Homeland issued 'extremism' report despite objections

[Seizer]

Surprised no one has jumped on this.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17/homeland-security-got-internal-flags/

Ouch what a slap in the face to veterans.

So if I understand correctly, if you are a supporter of the Constitution or the United States it makes you an extremist?

[Warriorbird]

Dumb wording. The fact that there are former members of the military in militias should place the emphasis on militias before the military. I'd imagine there's a much higher degree of posers than actual veterans.

[Ravenstorm]

Claiming it's offensive to veterans to warn that right wing extremist organizations might trying targeting veterans for membership is about a offensive as warning that NAMBLA will try targeting children. It lays no burden of blame on anyone but the organizations.

[Methais]

So if I understand correctly, if you are a supporter of the Constitution or the United States it makes you an extremist?

http://open.salon.com/blog/m_b/2009/01/30/files/duh-duh1233387823.jpg

[Gan]

I cant hear you. I'm too busy clinging to my guns and religion.

[Nieninque]

Thing about it is, if this label is slapped on you because you support border control or are against abortion, that it could give DHS the reason it needs to round you up. Hmm where have I read about people being rounded up for their beliefs?


Im going to invoke Godwin's law here, even though it hasnt been explicitly referenced, we know where this is going.

[Warriorbird]

Thing about it is, if this label is slapped on you because you support border control or are against abortion, that it could give DHS the reason it needs to round you up. Hmm where have I read about people being rounded up for their beliefs?

I dunno. The Republican Party keeps trying to get Constitutional Amendments passed so him and those like him can't get married.

[Seizer]

I dunno. The Republican Party keeps trying to get Constitutional Amendments passed so him and those like him can't get married.

Ugh.

One thing I find funny about it as if left wing extremists are much more safer than right wing extremists.

[Ravenstorm]

Thing about it is, if this label is slapped on you because you support border control or are against abortion, that it could give DHS the reason it needs to round you up. Hmm where have I read about people being rounded up for their beliefs?

You mean like how the FBI under Bush spied on gay rights organizations and peace demonstrators? I hear you brother.

And that's exactly the same as DHS warning about extremist right wing organizations like white supremacists, armed secessionists who advocate overthrowing the government and similar groups.

I double dog dare you to find anywhere in the actual report that mentions anti-abortionists.

[Seizer]

I double dog dare you to find anywhere in the actual report that mentions anti-abortionists.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Page 5 revisiting the 1990s.

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the
1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility
and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s
opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those
with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as
well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion,
inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage

Well do you have me there they don't actually say anti-abortion, just talk about them exploiting the abortion issue for recruitment.

[Daniel]

Thing about it is, if this label is slapped on you because you support border control or are against abortion, that it could give DHS the reason it needs to round you up. Hmm where have I read about people being rounded up for their beliefs?

Wait, what?

So things like the establishment of draconian torture methods, secret internment camps, spying on US citizens and extraordinary rendition is okay but...issuing a warning is the first step towards a dictatorship?

Please shut the fuck up.



Im going to invoke Godwin's law here, even though it hasnt been explicitly referenced, we know where this is going.


Rofl. Winner.

[radamanthys]

Republicans under Bush decided that the government needed more power to enforce Order.

Democrats under Obama are seeking more power to enforce Equality.

There's a cadre of Americans who support Freedom over Order and Equality.

I side with them.

[Daniel]

Republicans under Bush decided that the government needed more power to enforce Order.

Democrats under Obama are seeking more power to enforce Equality.

There's a cadre of Americans who support Freedom over Order and Equality.

I side with them.

What?

Are you drunk?

[radamanthys]

What?

Are you drunk?


No, I'm not. And I'll ignore the fact that you're an acerbic ass, for now.

My response was a response to your own post. You implied that the protests against the current administration's wrongdoing are not worthy of a 'moral high ground' because of the past support of other, worse policies.

I responded using a basic political science concept. Political ideologies are a mix of three basic values: Freedom, Order, and Equality. The Bush administration touted Order (war on terror) as it's primary concern. Obama's policies favor Equality- Universal Healthcare, etc.

Nobody has been championing Freedom- less government intervention in our lives. The two recent administrations have expanded the power of the federal government- executive and legislative both- by leaps and bounds. I do not trust this. I am equally against both sets of political standards.

Therefore, anyone protesting in the same vein as myself is able to retain the 'moral high ground'. Ron Paul had plenty of support after Bush. I figure the same passionate group is behind the current protests- not necessarily the 'religious right' side of the Republican party that was so gung-ho to support Bush's more controversial policies.

