what fantasy world do you live in where ther POTUS has complete and absolute control to do all those things?
So you are saying you don't really care that much about civil liberties except when you see it as being politically motivated?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxsCxtzJEdM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxsCxtzJEdM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Um, no. I am trying to see where you could infer that at all from anything I said, but I don't see it. All I mean is, I don't think the outrage over this document has anything to do with 'civil liberties' at all, but is rather a reaction against blatant partisan politics being jammed into a a document purportedly for use by local law enforcement agnecies, to help 'guide' them to watch the most dangerous sorts of people. But just to make sure there are no ambiguities: Of course I care about civil liberties, even when "it" (civil liberties? or what? the word is a bit of a non-sequitur in the sentence) is politically motivated. Or even when "it" is not politically motivated. Civil liberties are important for every citizen.
No, sorry. You stated that there was no data or evidence in the DHS document because 'there are probably too many right-wing groups with potential for violence that you couldn't single out a few or list them all in a report.' Yes, the dogged crusader guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center writes a lot about racism and such. And if those groups he mentions (all three of them) are legitimate threats, then the FBI should (and does) keep tabs on them, in order to protect the rest of us from their potential violence. However, there is a disconnect between the DHS document and your posting of Holthouse's editorial. The DHS document categorically states that it has ZERO EVIDENCE to support any of its innuendos. NONE. Not 'too many', not 926, not a whopping 4% increase, or anything else. It says there is nothing at all upon which they base their who's-who of bad guys against whom local law-enforcement agencies must maintain their vigil. Why does Napolitano not just go ahead and put in the same three groups in the DHS document that Holthouse selects for his? Could it be because NONE of the 'political motivations' listed in the DHS document exist in Holthouse's? Skinheads and nazis are dangerous fools, no doubt, but it would be a stretch to say that they are the way they are because of the economy, or their opposition to abortion, or their stance on illegal immigration. Holthouse also somehow neglects to mention any recently-returned veterans either. In a way, you just confirm my point: Holthouse easily shows a few legitimate threats, but the DHs document does not. Why? Why would the DHS doc go out of its way to name people with certain political opinions, and veterans, but completely ignore actual threats? That's the red flag there that shows this for the political stunt that it was. And as for your last comment, can you specifically name someone who has posted in this thread whom you believe would not be able to distinguish between a 'regular conservative republican' and a neo-nazi skinhead white-supremacist? Or maybe it's just that when you look at a regular conservative republican, all YOU can see is a neo-nazi skinhead white-supremacist?
Like I said I read the whole thing and it sounded like something the Bush admin would put out there and I am confident the Obama admin will quickly correct this garbage and protect the civil liberties of all citizens. it is nothing more than broad and dangerous profiling the government has serious technology for monitoring extreme and dangerous groups without sticking 'profiles' that are as broad and absurd as jew, black, pro life, returning veteran, right wing, left wing, illegal alien, or any other broad class of citizen in a report that influences the bias and stereotypes of law enforcement... it sets us up for future abuses. if you identify a dangerous and violent group then communicate the information to law enforcement, share intel, work to stop the danger but stop this game of painting broad classes of citizens as suspects. all human government holds a power that must be limited for a free people today we have made progress to obtain more freedoms for all citizens than any other time, careful how we portray dissent without dissent we are no longer free- be it from the so called left or so called right.
Funny thing is that the one group that would actually ACTIVELY work to secure the civil liberties of these Republicans who now feel threatened by an overbearing government and police who detain and question them for no legitimate reason is the same group they seemed to despise when the Bush administration was wiretapping US Citizens. There is a way to rectify this hypocrisy. Gentlemen to my right: If you are concerned that the government may try and create a police state to take away your rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, I urge you to join me as a member of an organization designed to defend those rights. "So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." - Our Founder, Roger Baldwin This Organization is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. These rights include: Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination. Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs. If these are important to you, why aren't you a member of the ACLU ?
Mulder; I myself am not right, left, or middle; I am not Relgious Right, or ACLU and politicians usually make me angry more than anything, but I love them all. They are all invited to church next Sunday. Come as you are.
