Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens (...)

[squealpiggy]

Maybe they're planning on filling up those FEMA "Detention Centers" they have in almost every state. People cite tinfoil hat status when they're brought up but the government wouldn't spend several million dollars per facility building what are essentially super max prisons without the intention of using them.

That really is tin foil hat territory.

[Darkstar]

You simply cant go wrong following the constitution. Its takes a special kind of person with a weird motivation to think they are above it. It seems to be getting in the way more lately, then being appreciated. Which im sure is not in the best interest of America.

[arraamis]

You simply cant go wrong following the constitution. Its takes a special kind of person with a weird motivation to think they are above it. It seems to be getting in the way more lately, then being appreciated. Which im sure is not in the best interest of America.

With the introduction of the endless war {War on Terror} and the newly devised tools necessary to wage such a war -- The constitution will ultimately become more and more inconvenient and irrelevant, mainly because it is a rigid document. No government can wage a war on terror with moral and constitutional restrictions in place. They must be free to alter and change the rules to accommodate the situation. But with every alteration, amendment and modification of the constitution, comes very severe consequences to the very citizens, who was to have received protection via the constitution.


The following, compliments of: humanrightsdefence.org


Civil liberties

Governments try to defend their countries against terrorist attacks by limiting civil liberties in their territories.

* The right to privacy has been limited: CCTV has become ubiquitous, DNA databases have been created, eavesdropping and wiretapping have been legalized etc.
* “No-fly-lists” have come into force, limiting the freedom of movement of even those who have written critically of the government or attended peace-protests.
* Hate speech laws have been voted to silence jihadist hate preachers, silencing others at the same time.
* “Racial profiling” by the police has turned innocent people into possible suspects, often inversing the burden of proof.
* Habeas corpus has been limited, periods of detention without charge extended, sometimes indefinitely (for “enemy combatants”).


Mentalities

The war on terror has also changed people’s minds and attitudes.

* The media have started to censor themselves. Solidarity with the government at war and the commander-in-chief, or the fear of being perceived as unpatriotic, appeasers, “useful idiots” or even open allies of the enemy has turned them into uncritical supporters of the war.
* Citizens have turned on Islam and Muslims. Xenophobia and more specifically islamophobia have undermined the ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism, and have in certain cases even led to hate crimes against Muslims.
* A ”culture of fear” has been created by the terrorist but also nurtured by irresponsible western politicians. This fear has damaged democracy. Not only have the media relinquished their traditional role as watchdogs. Politicians as well, and especially incumbents, have abused the fear of terrorism to harness support. Alert levels seem to go up just before elections.


Preemptive war

The US government has elaborated and implemented the strategy of preemptive war

A war waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war.

Misnomer

There is something fishy about the concept of a “war on terrorism”. This “war” is in fact no such thing. It is in essence crime prevention and law enforcement. There is no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy. For this reason, there is no conceivable end to the war. And if you claim to wage a war on terrorism, you might as well claim to wage a war on carpet bombing. Both are tactics or strategies, not something you wage war against.

If you insist on calling anti-terrorist actions a war, then you give too much credit to the riffraff you’re opposing. Rather than deranged criminals they can call themselves soldiers. And soldiers defend something. You legitimize them. You turn a crime into a two-sided struggle in which each side defends its positions. This in turn leads to the view that the war on terror is a war of the West against the rest, bringing back images of colonialism, imperialism and the crusades, again legitimizing the terrorists, helping to consolidate their often internally opposed forces, and making them honorable in the eyes of ordinary citizens outside of the West.

[dj Calleti]

Ma boy put "Uncle Tom" originally.

[Darkstar]

With the introduction of the endless war {War on Terror} and the newly devised tools necessary to wage such a war -- The constitution will ultimately become more and more inconvenient and irrelevant, mainly because it is a rigid document. No government can wage a war on terror with moral and constitutional restrictions in place. They must be free to alter and change the rules to accommodate the situation. But with every alteration, amendment and modification of the constitution, comes very severe consequences to the very citizens, who was to have received protection via the constitution.


The following, compliments of: humanrightsdefence.org


Civil liberties

Governments try to defend their countries against terrorist attacks by limiting civil liberties in their territories.

* The right to privacy has been limited: CCTV has become ubiquitous, DNA databases have been created, eavesdropping and wiretapping have been legalized etc.
* “No-fly-lists” have come into force, limiting the freedom of movement of even those who have written critically of the government or attended peace-protests.
* Hate speech laws have been voted to silence jihadist hate preachers, silencing others at the same time.
* “Racial profiling” by the police has turned innocent people into possible suspects, often inversing the burden of proof.
* Habeas corpus has been limited, periods of detention without charge extended, sometimes indefinitely (for “enemy combatants”).


Mentalities

The war on terror has also changed people’s minds and attitudes.

* The media have started to censor themselves. Solidarity with the government at war and the commander-in-chief, or the fear of being perceived as unpatriotic, appeasers, “useful idiots” or even open allies of the enemy has turned them into uncritical supporters of the war.
* Citizens have turned on Islam and Muslims. Xenophobia and more specifically islamophobia have undermined the ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism, and have in certain cases even led to hate crimes against Muslims.
* A ”culture of fear” has been created by the terrorist but also nurtured by irresponsible western politicians. This fear has damaged democracy. Not only have the media relinquished their traditional role as watchdogs. Politicians as well, and especially incumbents, have abused the fear of terrorism to harness support. Alert levels seem to go up just before elections.


Preemptive war

The US government has elaborated and implemented the strategy of preemptive war

A war waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war.

Misnomer

There is something fishy about the concept of a “war on terrorism”. This “war” is in fact no such thing. It is in essence crime prevention and law enforcement. There is no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy. For this reason, there is no conceivable end to the war. And if you claim to wage a war on terrorism, you might as well claim to wage a war on carpet bombing. Both are tactics or strategies, not something you wage war against.

If you insist on calling anti-terrorist actions a war, then you give too much credit to the riffraff you’re opposing. Rather than deranged criminals they can call themselves soldiers. And soldiers defend something. You legitimize them. You turn a crime into a two-sided struggle in which each side defends its positions. This in turn leads to the view that the war on terror is a war of the West against the rest, bringing back images of colonialism, imperialism and the crusades, again legitimizing the terrorists, helping to consolidate their often internally opposed forces, and making them honorable in the eyes of ordinary citizens outside of the West.

I agree, with all that. In a more simple straight forward speech, Paul summed it up easily.

“If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay,” Rand said in the video. “This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.”

“There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state — our Constitution, and the checks we put on government power,” he continued. “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.”

“Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s ‘permanent’ Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.”


This shouldnt even had been a issue, really is that ridiculous.

"Carl Levin" sponsored bill.
Btw this atrocity passed, the senate. Here to stay now, another piece of the puzzle in place.