Government is fearful, now, of those wishing to have this expanded power removed. The only thing a government has to fear is its people. Provisions were made in the constitution to allow the people to hold a semblance of that power in the case of a too-powerful centralization of power. Hence the constitution-centric bent of many of the protesters.

That ok? I can use smaller words next time, if you need.

[Warriorbird]

The two recent administrations have expanded the power of the federal government- executive and legislative both- by leaps and bounds. I do not trust this. I am equally against both sets of political standards.

I figure the same passionate group is behind the current protests-


If only it was that group. It isn't.

[radamanthys]

If only they were.

I would assume that they started it. The Fox demographic was highlighted, but the original organizers were likely Paul voters. It's more their cup of tea (seewhatIdidthere?).

[Warriorbird]

I don't classify Beck and Santelli as anywhere near Paul voters. FreedomWorks is about as far from Paul voters as you can get.... even though he once played a role in their organization. They actively worked against him on the primary trail.

Of course the organizers want to deny that FreedomWorks was involved. They're not a particularly thrilling organization to be tied to. Still, they helped send out organizational emails and arrange for web hosting for several of the sites, suggesting that this is something of a tough leg to stand on.

[radamanthys]

Tea parties were happening all across the country as early as January. Here's a post from december about a guy starting one in Binghamton: http://newsandblues.com/nbforum/index.php?topic=183.0

This sums it up perfectly:
http://reteaparty.com/2009/04/17/what-tea-parties-are-and-are-not/

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure I'd classify less than 10 as 'all over the country.'

...what you just posted is on one of the sites associated with FreedomWorks.

When you give me a group associated with mainstream Republican causes and toss out "when is the spending going to stop?" I just have a really hard time believing in it.

It's like when a member of this board said that spending on wars and the military didn't make more government.

"Young Americans for Liberty" associations are also enough to make my skin crawl.

[radamanthys]

I'm not sure I'd classify less than 10 as 'all over the country.'

...what you just posted is on one of the sites associated with FreedomWorks.

When you give me a group associated with mainstream Republican causes and toss out "when is the spending going to stop?" I just have a really hard time believing in it.

It's like when a member of this board said that spending on wars and the military didn't make more government.

"Young Americans for Liberty" associations are also enough to make my skin crawl.

Your concerns are certainly valid. I don't appreciate the hypocrisy either.

I would posit that Republicans are trying to cash in on something started with genuine intentions, not the other way around.

Read that second article before passing judgment.

[Warriorbird]

I have.


The Political Exploration and Awareness Committee PAC (“PEAC”) was founded in 2008 by two individuals with no connection or affiliation with any political party, candidate, or candidates committee.

That isn't true to begin with.

While there's a prominent Paul supporter as the de facto head of the group the other half of the equation doesn't have quite as direct a record.

[radamanthys]

*shrug*

I don't really care about the merits of the site itself or the writers, just the words as written, taken at face value.

[Warriorbird]

I have a hard time taking anything at face value in politics these days. I wish it wasn't the case. The face value I mostly agree with.

[radamanthys]

Politics is by its very nature duplicitous. Always has been, and always will be. You just can't trust politicians. That's sorta the idea behind the whole movement.

[Warriorbird]

A lot of the imagery makes me think that 'the movement' is pretty far from something I'd ever want to trust.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-teaparty26.jpg

I mean, shit... with this guy, was he just sort of okay with the last 8 years? Is it like, all of a sudden, oh snap! There's a Democrat elected, I need to care about debt and the deficit now? It rings so hollow.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20072_large.jpg

Uhm, yeah.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20115_large.jpg

and Godwinning the 'movement.'

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20069_large.jpg

[Warriorbird]

This stuff largely just seems like the camp following that Palin had pre-election.

I think the counter protestors do an amusing job.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-teaparty27.jpg

[Daniel]

No, I'm not. And I'll ignore the fact that you're an acerbic ass, for now.

My response was a response to your own post. You implied that the protests against the current administration's wrongdoing are not worthy of a 'moral high ground' because of the past support of other, worse policies.

I responded using a basic political science concept. Political ideologies are a mix of three basic values: Freedom, Order, and Equality. The Bush administration touted Order (war on terror) as it's primary concern. Obama's policies favor Equality- Universal Healthcare, etc.

Nobody has been championing Freedom- less government intervention in our lives. The two recent administrations have expanded the power of the federal government- executive and legislative both- by leaps and bounds. I do not trust this. I am equally against both sets of political standards.

