The Terror of "Anti-Terrorism"

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Dont start giving me that PC ****. Sure, you can be a Quaker and be a terrorist, but the threats to American civilians are going to come, and would be percieved as coming, from MUSLIM terrorists. The whole point of this thread, I thought, was that the government is going to start violating peoples rights, like under Mcarthy, under the guise of war on terror. My example just proved how it wont be able to work today like it did then, mainly because the population knows and has information stating that the major threat to America IS muslim terrorists, and not people like Tom Cruise.

---

The HUAC hearings under McCarthy did not merely prosecute members of the Communist Party; it prosecuted almost anyone who openly criticized the government, especially about HUAC. Anyone of those defendants who weren't a party member were branded as sympathizers and marginalized.

quote:

---

You say that Tom Cruise is a bad example because you dont have to be muslim to be a terrorist. I say that due to the current ease of access to information by Americans, no one would believe Tom Cruise is a terrorist because of:

1. All of the info available about him saying he's not.

2. He's not muslim, and the terrorists that are threatening the US are majority muslim. Thus any sort of movement to arrest non-muslims would quickly be discounted as oppressive and ended.

---

If he was openly critical of the Bush administration's war platform, he could be branded as a sympathizer. Of course, it wouldn't happen today because things have calmed down a bit, but think back to the mass hysteria after 9/11. For the first couple of months, any public figure who linked the cause of the attacks to US foreign policy - or anything that the US did - ran the risk of demonization and marginalization (this was happening in Australia too).

I remember watching the interviews of celebrities on Leno and Conan in the first few weeks. What struck me about it was that they were all saying the exact same thing, and I mean exact: a verbatim recital of what the Bush administration was saying. His words became theirs.

[ 08-12-2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

The HUAC hearings under McCarthy did not merely prosecute members of the Communist Party; it prosecuted almost anyone who openly criticized the government, especially about HUAC. Anyone of those defendants who weren't a party member were branded as sympathizers and marginalized.

---

That's why i'd be virtually impossible today to do it. The HUAC hearings, if conducted today, would be criticized on their merit, and the people critizing would not be branded as sympathizers because the free flow of information would allow many more people to see that the hearings WERENT WORKING and were going after the wrong people.

quote:

---

For the first couple of months, any public figure who linked the cause of the attacks to US foreign policy - or anything that the US did - ran the risk of demonization and marginalization (this was happening in Australia too).

---

That's because those people are wrong, not to mention the same sort of marginalization will happen today.

quote:

---

I remember watching the interviews of celebrities on Leno and Conan in the first few weeks. What struck me about it was that they were all saying the exact same thing, and I mean exact: a verbatim recital of what the Bush administration was saying. His words became theirs.

---

That's because he was right.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

That's because he was right.

---

Whether he was right or not doesn't explain why those celebrities were talking like parrots instead of expressing their own opinions in their own words.

[Kevin Trotter]

I'm Baaack! and by the way isn't much easier to focus on the terrorist with the rag on his head?

I mean when we thought that the Taliban was behind the anthrax scare it was in the media forefront daily. Now that we are reasonably sure he (or she) is from the ruling class,probably a former employee at Dugway Proving ground or a similar military playground no one gives a sh#t

about it. Last I heard those anthrax victims were

still DEAD. I'm not a fool I know where the greatest threat lies and support any reasonable effort to root out terror , but let's admit there is a double standard. When McVeigh blew up that federal building(until 911 the worst terrorist act on american soil)there was no hew and cry for racial profiling , but the three times I've flown since 911 I have been "randomly" selected each time to be searched. A minor inconvenience since I have nothing to hide , but its no coincidence and I have vowed to not fly again for awhile.

Anyone who thinks that Bush or any american politician is above using 911 to further thier own agenda is simply fooling themselves. Anytime

I see someone saying that "we" have to give up our civil liberties and priviliges makes me nervous ,and most of the time the person saying it won't have to give up sh#t. The comparison to today and McCarthyism is frighteningly valid.

[Supreme Cmdr]

...u folks think this bad?

Well, I just saw on CNN that they're proposing finger printing international visitors to the US.

I, for one, think this whole thing is getting way out of hand. Taking steps in the name of security is one thing. Using 911 as an excuse to trample on the civil liberties of citizens is quite another.

I'm all for security, but the more I hear about whats going on, the scarier it gets.

[CommanderJohnson]

The ease at which privacy/rights violating legislation gets passed through Congress is extremely frigtening. I do believe it is reasonable to search Middle Eastern foreigners, and on fingerprinting international visitors (hey, they aren't US citizens, don't have the right to the protection anyway), but I don't believe in taking rights away from American citizens unless it is a dangerous and immediate threat to the lives of Americans, and those rights should be given back immediately.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

...I don't believe in taking rights away from American citizens unless it is a dangerous and immediate threat to the lives of Americans, and those rights should be given back immediately.

