COMMENTS:
Some people will deny this. They will not be able to fact up to the fact that in their blind devotion to a criminal, Bush, they allowed this to happen. Its real. Its true. They probably don't know that right now, the Bush administration is trying to list countless groups as subversive. Examples include enviromental groups and other activists. They also don't know that the Bush administration is seeking the power to declare striking workers as "subversive and a threat to national security." They also will be in denial about the fact that under the laws Bush as put in place, anyone deemed to be subversive or a threat to national security can be arrested WITHOUT benefit of Attorney and, they do not have to tell you what you are charged with and they do not have to show you the supposed evidence they have.
We warned you all along that this would happen.
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
It should be amusing to see how teh definition of "terrorism" generalizes and expands in the times ahead.
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
Are We witnessing the birth of a Dictatorship ? The rubber stampers has allowed Ms. Liberty's scales to be taken away...
...that beacon of light (U.S.A.) is getting dimmer...
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
Good comments.
by mojo on Tue Oct 10, 06 8:25am
[+]
Oh, shit. They know that I'm a registered Libertarian. 
Well, we don't know the purpose of these "camps", or even if they are "prison" camps. Another guess might be that these camps are contingencies to put Americans displaced by atomic detonations in our cities. I don't trust the government either, but I do think these camps might be more benign than you suggest. After Katrina, the government must have realized the need for such holding places.
^Then why are the locations undisclosed? Is it logical to create emergency facilities and then not tell people where they are?
^^ Sorry Margaret, these were planned long before Katrina. Now think about this : Bush also wants full and total control of the National Guard and he has spoken about the need to use the military against our own people. I present some points to consider, in no particular order.
- Katrina = perfect test to see how the Fed can crack down, using our military. Did the wait to act on purpose, so as to do this?
- Avian Flue = go back and read what Bush has said about the Flu
- Terrorist attacks
- Other natural disasters
Think abou those things in terms of setting up very convenient "reasons" to suspend our freedoms. Think about all the fear mongering going on. WE HAVE BECOME SHEEP! Ripe for the slaughter. BLAME THE NEOCONS!
I wonder whether they'll name then Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sachsenhausen, etc...
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
Are you trying to tell me that I need to speed up my Canadian citizenship application?
For anyone who doubts the existence of such an act, I have the PDF of it. Just PM me, and I'll send it to you.
Cathexis- there we go with the *idea-giving* again!
Beelz, be glad of that. You're guaranteed to get a better cell and better-quality food than I will as a Democrat...
In 1998, World Net Daily's Geoff Metcalf addressed such "classic right wing paranoia," trying not to sound paranoid himself. "For several years now I have been getting all sorts of wild reports about 'Government Internment Camps,' he wrote, before disclosing two reasons he began sensing substance behind the rumors: 1) The labor camp memo was authentic, he said and 2) A U.S. congressman substantiated such claims. "The truth is yes -- you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here ... whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism ... evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps," Rep. Henry Gonzalez said in an interview.
"Heck, we did it before (to Americans of Japanese descent), we could do it again," Metcalf mused.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, it seemed that yes, we could do it again. When the Boston Herald reported on the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act sent to each state, it sounded sensationally surreal. "Public health officials want to shut down roads and airports, herd people into sports stadiums and, if needed, quarantine entire cities in the event of a smallpox attack, according to a plan being forwarded to all 50 governors this week," the Herald reported in Nov. 2001. By the summer of 2002, Peter Kirsanow, a Bush appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said that a second terror attack would lead to internment camps for Arab-Americans while the Sydney Morning Herald reported that we "could see internment camps and martial law in the United States."
The biggest bombshell, however, came from Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose proposal to send US citizens to detention camps, without the benefit of trial, jury or other Constitutional protections, was dissected by the Los Angeles Times. "The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality," the Times reported in August, 2002. "The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government."
Padilla was held without charges for more than three years, and when charges were finally filed against him, the chilling "dirty bomb" allegations made by Ashcroft on national TV were not even mentioned. His attorneys have vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court -- which is expected to side with presidential decrees.
By the fall of 2005, news that the US could continue to "confine US citizens without charges," prompted conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan to dig up the following quote: "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist" -- Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943, describing what is now legal and constitutional in the United States, under president Bush."
Churchill, one supposes, did not include President Franklin Roosevelt in his condemnation, but when Ashcroft's plans for detention camps came to light, legal analysts began comparing the Bush administration's scheme to internment of Japanese Americans. "The main distinction is that Ashcroft's camps are smaller in scale. The difference in magnitude should not make the internment of U.S. citizens any more just or palatable," columnist Anita Ramasastry explained.
And as Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's Nightline:
"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . ."