Therefore, anyone protesting in the same vein as myself is able to retain the 'moral high ground'. Ron Paul had plenty of support after Bush. I figure the same passionate group is behind the current protests- not necessarily the 'religious right' side of the Republican party that was so gung-ho to support Bush's more controversial policies.

Government is fearful, now, of those wishing to have this expanded power removed. The only thing a government has to fear is its people. Provisions were made in the constitution to allow the people to hold a semblance of that power in the case of a too-powerful centralization of power. Hence the constitution-centric bent of many of the protesters.

That ok? I can use smaller words next time, if you need.

Actually, I'd be more interested in you giving a non tin foil hat explanation of how Obama has sought more power to limit your freedoms.

[TheRunt]

Actually, I'd be more interested in you giving a non tin foil hat explanation of how Obama has sought more power to limit your freedoms.

His AG using 'sovereign immunity' in the wiretapping lawsuits.
http://democracyupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/04/countdown-takes-on-obamaholder-dubious.html
http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=87700

Illegal wiretapping increased.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

And the recent cybersecurity act now in the senate.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cybersecurity_Act_seeks_broad_powers_0413.html

ETA And I forgot this one.
DNA collection of people arrested or detained but not convicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

[Warriorbird]

That's droll. Right wing wacko attempting to use illegal wiretapping against Obama.

Is letting these suits go forward going to unite or divide a country further? Obama's being diplomatic towards former Bush administration officials here. Some parts of the left want Jay Bybee impeached for example.

The 'cybersecurity bill' was not Presidentially proposed.

The last one sounds like something most Republicans would be for.

[TheRunt]

That's droll. Right wing wacko attempting to use illegal wiretapping against Obama.

Is letting these suits go forward going to unite or divide a country further? Obama's being diplomatic towards former Bush administration officials here. Some parts of the left want Jay Bybee impeached for example.

The 'cybersecurity bill' was not Presidentially proposed.

The last one sounds like something most Republicans would be for.

For the first link. It was bashing Obama's administration over Sovereign Immunity
Second he campaigned as being against the wiretaps, but under his administration it has increased.

No it wasn't Presidentially proposed, but they had a hand in the "wording" of it.

And the last one sounds like something most Repubs would be for? You must be fucking joking. Virtually everyone I know(non politicians) is for our rights to quit being trampled.

[Warriorbird]

Really? There's supporters of warrantless wiretapping and 'not torture, REALLY!' here.

[TheRunt]

Well I did say that I know. I don't really know the people here, now do I? And you have some misguided people in every group. :)

[Methais]

Really? There's supporters of warrantless wiretapping and 'not torture, REALLY!' here.

Would you rather:

A) Torture 1 terrorist (who would be more than happy to torture and then slowly kill you if given the chance) to prevent 5,000 innocent people from being killed by his buddies.

Or

B) Let those 5,000 people die because you don't wanna offend anyone.

Serious question.

[Warriorbird]

If it were only so simple. Reality isn't a Fox show, however. The CIA and the military have seperately criticized the effectiveness of torture on numerous occassions. You probably don't have such a clearcut situation.

Would I torture somebody who might be a terrorist for nebulous gain? No.
That isn't to say I wouldn't have them interrogated. When we go beyond the principles of America they are winning however.

I'd have been very quick to authorize chasing Bin Laden into Pakistan... something Bush didn't have the balls to do.

[Methais]

If it were only so simple. Reality isn't a Fox show, however. The CIA and the military have seperately criticized the effectiveness of torture on numerous occassions. You probably don't have such a clearcut situation.

Would I torture somebody who might be a terrorist for nebulous gain? No.

That isn't to say I wouldn't have them interrogated. When we go beyond the principles of America they are winning.

Answering A or B will suffice. Just pretend for a moment for the sake of argument.

[Back]

Would you rather:

A) Torture 1 terrorist (who would be more than happy to torture and then slowly kill you if given the chance) to prevent 5,000 innocent people from being killed by his buddies.

Or

B) Let those 5,000 people die because you don't wanna offend anyone.

Serious question.

Hypothetical. Sorry.

I’m also not convinced that “torture” gets real info out of anyone.

Except kinky chicks.

[Warriorbird]

You're setting up something that has no bearing on reality to give yourself 'moral high ground' for torturing a dude.

If it's torture and there is an 'impending threat' how do you know he won't lie? You're not going to have much of a chance to check accuracy.

