America: Modern-day Nazi Germany

I wouldn't get caught going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit anymore, because now you can be thrown in prison indefinitely and tortured for something as insignificant as that. American democracy has been slowly coming to an end for years, and it looks like 2011 is the year our government has finally ended it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12

http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

What happens now?

BBoy wrote:What happens now?

You should probably find the safest rock possible to hide under and hope the government doesn't figure out you dug a hole in THEIR land to hide there.

>mfw

Have you been smoking what is in your avatar?!?

F1V1 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12

http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

LOLWUT??

PackerMan71 wrote:

F1V1 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12

http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

LOLWUT??

my sig is with you as well Packer....

good to know this thread is being taken seriously, lol

I hope you all know that neither bill has been signed into law yet. Still yet to travel to the white house to get Obama's signature.

And Obama is planning on signing it into law......

Sorry to tell you all, Obama's already declared that he wouldn't veto the bill if it passed through Congress. It's already passed through the Congress with unanimous results and it's on its way to the president's desk as we speak for him to sign it. This bill has already passed.

Btw, stoners are probably some of the most intelligent people you'll ever meet.

Just to clarify, my statement about speeding in my original post was an exaggeration to put more emphasis on this situation. While I don't necessarily believe something as extreme as that will happen, it's a real possibility with this nonsense that they're trying so hard to approve. If our government is stupid enough to pass this bill, they may be stupid enough to abuse it and if that's the case a second American civil war really isn't too far out of the question.

The way I see it, if something that extreme were to happen, I say the country deserves it, since the people seem to keep on voting in the idiots, or at least the parties that keep on giving us the idiots

The people that elect these morons are the people that deserve it. Unfortunately the effect of that is when people elect these mindless zombies everyone has to suffer, even the people that didn't vote for them. Another unfortunate side effect of Congress is that when they get elected they're pretty much there for as long as they want to stay.

F1V1 For President.

F1V1 wrote:
Btw, stoners are probably some of the most intelligent people you'll ever meet.

BBoy wrote:What happens now?

Simple. We all move to Canada. Problem solved.

flyingturns89 wrote:

BBoy wrote:What happens now?

Simple. We all move to Canada. Problem solved.

Nope, Canada and the USA have an Extradition Treaty and the US has been known to take foreign citizens against their will to drag them to trial for crimes they committed. Plus the US could just INVADE Canada, OR the states can do what they have the ability to do and nullify the legislation.

Democracy 1776-2011.

Ive always wanted to move to the UK!

This thread has gone in a completely unexpected direction.





I love it.

gwoodard41 wrote:Nope, Canada and the USA have an Extradition Treaty and the US has been known to take foreign citizens against their will to drag them to trial for crimes they committed. Plus the US could just INVADE Canada, OR the states can do what they have the ability to do and nullify the legislation.

Invading Canada would be the dumbest thing the United States could possibly ever do. Not only would they get absolutely nowhere, they would lose one of their most powerful allies. Canada's economy is one of the strongest in the world right now despite the recession because they're still doing things right. Not to mention, the U.S. makes an enormous amount of money from importing goods to Canada and making profit off the exports Canada sends to us.

Also, as long as you don't do anything wrong here before you leave for Canada, they can't do anything about it once you've already left. The extradition treaty only covers people that are wanted in the United States.

The constitution says we have the right to disband/overthrow the government if they do something unconstitutional. I wouldn't go that far right now, but this concerns me...alot.

Sorry for the double post. But also, "Because of this, Miranda Rights should not be read to suspected criminals and additionally the right to an attorney is also suspended under the act. "

^This defeats the purpose of democracy, to add to my first post.

If you all had done some research about this stuff instead of flipping out, you would realize this only applies to US citizens that are believed to be involved with terrorist organizations. Funny how that got left out huh?

Blake Camphausen wrote:If you all had done some research about this stuff instead of flipping out, you would realize this only applies to US citizens that are believed to be involved with terrorist organizations. Funny how that got left out huh?

I read that. It still concerns me though, because they can "bend the law" and do as they please. They, meaning police or correction officers, whoever.

