Do Not Pass Go, Get Declared a Domestic Terrorist, Get Sent to Gov't Run Camp

[roo_ster]

One thing I learned from the human popsicle stick Ann Coulter was that if you want to know what the progressives want to do to you, listen to their lies as they falsely accuse their opponents of heinous, fascistic acts.

As Glenn Reynolds writes, "They warned me that if I voted for McCain the gov't would round up dissidents and put them into camps."  And they were right!


http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Political+opposition+is+not+a+hate+crime+|+Washington+Examiner&expire=&urlID=406474927&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2FPolitical-opposition-is-not-a-hate-crime-7949121-50392297.html&partnerID=370819


What's wrong with this picture? The federal government spends billions on homeland security, but apparently can't stop foreigners from illegally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. The Obama administration wants to bring violent terrorists captured overseas to the mainland and close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Yet in the latest bizarre twist, legislation quietly making its way through Congress would give the White House power to categorize political opponents as hate groups and even send Americans to detention centers on abandoned military bases.

Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states' rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: "This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'"

Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up "not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations" capable of housing "a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster." But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps "to meet other appropriate needs" - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.

It's not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a "domestic terrorist" and send them to a government-run camp. After all, the federal government has done exactly this sort of thing before. During World War II, more than 120,000 law-abiding Japanese Americans were rounded up by the government and confined for four years in ten internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. Joy Kogawa chronicled the trauma her family experienced firsthand under FDR's executive order: "Families were made to move in two hours. Abandoned everything, leaving pets and possessions at gun point..."

It was wrong then, and it would be doubly wrong now should members of Congress somehow fail to learn from past mistakes.

[MicroBalrog]

And now remember that Obama claims it's okay to hold "terrorist suspects" even after they've been ruled not guilty.

[MechAg94]

That has been around a little while.  Did it suddenly gain legitimacy? 

[Gewehr98]

I'm curious about the real status of aforementioned proposed legislation, too.

It probably has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on it.

[RocketMan]

Worrisome if true.  As Gewehr says, it's worth watching, just in case.

[roo_ster]

Alcee Hastings is not exactly a revered member of Congress, but he is a powerful member of the Congressional Black Caucus.  I see the most likely way he gets this passed is if he is willing to toss some racialist mojo on the table to make it happen.

As G98 wrote, best to keep one's eyes on liberty-destroying legislation.  Problem is, I have run outta eyes this session of Congress.

[seeker_two]

That has been around a little while.  Did it suddenly gain legitimacy? 

When a far-left liberal facist was elected POTUS and given a freedom-hating Congress.....right now, nothing is beyond belief.... 

[De Selby]

This is impossible.  No one would have tried to use Guantanamo-style arrest and detention powers against citizens....it's only terrorists who get that treatment, remember?

[Waitone]

Particularly troubling when you factor in fed.gov's experimentation with definitions over the last few months.

[geekWithA.45]

I read the bill through once, and did not find anything of the sort of amendment mentioned here. Citation?

[taurusowner]

This is impossible.  No one would have tried to use Guantanamo-style arrest and detention powers against citizens....it's only terrorists who get that treatment, remember?

Care to comment on the issue at hand instead of rehashing political jabs at the last administration?  OK we get it:  President Bush made some bad moves.  He's also not President anymore and is thus irrelevant.

What do you have to say about your leftist President and Congress now?

[Stand_watie]

....

What do you have to say about your leftist President and Congress now?

       Bush is baad, hmkAY?

[De Selby]

Care to comment on the issue at hand instead of rehashing political jabs at the last administration?  OK we get it:  President Bush made some bad moves.  He's also not President anymore and is thus irrelevant.

What do you have to say about your leftist President and Congress now?

First off, I'm not a leftist, and if you look at my comments, I've never had anything good to say about Obama.  The closest thing to a compliment would be my view that he's a good campaigner.

The issue at hand is that all the while Guantanamo detention was happening, libertarians and others (including leftists) were harping that this was a power the government would abuse, and that it would eventually be turned on our own citizens.

The fact is, this Bill is just a recognition of existing doctrine.  The very same law you're all complaining about here would authorise no more than what already happened to Jose Padilla, a US citizen. 

If you love GW or hate him isn't the issue: the point all along was that these powers are granted to an institution, and even if angels run it today who would do no wrong, you don't know who will run it tomorrow.  That's why you don't give institutions unlimited powers of detention.

[taurusowner]

You're not answering the question.  Each bill Congress passes is new law.  Meaning that this bill in this particular session of Congress is not tied in any way to the previous Congress or President.  Regardless of how bad you may think the Bush Presidency and accompanying Congress was; what do you have to say about the new law THIS congress is attempting to pass?  You're going to have to come to the realization that "well he did it too" is very poor excuse for anything.  I ask again: what do you have to say about THIS Congress and the laws THIS Congress is trying to pass? 

If the mayor of your town was caught embezzling $5,000,000, would you be mad?  Now if I ran for mayor of your town on the "I'm going to stop corruption" platform, and was then caught embezzling $10,000,000; would you accept "well the old mayor did it too" as my response?

Can you not see that the entire Democrat platform ran on the "we are the opposite of Bush and his cronies" platform?  How can you not focus any of your anger towards them when they not only are exactly like Bush, but surpass him in many ways that infringe on liberty?

The year is 2009.  George Walker Bush is not the President.  Barrack Hussein Obama is the President.  Do you have anything to say about THIS administration and Congress?  So you opposed BUsh and his Congress while they were in session.  Good for you.  Now let's move on to this President and Congress shall we?

[MicroBalrog]

You're going to have to come to the realization that "well he did it too" is very poor excuse for anything.

