pictures like a good underclass wretch. Only if the moving pictures are Speakies! We demand Speakies!

20. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 488 comments Alameda, CA

    20   2:02pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says Patrick says I disagree. This is a reaction to the OWS threat to the the economic power of the 1%. If you won't submit to debt and other forms of economic control, then they are going to label you "Al Queda" and use the military against you instead. Either way, the 1% will attempt to force the 99% to remain their permanent servants. You are all already permanent servants to men of stature and merit. We pass laws like this to piss in your face for our enjoyment. Now go eat your fried foods and watch your moving pictures like a good underclass wretch. Does this mean its chicken nugget & glee night? Goody! Thank you so much master!

21. TPB Follow Befriend (1) 65 threads 1,209 comments

    21   3:26pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says The GOP says Now they aren't so much, and the KGB wants to send them to the Cuban Gulag. What color is the sky in your world? The KGB hasn't existed since the failed Russian coup in 1991 led by Vladimir Kryuchkov, the KGB's chairman. Please tell me that you don't fear the rise of the Soviet empire like Bachmann. It was a Simile you Bocanite clown.

22. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    22   4:42pm Tue 29 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   The GOP says It was a Simile you Bocanite clown. I prefer the term Floridiot. You know, like the Nude Sausage Burglar. Bocanite sounds too biblical. And a simile uses the words like or as. I think you mean metaphor, and I'm not sure it qualifies as that either.

23. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    23   2:36pm Wed 30 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Uh...STATE senators are not US Senators here here The recall process is up to the state, not the Federal government. If recall is too difficult, then impeach on the basis of undermining the Constitution. That's a better reason than getting a bj in the oval office or passing a health care bill.

24. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    24   2:37pm Wed 30 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Dan8267 says It is quite willing to let the innocent be framed and executed. Yeah, like the 60 million or so of the unborn since Roe v. Wade. Not even Hitler was able to kill that many people with the gas chambers running 24/7. Abortion is legal. Therefore, the military should be allowed to break into your home in the middle of the night and kill your entire family. Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

25. Rew Follow Befriend 8 threads 143 comments San Jose, CA

    25   1:12am Thu 1 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Patrick says I disagree. This is a reaction to the OWS threat to the the economic power of the 1%. If you won't submit to debt and other forms of economic control, then they are going to label you "Al Queda" and use the military against you instead. Either way, the 1% will attempt to force the 99% to remain their permanent servants. Patrick, I generally disagree with you on the "debt slave" message you sometimes profess, and I equally find this law being motivated to combat the OWS protests ... well ... just plain paranoid sounding. The police departments and FBI will deal with civil issues OWS protests present, and continue to be doing just that, so far. If you see that Nat guard get called in, or Nor Com, then I might start to get more concerned. At this point, the right uniforms are doing their jobs (all-though with a bit too much pepper spray). They can call you "Al Queda" all they want, and if you are a US citizen it doesn't matter. I'd be pretty alarmed if a police officer started calling me a terrorist for violating a city ordinance on loitering, camping, or obstructing traffic. Again, I think it is a big stretch, to think "the 1%" secretly plans to detain OWSers/99% under a military detention law. I know a few lawyers who would love to defend anyone in that situation. Slam dunk, money. No, I am not bothered by someone under a tourist visa in the US potentially being swept up as a person of interest by the US military/FBI/black helicopters, whatever. I'm pretty confidant anyone who gets a tourist visa these days is pretty well vetted before they touch American soil ... so it's not like we would suddenly be "surprised" by someone turning out to be someone the DOD would be interested in. What does the law allow for? It provides a clear channel for non-US citizens, in the US, to be detained, if they have committed an act of war. If you are in the US, not a citizen, and do something that can be construed as an act of war, uhhh ... yeah ... military have at 'em. Domestic terrorism by a citizen falls under different legal constraints. Additionally, you commit domestic terrorist acts as a US citizen, flee the US into a hard to reach foreign country, and the US military decides you are worth a drone strike to kill ... I have no problem with the US "executing" one of her citizens deemed worthy of such effort. The state has a right to protect itself. The people have a right to over throw the state. It's a balancing act. My sense of balance is not threatened by what I see in the NDAA for 2012. Sorry that link didn't work, but looks like you got the current language there. Thanks. And thanks for the discussion.

