DHS report: right wing = scum
- Thread starter kallsop
- Start date
What was your argument, BTW?
Actually, it's a very good example, given that the courts have spoken (authoritatively) and found that "the City of Seattle had violated protesters' Fourth Amendment constitutional rights by arresting them without probable cause or hard evidence." (Wikipedia.) Of course, preliminary decisions had been handed down long before the final verdict in 2007. Indeed, the City Council had decided by 2000 that "several city activities had the effect of abridging [...] constitutional guarantees [of individual civil liberties."
Of course, a key difference is that, although these happened on Clinton's watch, they weren't in any way (that I can tell) caused or controlled by Clinton or the Fed. By contrast, the mass arrests at the 2004 and 2008 Republican Conventions were very much under tight control by Federal Law enforcement. (See also here and here)
So no rational observer would have a problem assigning direct responsibility for the mass arrests of protestors between 2001 and 2008 to the Bush government.
Do you want to try any other lame exercises in apologetics, Pardalis?
On the contrary. I simply don't see any connection between an unauthorized and blatantly illegal act by the Seattle police department and the person who happened to be in the White House at the time.
On the other hand, given that the various mass arrests that happened directly under the authority of the Secret Service, in keeping with the explicit published doctrines, I have no problem drawing such a link between the 2004 mass arrests and President Bush.
You didn't look at my link, did you. Hint: Which article of the Constitution says that the President can "rescind" a law?
By surveillance I mean they were spied on. By protesting I mean peaceful protests. link
Of course not -- that's a silly thought.
But if you attend a public protest, and if the Obama administration were to behave in the same despicable way as the Bush administration, then all bets are off.
I don't see the point, since on both occasions, there were criminal activities by the protesters going on, and the Seattle police and Secret Service were right in arresting the hooligans, or would you prefer they were allowed to go on unfeathered?
Yes I did, it's a link to Google.
Wrong.
Both the Seattle PD and the Secret Service fundamentally violated the civil rights of the people they arrested. They failed to prove any connection between the specific people arrested and any illegal conduct.
I would prefer that people who have not committed any criminal acts be allowed to go on "unfeathered," yes. Or alternatively, I would prefer that the police actually have probable cause to arrest someone before they "feather" him.
This is also, by astonishing coincidence, the position that the Federal Courts hold.
But demonstrably not the position that the Bush administration held and even wrote into policy.
Good. Now use it. The US Constitution isn't a long text.
In a chaotic situation such as a protest with hundreds of young hooligans throwing stuff, the police can't sort through which is are the criminals and which are the peaceful protesters with alot of accuracy, mistakes are bound to happen. You are asking for the impossible.
Maybe protesters were more demented at the Republican rallies, which says much more about the protesters than the police officers.
Then why did he renew it when he had the chance not to? If a law can be renewed, this means it can be not-renewed, in other words stopped, right?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Unless they've changed Shari'a law since last I looked, the common feature would appear to be violence. However, I would think "fundamentalists" would be a better word for the Shari'a bunch.
In any case, it seems obvious from the report who HS mean by extremists.
Last edited:
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
Pardalis, this is civics 101. The legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces them. He also has the option of vetoing a law (which Bush obviously did not do to either the original or the renewal). The only thing that Obama can do until congress takes action to repeal or modify it is to refuse to enforce it, essentially the thing that Bush (or rather his lawyer) did with his signing statements; that is a rather bad precedent to be making, as it tends to cause a lot of resentment within the other branches of the government, and causes lots of suit which can lead to constitutional crises.
Congress has to change it. Everyone on the hill is a wee bit busy at the moment, I think. But I think it will happen. [Zig: it = Patriot Act; Everyone: congress, both houses; It in last sentence: repeal or modification of first "it".]
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
From what I can tell of the article you linked to, this is a simple case of bureaucratic overreach, and does not particularly reflect the policies or plans of anybody in authority. As such, I'm sure the Obama administration has already done similar things many times over, with about as much cause for concern.
No, there were not criminal activities on the part of 99.95% of the people held captive against their will.
This came out in the wash, and the "charges" filed by the police department didn't hold up to indictment let alone a trial.
It was, simply and purely, the actions of police in a police state.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Thank you, Brainster. It's nice to see there are reasonable people on both the left and the right who can see through all this hysterical b.s. - and yes, that is also a criticism of my liberal friends who thought the sky was falling under W.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
As are left-wing extremists. Crazy is crazy. Scum is scum. No matter which direction from which it comes.
portlandatheist
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,725
Don't worry Gangularis, you lived through it and you survived. Look on the bright side: now you can now tell future generations of your trials and tribulations, what life was like under the relentless oppression of Dick Cheney. Your twilight struggle with your brothers and sisters of the resistance. Sure, you were a terrorist according to the administration, your rights were stripped by the Patriot Act and the Constitution was shredded....but you persevered despite this. The right thing to do now is to point the finger and laugh hysterically when right wing lunatics act childish and delusional when they complain about their perceived oppression under the tyranny of Obama.
So, I think its totally lame that conservatives are somehow offended by this report...something that I'm sure was likely in the works during the Bush administration. Extremist groups, left or right, should be assessed by our government. Shouldn't the "Christian Identity" movement concern us? The backlash against this report is reactionary and stupid.
The actual backlash is from the part that mentioned returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has already had to back away from that.
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
The ham and cheese sandwiches taste great with either mustard or mayo. Why do you ask?