Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How many people outside Germany would know about it?
Probably not many I would guess except for European history geeks like me.
I forget who said this regarding Schleswig-Holstein and hope I got it right: Only three people understood the origins of the conflict. One forgot what it was. One went mad. And one is dead.
I think it was Gordon Craig who said that.
If what we know so far or even most of it is accurate, then there are plenty of grounds to revoke his citizenship and then torture away. I am not averse to torture as you all know. I just have a problem if they don't strip him of his citizenship and then try to weasel their way out of it. It is quite possible to strip a naturalized citizen of their citizenship. I find it hard to believe that if he was naturalized last September that he was not in the planning stages of this attack then with his brother, which would be grounds for revocation right there. There is no need for tap-dancing here and that is what both the Administration and their RINO fellow-travelers are proposing. I am starting to think there might be some substance to some of Donnie's conspiracies after all.As to jettisoning all the PC garbage about who the threat is, I am with you 100%. We know who the threat is, we have just hamstrung our law-enforcement so that they cannot pursue likely targets. We have in effect, trained law enforcement personnel to see everyone as a threat even when we know they are not. It is time and past time that we the people stand up and demand that our government gets realistic.
Because Tea Partiers don't blow up people at marathons. Anything the SPLC has to say doesn't stand a chance in any court. I dislike the ACLU, but they will be the first ones to defend this "hate group" garbage.
Because the ACLU has done such a stellar job of that so far? Just review the SPLC's case docket and compare it the ACLU's Key Issues list and tell me how they materially differ. If you think the ACLU is going to back you up when the libs decide that conservatives don't deserve their rights then you need to study a little more. This is not about protecting a terrorist, it is about protecting all of us. I think our liberties have been infringed enough by the Patriot ACt without letting them slip this bit of nonsense into the mix. It is not coddling a terrorist it is about his rights and ours as a citizen, terrorist or not.You still have not answered my question: If it is OK to deprive a citizen of their rights in this instance, what is to stop any citizen from being deprived of their rights in the interests of National Security?I think I am one of the last people you can accuse of being soft on terrorists, I have sent my fair share to Allah personally. I believe my patriotism or sense of duty has been amply demonstrated. I just don't want to see the rights that I and my fellow veterans pledged our lives to defend be thrown away by the very government we put our lives on the line for.
Of course I admit my opinions may be biased because we ar at war with Islam and I view this bombing as an act of war. And any Muslim, US citizen or not, who commits an act of terrorism (war) on our country doesn't deserve any Constitutional rights.
The problem is if they can do it to Muslims what then stops the decision from being made that say, Tea Party supporters, are also not deserving of their rights and liberties? It seems far-fetched now but it may not in a few years time. The SPLC would certainly agree that anybody who does not fall in line with lib-prog views is subversive and probably a threat to the state and they are at the forefront of Liberal thought.I don't disagree with you that we are at war with Islam. I just don;t think we need to tear up what is left of the Constitution in a quest for security, ole Ben Franklin had it right: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Oh yes, there is talk of it: This by John McCain, Peter King, and Lindsay Graham is what I am talking about. They are proposing to deny him the rights of a citizen before he even regains consciousness. This is of a part with the talk about a “public safety” exception to the Miranda requirements. I take especial umbrage at the idea that a US citizen captured on US soil can be stripped of his citizenship and declared an enemy combatant. If I am the only one who has a problem with this then the world has suddenly become a very lonely place indeed. If they can take his rights why can't they take yours and are they then even rights to begin with?
Does anybody else but me find the idea of stripping this guy of his Constitutional rights disturbing?That two supposed Republicans are championing it just makes it worse in my eyes.
I was listening to Ed Schultz this morning on the way to work (it is all I get on AFN) and he had Bennie Thompson (D) Mississippi, the ranking democrat on the committe on the air. They first talked about the manhunt and then the congresscritter started talking about how we may need to look at what methods, if any, people's liberties need to be modified in response to this attack. What really got me was Thompson started saying that we needed to use the list put together by the Southern Poverty Law Center to target hate groups for special attention. This despite the fact that we now know the brothers were/are Islamists. I see a massive amount of using tragedy as opportunity coming out of this, much like they tried to do with Newtown and gun control. I also heard some discussion later on the news that there is apparently some method whereby a Citizen’s 5th Amendment rights can be revoked. I was not aware of this, has anyone else heard this?[font=verdana, sans-serif]I was also especially sickened by Obama’s statement where the hand-wringing about why they hate us is already starting. This bombing and the aftermath are already starting to be politicized.[/font]
Well, they caught the second kid. The Dailymail is reporting that they may have harbored Islamist beliefs so is the Washington Times. Given their religion and ethnicity I find it difficult to believe that Islamist sentiment is not part of their motivation for the bombings.How much you want to bet this kid gets charged as a common criminal and any Islamist sentiment is downplayed or ignored in his prosecution?
I don't think we are being told the whole story. Why on God's green earth would you lock down a major U.S. city for one 19 year old kid? It doesn't make sense to me.
Absent a declaration of Martial Law I don't believe they can "lock down" a village, much less a city. How compliant have people become if they think the police have the authority to forbid movement across such a wide area?
Every school in America should have a history teacher like this guy. You are right that the reaction from the girl shows that her teacher got her to really understand why history is important.
If I look at photos of a SWAT team I generally giggle. If we had stacked on a door like they usually show SWAT teams doing on the news I would be dead many times over.
CNN is reporting that one suspect has now been killed in a shootout and the other they are still looking for. Apparently they are both Chechen's. Isn't the Chechen insurgency an Islamic insurgency against Russian rule? I seem to remember that but since it is Russia I have not paid much attention to the conflict.
BTW, went to Boston yesterday afternoon. The Charles River was crowded with rowers...kids, colleges, adults. If the terrorists' goal was to instill fear in Bostonians, they failed.
And that is a good thing, it means that terrorism has failed in its goal of instilling terror.