I too wonder why everyone is declaring an end to democracy and such. firstly, we don't live in a democratic country, we live in a "democratic republic", meaning a republic with democratic traits, but that's for another thread.

secondly, the people have the power here, not the government. dont forget that when a bill gets passed, we and everyone else not only has a right to protest it, but to appeal it as well. remember some other controversial laws that were passed? like proposition 8? it was passed, then immediately taken to the courts and overturned. or how about "obamacare"? passed, then immediately taken to the courts. i see no reason why this will be any different

i think the best way to address the "democracy is over" crowd is with a statement my friend made about it. "Democracy is when people control the government. It's only over when the people willingly let the government control them." so ranting about how terrible this is and then not doing anything about it is more to blame for the "fall of democracy" than anything, at least in my eyes

but regardless, this isnt a new thing. they've been passing this bill every year for the last 48. the only thing different is this year it specifies that the government has the right to go after US citizens for being involved in terrorism. nothing they haven't done already, it just clears up some of the grey area they've been operating in

sometimes i wonder why folks are so eager to assume the government is out to get us. i mean, i literally just did a quick google and wikipedia check and had the facts within minutes, not some blogger's extremist opinion

Mystrsyko wrote:I too wonder why everyone is declaring an end to democracy and such. firstly, we don't live in a democratic country, we live in a "democratic republic", meaning a republic with democratic traits, but that's for another thread.

secondly, the people have the power here, not the government. dont forget that when a bill gets passed, we and everyone else not only has a right to protest it, but to appeal it as well. remember some other controversial laws that were passed? like proposition 8? it was passed, then immediately taken to the courts and overturned. or how about "obamacare"? passed, then immediately taken to the courts. i see no reason why this will be any different

i think the best way to address the "democracy is over" crowd is with a statement my friend made about it. "Democracy is when people control the government. It's only over when the people willingly let the government control them." so ranting about how terrible this is and then not doing anything about it is more to blame for the "fall of democracy" than anything, at least in my eyes

but regardless, this isnt a new thing. they've been passing this bill every year for the last 48. the only thing different is this year it specifies that the government has the right to go after US citizens for being involved in terrorism. nothing they haven't done already, it just clears up some of the grey area they've been operating in

sometimes i wonder why folks are so eager to assume the government is out to get us. i mean, i literally just did a quick google and wikipedia check and had the facts within minutes, not some blogger's extremist opinion

Because it's fun

But seriously, I agree with you, though my last few posts kind of show the opposite. I'm guessing this will get overturned pretty quick.

Also, I don't know a ton about politics, but I was just throuwing my $.02 in.

Blake Camphausen wrote:If you all had done some research about this stuff instead of flipping out, you would realize this only applies to US citizens that are believed to be involved with terrorist organizations. Funny how that got left out huh?

Maybe if you had actually read correctly, the new law applies to anyone the government deems as a threat, which can be anyone from former terrorists to U.S. citizens participating in the 99% Occupy rallies. Not to mention all the innocent people who were thrown in prison for 25 to life for nonsense are now at risk to be tortured. In a nutshell, the bill states that if you disagree with our government they have the right to indefinitely imprison you without trial. Obviously, this breaks a lot of the bills and amendments already in our constitution, but what can we do about it? They're the government, they have control over everything, even us. Sure, we elected them there in the first place, but in such a corrupt society I don't believe decency is at the top of the list for important moral values anymore. The U.S. is very well known for sticking their noses into situations we don't belong in, and then we wonder why we're the prime target for terrorist groups. Now that we're in the spotlight for attacks, our government is afraid, and they're proving it by even defying the rights of American citizens. This certainly isn't anything new, but now they've taken it a step too far. Rather ironic isn't it? "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

F1V1 wrote:

Blake Camphausen wrote:If you all had done some research about this stuff instead of flipping out, you would realize this only applies to US citizens that are believed to be involved with terrorist organizations. Funny how that got left out huh?