So, again, where were you guys when all this stuff like the Patriot Act were happening for the last decade? Why weren't you protesting loudly on BBS boards when Muslims were being stereotyped and profiled? In an absolute void, I think I can see your point, but in context of the history of the last decade, I see your complaints as getting upset over a single sprinkle of rain on you when you are standing in the midst of a hurricane and your neighbor's houses are blowing down around you and people are drowning in the storm surge. But, Dammit! You just got some water on your suede jacket! Declare a national emergency! In general, however, police need to be aware that if some dude with 88 tattooed on his forehead and a pair of AK's over his shoulder is rolling a vat of ammonia fertilizer to the local NAACP office, he might warrant further investigation. In the same vein, if they see some dude with a long beard in robes shouting "Allu, Akbar" running at the local Hebrew Temple with some stuff strapped around him, it probably should be investigated - that some Muslims are upset at the United States and a very small subset of those might resort to violence. It doesn't claim that all conservatives are terrorists. Just that some terrorists are conservatives, and police need to understand that this threat potentially exists. They also need to understand that some black and Hispanic people are in gangs and sell drugs and shoot other gangs. By explaining that black and Hispanic gangs exist, it isn't racially profiling all blacks and Hispanics. A document alerting police to the potential for gang violence among inner-city blacks isn't a racial profile of all black people. A document to police warning them about the potential for Islamic fundamentalist violence isn't a hate document for all Muslims. These are no different from a document alerting police to the potential for radical conservative violence. I am confident in saying this. I have a hard time believing that you aren't being hypocritical, consciously or not, if you disagree with this. If you don't respond to anything else in this post, please tell me whether you disagree with these statements or not.
I dunno maybe influence his power over other branches of the govt. and/or use executive orders. It's hard to trust a president to defend the Constitution without attempting to repeal the patriot act.
Quoted for truth and appropriate brilliance of analogy. Please note, all, that this is not a "but but but Bush!" type of post. It is really about outrage that experienced a step function, for some mysterious reason, on January 20. I would also criticize those who remove their objective criticisms of the presidency b/c it is Obama instead of Bush.
Pretty funny how some of you born-again civil libertarians now sound a lot like what you were calling libpigs the last few years. "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Now bend over and spread 'em... SCOREBOARD
Personally, I have been adamantly against the Patriot Act from day 1, I protested loudly against the invasion of Iraq, and I am against stereotyping Muslims and any other group. This is a bad report and since it is the subject of the thread and I took time to read it- I believe this kind of thinking by Homeland Security is one reason it should be abolished as an agency. I cannot stand most of what G Bush did as president and I haven't been too encouraged at all by the first 60 days under Pres. Obama. I am pretty much resigned to pray for the leaders, with dissent. (every time I post like that I can't help feeling like it is going in a data base somewhere - i know nothing like a little paranoia to boost one's credibility )
Based on this, I'm not sure you will ever find an American politician to your liking. If memory serves me, you seem to lean towards libertarian thought. Which when pursued to real-world implementation becomes an unworkable joke.
Actually I don't give politics much thought, Ron Paul was my wife's Dr. for several years, he delivered one of my sons and helped my wife alot through 2 miscarriages, through that association he and I talked alot of politics and policy. I then worked with his son for 9 years and talked alot of politics and policy. Then got to know the family and etc...... Dr. Paul was libertarian at the time and probably still is, I never felt like I could vote libertarian because they can represent everything from pro abortion to leaglization of drugs. (though Paul is anti abortion) I am not for alot of legislation either to deal with those issues. I find solutions in the field so to speak, call me a community organizer. (edit)- and you are correct, I do not expect nor am I seeking a political party I would be comfortable with... I prefer my politicians brutally honest, local, strongly committed to individual liberty, protection of civil rights (for ALL), limited federal government, responsible, humble, not borrowers, demonstrating moral clarity and compassion.
Perhaps this is one of those radical right-wingers: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=166610
I don't think that your statement here is particularly fair. I fit the description you allude to , but I am not being watched or suspected of anything. I do not believe that any of the above rise to the level of necessitating a fight. The people in the report are so zealous about it that it (legitimately) scares people. There are believers in an ideology and then there are fanatics. It is the fanatics that are scary.