What we do know, however, thanks to the Sydney Morning Herald's investigation into Reagan-era initiatives, alongside documents leaked to the Miami Herald in 1987, is that when Col. Oliver North helped draft contingency plans in the early 80s, one of the reasons cited for possible martial law and internment was "national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad" -- a scenario which would become more likely with additional wars and in the event of the return of the draft.
Last year, the Project for a New American Century, the think tank that famously advocated preemptive strikes and wars on multiple fronts, called upon Congress to "take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps." Such steps should be relatively easy, given that since PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was first published, states have been linking driver's license applications to selective service registration. According to the Selective Service System's Web site, "As of August 5, 2005, 35 states, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted driver's license laws supporting SSS registration."
With the military stretched to the breaking point, questions of conscription and subsequent draft-dodging are hardly far-fetched, but the very act of protesting, in and of itself, could become a federal offense. Though conservative columnist William Safire was one of the first to warn of Mr. Bush's "dictatorial powers," and editorials across the country have since voiced similar concerns, few are picking up on attempts to criminalize dissent -- an observation made by former White House counsel John Dean as early as Oct. 2001, who wrote that, thanks to the hastily passed Patriot Act, the "right to dissent" is in jeopardy, with protesters possibly considered "terrorists."
Read the last 3 paragraphs.
Americans are for the most part content. We have little civil unrest and don't experience opression by our government.
Now, lets say a faction of the government has grand plans to ensure American dominance in the world. They have plans that include military invasions of other countries. They know that at some point, the American people will not tolerate it. There will be civil unrest and violence. So how does a government handle that, when for all of our history, we have talked about freedom and Democracy. How does a government then go about silencing its people and surpressing any unrest?
Simple. If you pre-position events and scenarios and potential situations as posing a threat to the greater good of the nation, you can easily pre-condition the people for the crack down that is to come.
How? You use the fear of terrorism (some say you create the fear by creating the event). You creat panic by talking about evil foreign elements using WMD's against us, on our soil. You intentionally let the situation after a naturally occuring disaster get worse, so that the rest of the country sees it and says "oh no, never again can we have what happened after Katrina happen again." Convenient if you need to crack down on a civilian population, isn't it? Then you spread fear about a flu pandemic, or some other epidemic. All while you're doing this, you raise the fear level, then lower it, then raise it. Its terrorists one day, its a natural disaster the next, then its the threat of an epidemic, then its illegal aliens flooding across our borders.
So for a population so content and with its guard down, its bound to make them nervous and uneasy and they are bound to look to a leader. The leader? The President. What they fail to see though, is that all along, he and his "government" have been passing law after law that on the surface, looks like it is to protect us, but if people looked at it, its meant to actually opress us. How do they get away with it? Because some people bought their BS about all these threats and just allowed it to happen. Anyone who speaks up is just a "Liberal nut." One such law is that the President wants the power to use the National Guard at HIS will and does not want the State Governors to be able to prevent him taking the National Guard. Now why would he do that?
So, the plan unfolds and they move to executing it. Lets say its the invasion of Iran. Knowing the people are not going to tolerate it, voila! They have the answer : a terrorist incident occurs, or some "epidemic" happens or some event that allows them to crack down. Anyone protesting is easily marked as an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist sympathizer" or some made up crime and their arrest is coveniently explained away.
This isn't paranoia. This is PNAC. This is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and PNAC. This is the New American Century THEY want. Not the one we want.
But, like ignorant sheep, many just sit back and think "Hell yeah! lets kick some forign butt." All the while, all those laws passed in an era of fear that our own government created are adding up and will, without fail, come back to haunt you. You will be living in a Facist state. The wealthy won't. Bet on that. Didn't you know that? The wealthy are immune from such horrors.
Its time people woke up.
Read the article above at
buzzflash. com / farrell /06 / 02 / far 06003 . html
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
A terrible idea. It is not only 'unAmerican' it is also something undemoratic, clashes with Western values in general, is anti-modern, and is just plain immoral.
I don't know if your country is part of Western Civilisation anymore.
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
Well, he has just over a year to pull it off. Unless of course these dildos vote in another neo-con...correction, another neo-con arranges the election in his favor...(Remember Florida 2000).
Voted : No, prison camps for dissenting Americans is unamerican
I hope it's un-American, and that Americans will do something about it.
With this Bush has commited the most UnAmerican act of terrorism possible. He should set an example and take the first cell for himself.
I'd like to see someone try to argue that they're necessary to protect our freedom.
You guys argue about this shit as if Bush is going to be President for the next 20 years. 2008, people. Then maybe 50 million Americans will get their head out of their asses and stick with a Democrat so we can get fucked in the ass by both parties. America sucks cock. When I get my degree finally, I'm moving to Europe.
|