---

Be afraid, be very afraid. Since the Reagan administration, all it takes for those liberties to disappear is for the President to declare a national emergency, and the President is not required to justify the declaration, so it can be done at any time for any reason. Such a declaration would suspend the constitution indefinitely, and grant control of just about everything to the federal government.

What's worse is that there is no procedure for declaring the end of a national emergency, or for the restoration of the constitution, so the USA is only two words away from becoming a permanently full-blown police state.

[Kevin Trotter]

Isnt Homeland Security the name the South African bully squads used in aparthied? That name gives me the creeps! Makes me think I should be practicing the goose step.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

quote:

---

...I don't believe in taking rights away from American citizens unless it is a dangerous and immediate threat to the lives of Americans, and those rights should be given back immediately.

---

Be afraid, be very afraid. Since the Reagan administration, all it takes for those liberties to disappear is for the President to declare a national emergency, and the President is not required to justify the declaration, so it can be done at any time for any reason. Such a declaration would suspend the constitution indefinitely, and grant control of just about everything to the federal government.

What's worse is that there is no procedure for declaring the end of a national emergency, or for the restoration of the constitution, so the USA is only two words away from becoming a permanently full-blown police state.

---

The lucky thing for us is that the people who make up the military and the government are citizens, and are highly unlikely to allow the constitution to be scrapped for any meaningful length of time (not to mention that the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS really stops that threat)

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The lucky thing for us is that the people who make up the military and the government are citizens, and are highly unlikely to allow the constitution to be scrapped for any meaningful length of time

---

Why?

quote:

---

not to mention that the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS really stops that threat

---

No, it doesn't. The military has the tanks, the aircraft, the ships, and years of training, not to mention the chemical and biological weapons. A civilian armed conflict with such forces would be suicidal.

[Guest]

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. The military has the tanks, the aircraft, the ships, and years of training, not to mention the chemical and biological weapons. A civilian armed conflict with such forces would be suicidal.

---

You know, I hear this so often that it ridiculous. It is a Red Herring. First of all, US citizens do not have to worry about the military, the REAL military. National Guard, maybe, but not the real military.

Each and every member of the armed forces is required to take an oath to the constitution of the United States. They are also required NOT to obey an ILLEGAL order. We also have what is called the Posse commitus act, which allowed the US military to be created in the first place. It states that the US military CANNOT be used on US soil against US citizens.

If the Federal government ever decided to write off the constitution, we, the citizens would not only be able to overthrow that government, but the military would help us do it!!

You still do not understand how this country works, and it is obvious by the above silly statement.

Our weapons are Important, not because they give us a chance against the military, but because it gives us a chance against the politicians themselves and any police force etc that they might have protecting them. A few thousand police, will NOT stop 1 million heavily armed citizens, nor would it stop the military backing that we would receive.

Our weapons are also important for our own security, the government in this country cannot be held liable for a persons safety. Only the citizens themselves are responsible for our safety. The police are ther to enforce the law and bring justice to those who have already broken that law. It is an individuals right and responsibility to protect themselves against criminals that wish to break that law. The police will take care of it After the law has been broken, it is the citizens duty to stop it before or while it is occurring.

How do you do that? By keeping and bearing arms, just as I am doing now.

I am a citizen, I take FULL responsibility for my safety.

By allowing the government to do that for you, what does that make you? A subject....

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Each and every member of the armed forces is required to take an oath to the constitution of the United States. They are also required NOT to obey an ILLEGAL order. We also have what is called the Posse commitus act, which allowed the US military to be created in the first place. It states that the US military CANNOT be used on US soil against US citizens.

If the Federal government ever decided to write off the constitution, we, the citizens would not only be able to overthrow that government, but the military would help us do it!!

---

If the military is always going to be on your side, then the argument for bearing arms to keep the government accountable is pointless, because the government can't survive if the military is against it.

quote:

---

Our weapons are Important, not because they give us a chance against the military, but because it gives us a chance against the politicians themselves and any police force etc that they might have protecting them. A few thousand police, will NOT stop 1 million heavily armed citizens, nor would it stop the military backing that we would receive.

---

The local police and National Guard units are more likely to be on your side than the military, because they live in closer proximity to the people, hence they have a better understanding of the community. That's why, whenever there is a riot or some mass demonstration, the government calls in National Guard units from other states.

Another example of this tactic was during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The local police and Red Army units refused to intervene in the mass demonstrations, so the government had to call in Red Army units from the countryside.

quote:

---

Our weapons are also important for our own security, the government in this country cannot be held liable for a persons safety. Only the citizens themselves are responsible for our safety. The police are ther to enforce the law and bring justice to those who have already broken that law. It is an individuals right and responsibility to protect themselves against criminals that wish to break that law. The police will take care of it After the law has been broken, it is the citizens duty to stop it before or while it is occurring.