26. Rew Follow Befriend 8 threads 143 comments San Jose, CA

    26   10:48am Thu 1 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Looks like the military detention law continue to be formalized via debate in the senate yesterday. That's excellent. I'm hoping this link works for you all ... but language again revised yesterday ... http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867 Additionally, this site seems very knowledgable and good about taking a deeper look at the the actual legal implications: http://www.lawfareblog.com/

27. Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq Follow Befriend 53 threads 658 comments

    27   11:54am Thu 1 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Yeah, like the 60 million or so of the unborn since Roe v. Wade. Not even Hitler was able to kill that many people with the gas chambers running 24/7. Threat of rape law enforcement has eliminated 60 million unborn from me alone. I demand the liberty to be libertine with the underclass at my whim. I guess I'm not rich and powerful enough yet.

28. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    28   6:36pm Thu 1 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   rewrew7 says I equally find this law being motivated to combat the OWS protests ... well ... just plain paranoid sounding. Atlas, America has a very long fascist history of corporations and government joining forces to use violence against the poor to keep them in economic slavery. One of the most horrendous examples of this is The Ludlow Massacre immortalized in this song. The evil shit John D. Rockefeller and his company Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation used virtual slave labor to mine coal. Rockefeller didn't create the coal, he didn't extract it from the Earth, he didn't perform any labor himself or sacrifice his health to get the coal. Yet he took the lion's share of the profits from the coal. Worse yet, he worked his employees almost to death -- well, not almost in many cases -- paid them very little and took most of that back by forcing them to buy only from the company store. When the coal miners went on strike, they asked for the following: 1. An eight-hour day. 2. An accurate method of weighing the coal so they were not deprived pay for their work. I.e., they wanted Rockefeller to stop committing fraud. 3. The freedom to shop in stores not owned by the company, i.e., real capitalism. 4. That Rockefeller stop breaking existing labor laws. I.e., they wanted the law upheld. Fucking anarchists! In response to the strike, the corporation and the state government burned entire families alive including children. Those that weren't burnt alive were gunned down with machine guns. This happened less than 100 years ago. Some people who were alive during that time still are. Some of the miners had guns, but the soldiers and hired mercenaries didn't know that when they began the slaughter. Upon finding out that some of the miners were armed, the cowardly soldiers and mercs fled until they could get the upper hand. Funny, how soldiers and police will always attack the defenseless but run away when the playing field approaches evenness. So you see, it's not unreasonable to believe that the government will commit acts of violence including murdering children to ensure corporate profits. It's happened before in America, many times. Over the past 100 years, most of the profit-driven violence committed by our government has been directed at foreign civilians, but that can always change.

29. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    29   6:40pm Thu 1 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Oh, I forgot to mention. No charges were pressed against the corporation's executives, the hired mercenaries, or the national guard soldiers. After all, burning children to death is no crime.

30. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

    30   11:03am Fri 2 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   The terrorists have won: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/02/the-terrorists-have-won/

31. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    31   11:54am Fri 2 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says rewrew7 says I equally find this law being motivated to combat the OWS protests ... well ... just plain paranoid sounding. Atlas, America has a very long fascist history of corporations and government joining forces to use violence against the poor to keep them in economic slavery. One of the most horrendous examples of this is The Ludlow Massacre immortalized in this song. It is always nice to have a history lesson to put things into perspective. While the bill might not have been primarily written to counter OWS I suspect that when the questionable language was written that OWS was in someone's mind. Even if OWS had nothing to do with the bill the powers that be would not hesitate in using the law against OWS.

32. Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq Follow Befriend 53 threads 658 comments

    32   12:15pm Fri 2 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Throw a frog in a pot of boiling water and he will leap out, but slowly increase the heat of a frog in water and he will boil himself. The mass of outbred American citizens are dim witted underclass that nature demands be boiled. The underclass happily cripples themselves for ribbons and cheap medallions in far away lands to enrich men of stature and merit. The underclass is so starved and parched they imprison each other over fights for poisoned water and artificial food. The underclass drools over flashy images and trinkets made in savage lands. The underclass is unworthy of Liberty. Instead, they are to be divided into two groups: Bootlickers and Boot Bottoms. They shall fight each other in an orgy of hate for the enjoyment of men of stature and merit. The American underclass is unworthy of spite or pity. Rather they should occupy the minds of men of stature and merit in the same region one considers the moss growing under a rock. Like a midget in a tuxedo, the American underclass amuses with it's hilarious views of self import. Liberty is exclusively owned by wealthy men of stature and merit. But I hope by all means Americans continue to self aggrandize their plight as it entertains without end.

33. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    33   3:16pm Fri 2 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   leoj707 says Atlas, Did I really say Atlas? I meant Alas. Spell checking doesn't help when you type a valid, but incorrect word. Maybe it was a Randian slip.

34. Rew Follow Befriend 8 threads 143 comments San Jose, CA

    34   6:05pm Fri 2 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Dan8267 says Maybe it was a Randian slip. ;) I don't disagree that the US has had a history of past violence against unions and organize labor. Fortunately, the incidents were relatively small in scale and sporadic at best, over a 100 year time span near the turn of the century to modern times. If anything, the historical examples should actually be encouraging. Almost all instances of violence against the labor unions doomed the opposition to failure and increased rights of labor. A rifle is a horrible tool for dealing with protests. You can look at countless examples and the very recent history in Egypt for proof of what happens to a state when it starts to use rifles against its own people. The state and system in that form do not last long when they start attacking their own. Live fire is a desperate measure. This is why, since Kent State, the national guard are not issued loaded firearms for protest and riot duty. Again, I fundamentally disagree that any of the NDAA legislation is aimed at OWS. You can find the debates between the politicians on the language and intent online. It is all aimed at one thing : helping define what has been a murky set of rules of war in the ongoing engagements, domestic and abroad, the US is calling "the war on terror". Specifically, this legislation seeks to clearly put into law, that persons within the US, or abroad, who are not US citizens, and commit an act of war, can be turned over, and legally detained by the military under only the protections of the geneva convention and US military law. Nothing in the bill talks about apprehension, or putting nat guard or armed forces in a policing capacity. It is only to formalize rules of detention. Statistically, the number being thrown around, is up to 25% of persons of interest released from being held return to actively fight against US forces. I believe water-boarding is a failed interrogation tactic (equivalent to torture), and we are NOT going about much of the interrogation process well at all. We likely are creating opposition by our methods. I will say though, the US still remains one of the most just and fare in their treatment of prisoners, military or domestic, compared to most other nations. Finally, if you think the armed forces, constitutionally, cannot be used against US citizens, you are unfortunately, wholly mistaken. The Posse Comitatus act does not prevent that. It gives three broad exclusions where the armed forces can be used ... specifically dealing with the Insurrection act to put down rebellions, unrest, and attack from within. OWS is not an attack from within, it is a criticism from within, and criticism we cherish. If OWS decided to turn violent, well then, the government has the legal authority to return that force in kind. Likewise, the police are obligated to enforce the laws of the land. People who choose to be arrested, due to civil disobedience, and making a stand, usually do so in pretty calculated and careful ways. These motives and forethought tend to NOT make them persons of interest by the US armed forces ... and this is fundamentally why I believe the NDAA doesn't apply to them. They are not persons covered under either section b of 1031 or 1032.

35. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 760 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    35   9:13pm Fri 2 Dec 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   rewrew7 says You can find the debates between the politicians on the language and intent online. Maybe history has made me paranoid, but I never trust that the intent of a bill is what the politicians advocating it say.