Game theory is a bit deeper than your example.

[Methais]

Hypothetical. Sorry.

Thanks for the breaking news update.


You're setting up something that has no bearing on reality to give yourself 'moral high ground' for torturing a dude.

Way to keep dodging the question. Yes it's a hypothetical situation. That doesn't mean you can't answer it.

[Warriorbird]

I don't know that I can trust what info I get from the guy. My hypothetical Jack Bauer is better used in the field. No.

[Methais]

K I'll just put you down for B then until you actually answer the question with A or B.

We're assuming the information he gives is valid, and will prevent an attack that kills 5000 people.

Nice copout attempt though.

[Warriorbird]

Assumption is probably a bad plan when dealing with Al Qaeda. There's reasons the military tends to dislike torture.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/VGL1.jpg

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/VGL2.jpg

Here's another one from 38 retired generals.... most of them not exactly what I'd call liberal types.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06913-etn-military-let-ca3.pdf

and some CIA rejection of torture...

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1105/112305nj1.htm

I particularly liked the line about the fact that detainees will, "say virtually anything to end their torment."

[Back]

K I'll just put you down for B then until you actually answer the question.

We're assuming the information he gives is valid, and will prevent an attack that kills 5000 people.

Nice copout attempt though.

Sorry, I don’t see how you can attempt to make a point with that argument.

Methias, I have 23 beers.

Girl A drinks 3.

Girl B drinks 20.

Who is going to be more wasted?

[Methais]

Sorry, I don’t see how you can attempt to make a point with that argument.

Methias, I have 23 beers.

Girl A drinks 3.

Girl B drinks 20.

Who is going to be more wasted?

They both are because you slipped something in their drinks.

[Back]

Exactly. Its just as ridiculous as your question because its hypothetical.

[Warriorbird]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e123/boodrow/roofies.jpg

[Back]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e123/boodrow/roofies.jpg

Quit showing off your stash, gangstah.

[Methais]

Exactly. Its just as ridiculous as your question because its hypothetical.

No, that was just a random answer to a dumb unrelated question. There's nothing you can do that will result in the 3 girl beer being more wasted than the 23 beer girl. You can't even call that a hypothetical question because there's only one possible answer.


Assumption is probably a bad plan when dealing with Al Qaeda.

So does that mean A or B?

[Warriorbird]

It means I think your hypothetical is naive so I don't want in on it. I posted a few things from military and CIA officials in support of that.

[Methais]

It means I think your hypothetical is naive so I don't want in on it. I posted a few things from military and CIA officials in support of that.

You posted everything but an answer. I'm asking you, not the military or the CIA.

[TheRunt]

Methias if I may?

Do you

A) torture the hell out of the guy, pull his fingernails out, put his balls in a vice, shove a glass rod up his pecker and go to town with a ball-peen hammer.

B) ask him nicely for the information

If this statement is true. That he has information that will save thousands of people from a terrorist attack, and you know you can get the truthful information from him by following A. Which do you choose.

[Methais]

Methias if I may?

Do you

A) torture the hell out of the guy, pull his fingernails out, put his balls in a vice, shove a glass rod up his pecker and go to town with a ball-peen hammer.

B) ask him nicely for the information

If this statement is true. That he has information that will save thousands of people from a terrorist attack, and you know you can get the truthful information from him by following A. Which do you choose.

If B actually worked, then B.

But since it didn't work, the answer is A.

See how easy it is to answer a question?

[Methais]

This is America. Everybody's got the right to not answer a question they think is foolish.

Thanks for letting me know.


You refused to respond to making your hypothetical more realistic. No point.

http://www.newswire.poormojo.org/archives/Blank-Facepalm.gif

[Warriorbird]

Since you're all about answering questions.

You have hundreds of detainees. You have thousands of different reports of varying degrees of accuracy. The detainees are willing to say just about anything if pressed.

You've got maybe a one in two thousand chance of finding somebody who might have a one in five thousand chance of launching an attack.

Do you

A. torture them
B. interrogate them and use other sources to check your facts

[Methais]

Since you're all about answering questions.

You have hundreds of detainees. You have thousands of different reports of varying degrees of accuracy. The detainees are willing to say just about anything if pressed.

You've got maybe a one in two thousand chance of finding somebody who might have a one in five thousand chance of launching an attack.

Do you

A. torture them
B. interrogate them and use other sources to check your facts

Answer my question and then I'll answer yours.

[Warriorbird]

...and there we conclude. Good night.

[Seizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqQVGKckQ_s&feature=PlayList&p=51BDFE9F3327F78F&index=8

Come on it worked for him.

[Daniel]

I love how those who have never served are trying to grill people over what it takes to protect Americans in a bullshit attempt to justify their moral depravity.

[Deathravin]

Would you rather:

A) Torture 1 terrorist (who would be more than happy to torture and then slowly kill you if given the chance) to prevent 5,000 innocent people from being killed by his buddies.

Or

B) Let those 5,000 people die because you don't wanna offend anyone.

Serious question.

If only any question like this were so black and white in real life.

[Tea & Strumpets]

If B actually worked, then B.

But since it didn't work, the answer is A.

See how easy it is to answer a question?

I'm against torture if it means you have to kick a guy in the nuts. There has to be some kind of brotherhood between men that transcends race, religion, or ethnicity (because let's face it, getting hit in the nuts is awful, and getting hit in the dick is no picnic either).

[Warriorbird]

The Japanese had some related torture methods that are too communally male horrifying to even relate here in WW2.

[Methais]

I'm against torture if it means you have to kick a guy in the nuts. There has to be some kind of brotherhood between men that transcends race, religion, or ethnicity (because let's face it, getting hit in the nuts is awful, and getting hit in the dick is no picnic either).

The 72 virgins will make their nuts feel better later though, right?


In this case, it's:
A) Torture a person that can't reasonably assert they shouldn't be tortured, because they're a suspected terrorist or
B) "Let him be, sacrifice 5,000 people."

Ok, let's say Bin Laden is the one being interrogated then. You know he's not innocent, you know he has information. And he's not responding to asking nicely.

A or B?

[Methais]

I dunno if you knew this but... Bush never caught Bin Laden.

http://www.chelseapies.tv/breaking-news.jpg

I dunno if you knew this but... you can't use the "But he might be innocent and we'd be torturing an innocent person" argument in this case.

You know what hypothetical means right?

[Warriorbird]

In your most recent examples... attempting to use 24 style situations to make torture philosophically okay. We got through the sheer worldwide nightmare that was World War 2 without using torture. We can deal with this somewhat self created war without in too, especially given the serious debates as to its effectiveness.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/34/Kiefer-sutherland-pants.jpg

http://www.cloudcuckooland.biz/ccl5.jpg

[Methais]

We got through the sheer worldwide nightmare that was World War 2 without using torture

Yeah, we dropped 2 A-bombs and killed 473280432 civilians instead. Torturing a terrorist in order to get information about future attacks is far worse than that. But that still pretty much won the war, and the world is a better place because of it now since we're not speaking German, so the ends justify the means in that instance.


We can deal with this somewhat self created war without in too

Please explain how this war is somewhat self created.

Then please explain wtf Kiefer is doing in that picture.

[Parkbandit]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/7a/Jeez-not_agaian.jpg

I dunno if you knew this but... Bush never caught Bin Laden.

http://olgajacobs.com/kutya/liberal%20pussies.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Please explain how this war is somewhat self created.
-Methais

Clinton didn't have Bin Laden killed. Bush didn't have Bin Laden killed. We messed around (Iraq I) in a region that didn't give a fuck about us one way or another. We then proceeded to invade Iraq rather than killing Bin Laden.

Kiefer Sutherland really likes himself some alcohol. He is sadly not a real super agent.

[Warriorbird]

http://olgajacobs.com/kutya/liberal%20pussies.jpg

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/promos/attack_1.jpg

[Parkbandit]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/promos/attack_1.jpg

http://www.lookupalliance.com/images-news-04/liberal_moron.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://www.lookupalliance.com/images-news-04/liberal_moron.jpg

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/promos/hell.jpg

[Methais]

http://www.morethings.com/music/brother-ray/ray_charles_pictures/ray_charles-234.jpg

[Ignot]

2716

[Warriorbird]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg

[Methais]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/pelosi-clown.jpg

[Ignot]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/pelosi-clown.jpg

Holy shit.

[Warriorbird]

More for PB and Gan's sake...

http://mkultra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/beck.jpg

and a Senator...

http://www.buffalobeast.com/122/loathpics/CRAIG.jpg

[Methais]

One for my own sake:

























































http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq160/emocarnage666/PISS.jpg


You were expecting goatse weren't you?

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, I kinda was expecting Goatse.

http://4.media.tumblr.com/b9vfl4b63kdnlr7pqxCbB37so1_250.gif