---

That's a different argument altogether. I'm not debating about gun control. I'm simply pointing out that the argument that an armed citizenry keeps the government accountable is false. Direct action and civil disobedience has done far more good for the people in recent history than armed conflict.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

quote:

---

Our weapons are Important, not because they give us a chance against the military, but because it gives us a chance against the politicians themselves and any police force etc that they might have protecting them. A few thousand police, will NOT stop 1 million heavily armed citizens, nor would it stop the military backing that we would receive.

---

The local police and National Guard units are more likely to be on your side than the military, because they live in closer proximity to the people, hence they have a better understanding of the community. That's why, whenever there is a riot or some mass demonstration, the government calls in National Guard units from other states.

Another example of this tactic was during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The local police and Red Army units refused to intervene in the mass demonstrations, so the government had to call in Red Army units from the countryside.

---

Note that the Massacre resulted in just that, a MASSACRE. If all of the citizens were armed, the outcome may have been vastly different, and the democratic movement may have gained more power than it did, even IF the protesters were massacred. Sure, the National Guard might support the citizens if the government goes off the deep end, but so would the military (since it is a volunteer army made up of citizens, they would never start KILLING US CIVILIANS because of "orders", it just wouldn't happen). Regardless, it is still better if the protestors had 500,000 people with guns + the national guard as opposed to no one with guns + the national guard. In revolutions and wars that are employing oppressive forces with weapons, it all comes down to numbers, and when one side is using weapons and the other side isn't, the revolution stands no chance.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Note that the Massacre resulted in just that, a MASSACRE. If all of the citizens were armed, the outcome may have been vastly different, and the democratic movement may have gained more power than it did, even IF the protesters were massacred.

---

If all of the citizens were armed, the military would have sent in more hardware. The entire square would have turned into a war zone, and the massacre would have been far worse.

The age of redcoats with muskets has passed. Government forces (assuming that they stay with the government) have massive technical advantages that can bring any armed citizenry to its knees. You got your pistols, they got their tanks; you got your rifles, they got their choppers; you got your Molotov cocktails, they got their nerve gas; you got the numbers, they got the nukes. It's a no-win situation.

quote:

---

Sure, the National Guard might support the citizens if the government goes off the deep end, but so would the military (since it is a volunteer army made up of citizens, they would never start KILLING US CIVILIANS because of "orders", it just wouldn't happen). Regardless, it is still better if the protestors had 500,000 people with guns + the national guard as opposed to no one with guns + the national guard. In revolutions and wars that are employing oppressive forces with weapons, it all comes down to numbers, and when one side is using weapons and the other side isn't, the revolution stands no chance.

---

Without the National Guard, local police, or the military, the government has nothing, so the point is moot.

This was demonstrated by the fall of the Marcos regime in the Phillipines. The people were unarmed, yet Marcos fled, because the army turned against him.

[Wody]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Each and every member of the armed forces is required to take an oath to the constitution of the United States.

---

Unfortunatly, there is no constitution in the US, The patriot act thing that was passed after 9/11, is so that the president can declare a national emergency without explaining what this emergency is, which suspends any human rights and the constitution, for an indefinate period of time. So all the US is right now, is two words away from a dictatorship.

Greetings,

Wouter Dijkslag

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wody:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Each and every member of the armed forces is required to take an oath to the constitution of the United States.

---

Unfortunatly, there is no constitution in the US, The patriot act thing that was passed after 9/11, is so that the president can declare a national emergency without explaining what this emergency is, which suspends any human rights and the constitution, for an indefinate period of time. So all the US is right now, is two words away from a dictatorship.

Greetings,

Wouter Dijkslag

---

Yeah, and lets see how many people in the military start taking and following orders to occupy US cities because of the Patriot Act.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Unfortunatly, there is no constitution in the US, The patriot act thing that was passed after 9/11, is so that the president can declare a national emergency without explaining what this emergency is, which suspends any human rights and the constitution, for an indefinate period of time. So all the US is right now, is two words away from a dictatorship

---

And another expert on the US constitution speaks out.

Sorry, but you don't live here, you have not studied that constitution as I have.

Fact of the matter is, it won't happen, it can't happen. NOT in this country. The first person that tried to openly take over this country, would be overthrown so fast it would make their heads spin.

The constitution is still around, it is ignored far too often and unconstitutional laws seem to be congress pasttime lately.

The patriot act is indeed one of these unconstitutional laws, but the fact of the matter is, it would NEVER survive a court challenge, and it won't. The first time that they try to use this law against an American citizen is the last time it will be used. It will LOSE, because of the very fact that it is unconstitutional.

Fact is, we have enough fools in this country willing to give up their liberty for a little bit of security that it actually makes them feel good, even though it means NOTHING!!

The patriot act was passed so that those little sheeple would feel that the feds are doing something to protect them. When in fact the federal government is NOT the answer and never was. But it sure made them feel safer, and that's all that matters. FEELINGS, nothing more then FEELINGS!!!

The constitution is still around, it is just waiting in the background, and when the time comes, it will be enforced. Count on it!!