Shootinstudent wasn't trying to excuse the actions of the current Congress and Administration, and you know that quite well.

[taurusowner]

I'm waiting for a post from shootinstudent that is critical of Obama and this Congress that does not mention the old President and old Congress.  I think I'll be waiting for a while.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm waiting for a post from shootinstudent that is critical of Obama and this Congress that does not mention the old President and old Congress.  I think I'll be waiting for a while.

Why should it not mention them?

[taurusowner]

How about...Bush is a private citizen living on his ranch and has nothing to do with the tyrannical laws being attempted now??

Because this Congress and this President could if they desired, reverse just about any law the old President and Congress passed.  They've got the votes.  They choose not only to keep them, but to expand them.  I want shootinstudent to comment on that.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The fact is, this Bill is just a recognition of existing doctrine.  The very same law you're all complaining about here would authorise no more than what already happened to Jose Padilla, a US citizen. 

And of course Jose Padilla was no different than you or me.  It was sheer random coincidence that he ended up in prison.  Or maybe it was because of Padilla's stance of State's Rights that put him at odds with the CIA?

 

You cannot honestly say that Bush did anything even remotely similar to locking up thousands of domestic political adversaries for no reason other than their political views, as this law would seemingly allow. 

It is beyond dumb to try to compare guys like Jose Padilla or Khalid Mohammed with the innocent Average Joe type Americans this law would target.

[MicroBalrog]

Because this Congress and this President could if they desired, reverse just about any law the old President and Congress passed.  They've got the votes.  They choose not only to keep them, but to expand them.  I want shootinstudent to comment on that.

And the previous Congress created the precedent that is now being expanded upon.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And the previous Congress created the precedent that is now being expanded upon.

There is no precedent in America for what this law proposes.  The internment of Japanese in WWII looks sorta kinda similar if you squint, but even that isn't nearly the same.

[De Selby]

The authority that was asserted to detain Jose Padilla is no different than what's in this Bill.  It doesn't matter if you think he was more suspicious; thinking that one type of terrorist is more suspicious than another isn't a restraint on government action.  That is exactly the point: you're sitting here saying "but but we should only be able to do this to islamic terrorists", when even the most polly-annish supporter of this policy could easily see that the next government would be able to redefine terrorist and assert the same power.

Ragnar, the reason the old administration has to be mentioned is that this Bill, not yet enacted, doesn't seem to change anything from what it asserted.  If you're upset about this, why weren't you upset when it happened before?

Partisanship and unsympathy towards whole classes of people leads to bad policy.  This has been true throughout history - state discrimination against one religion turns on all religion, state discrimination against communists eventually puts everyone at risk, and unlimited detention of one brand of "terrorist" (not required to be proven under existing policy) makes every person who could possibly be labeled a "terrorist" (no right to contest it if it happens to you) at risk.

[Antibubba]

You cannot honestly say that Bush did anything even remotely similar to locking up thousands of domestic political adversaries for no reason other than their political views, as this law would seemingly allow.

It is beyond dumb to try to compare guys like Jose Padilla or Khalid Mohammed with the innocent Average Joe type Americans this law would target.

First, this is just a bill.  A lot of bills are written that never get out of committee, let alone passed, so it's fair to say that Obama also hasn't done anything like this either.

Second, this law would probably target Randy Weaver, and those like him, in the beginning.  And while none of what I believe would be endorsed by him he still had every right to believe it, and was certainly within his rights to try to withdraw from society.  There are a lot of us who for various reasons and to greater or lesser degrees are attempting to do do similar things.

Still, I have to wonder if these detention centers will be in his district--jobs, you know.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The authority that was asserted to detain Jose Padilla is no different than what's in this Bill.  It doesn't matter if you think he was more suspicious; thinking that one type of terrorist is more suspicious than another isn't a restraint on government action.  That is exactly the point: you're sitting here saying "but but we should only be able to do this to islamic terrorists", when even the most polly-annish supporter of this policy could easily see that the next government would be able to redefine terrorist and assert the same power.

Ragnar, the reason the old administration has to be mentioned is that this Bill, not yet enacted, doesn't seem to change anything from what it asserted.  If you're upset about this, why weren't you upset when it happened before?

Partisanship and unsympathy towards whole classes of people leads to bad policy.  This has been true throughout history - state discrimination against one religion turns on all religion, state discrimination against communists eventually puts everyone at risk, and unlimited detention of one brand of "terrorist" (not required to be proven under existing policy) makes every person who could possibly be labeled a "terrorist" (no right to contest it if it happens to you) at risk.

That's faulty logic.  The existence of precedent for one action does not mean there exists precedent for every single different action a politician might dream up.

The precedent set by the previous administration was that men who wage war against American civilians would be held by the military.  (A good thing, generally.)  There was no precedent whatsoever for the detention of innocent Americans who oppose abortion, or who support states' rights, or anything else of the sort.

Any action by the current administration or congress to detain Americans who own guns, Americans who oppose abortion, or Americans who wear purple hats on Fridays, basically any action other than detaining real terrorists engaged in war on the US will be without precedent.  Their actions will be their responsibility and theirs alone.  If they choose to wrongly treat honest Americans as terrorists, no matter how they try to rationalize it or excuse it, then that is on their consciences.  The previous administration did absolutely nothing like that (and even if they did, it still wouldn't excuse the current perpetrators).

Your claim that holding Padilla is no different than a hypothetical attempt to hold Obama's political adversaries implies that you think here is no difference between a man who tried to set off a dirty bomb in the US and folks like us here at APS.  That's incredibly foolish.  Deliberately foolish, I would think.  It's also quite insulting.

[MicroBalrog]

basically any action other than detaining real terrorists engaged in war on the US will be without precedent.

Casio F91W.