Maybe if you had actually read correctly, the new law applies to anyone the government deems as a threat, which can be anyone from former terrorists to U.S. citizens participating in the 99% Occupy rallies. Not to mention all the innocent people who were thrown in prison for 25 to life for nonsense are now at risk to be tortured. In a nutshell, the bill states that if you disagree with our government they have the right to indefinitely imprison you without trial. Obviously, this breaks a lot of the bills and amendments already in our constitution, but what can we do about it? They're the government, they have control over everything, even us. Sure, we elected them there in the first place, but in such a corrupt society I don't believe decency is at the top of the list for important moral values anymore. The U.S. is very well known for sticking their noses into situations we don't belong in, and then we wonder why we're the prime target for terrorist groups. Now that we're in the spotlight for attacks, our government is afraid, and they're proving it by even defying the rights of American citizens. This certainly isn't anything new, but now they've taken it a step too far. Rather ironic isn't it? "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I got a great chuckle out of that. The bill clearly states that anyone who is believed to be involved in terrorist operations may be subject to those punishments. The only thing this bill changes is that US citizens are now allowed to get these punishments for being involved in these operations, before they could not receive them.

F1V1 wrote:Obviously, this breaks a lot of the bills and amendments already in our constitution, but what can we do about it? They're the government, they have control over everything, even us. Sure, we elected them there in the first place, but in such a corrupt society I don't believe decency is at the top of the list for important moral values anymore.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - The United States Declaration of Independence

Sparkz47 wrote:

F1V1 wrote:Obviously, this breaks a lot of the bills and amendments already in our constitution, but what can we do about it? They're the government, they have control over everything, even us. Sure, we elected them there in the first place, but in such a corrupt society I don't believe decency is at the top of the list for important moral values anymore.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - The United States Declaration of Independence

This.

but you are only entitled to those right IF they do not infringe upon others' rights. i'm pretty sure terrorist activity is an infringement upon my rights...the pursuit of Happiness is awfully difficult when you cease to exist upon this earth.

antknee wrote:but you are only entitled to those right IF they do not infringe upon others' rights. i'm pretty sure terrorist activity is an infringement upon my rights...the pursuit of Happiness is awfully difficult when you cease to exist upon this earth.

I wasn't referring to terrorism. My point was that if the government goes beyond terrorism and gets to the point that F1V1 is describing (torturing and punishing innocent people for minor offenses or criticizing the government), there would more unconstitutional laws and bills than you can shake a stick at (and that's saying a lot; I can shake a stick at a great many things), therefor, the people would have the right to "alter or to abolish [the government], and to institute new Government".

I believe that this is the appropriate song for our country right now.

This bill would not be an issue if it explicitly defined what a terrorist group is defined as.

If it is defined as an entity that has openly committed an act of violence against American civilians, then I don't think there's much to be worried about. However, the fact that they haven't defined terrorist group in that bill suggests that the term can be applied from anything to nonviolent protests such as the Occupy movement to legitimate terrorists.

Don't think the government is capable of writing legislation that is intentionally ambiguous and then not repaired? Please research the 14th Constitutional Amendment and whom a vast majority of Supreme Court cases involving the 14th amendment have applied to. Then get back to me on that.

it seems fairly evident from the verbiage of the bill:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent
act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such
enemy forces.

read the bill folks, please. This document is almost 50 years old, only Sections 1031 and 1032 are new and apply to detainees. About 99% of it addresses the budget of the Dept of Defense. Nazi Germany? Seriously?

I've read the entire bill thoroughly, but thanks anyway. They haven't specified exactly who can be considered a threat to American society, which in that case anyone can be taken to prison without trial for virtually anything. It claims it's for terrorist groups, especially those associated with Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. However, that includes U.S. citizens now whether they were thought to be connected with terrorist groups before or not, meaning practically anyone is at risk for detention. Read the bill of rights and tell me if it agrees with 1031 and 1032.

Also, Nazi Germany didn't attack other countries for doing the same thing, they just did it. At least they weren't hypocritical

I thought it was made very clear who is considered the threat. It's essentially spelled out in the bill. Am I missing something?

We should direct/link people to the facts rather than a couple of one-sided websites that are meant to give people their opinions rather than formulate them for themselves. A lot of our members are easily swayed. Just saying.

Nazi Germany not hypocritical? A "ruler" with Jewish heritage slaughtering millions of Jews? No I guess that's just irony. Any comparison of Nazi Germany with the US is asinine.

Hitler was cruel but he was not hypocritical despite his heritage. Hitler believed in a greater God but did not practice Judaism, and he also didn't murder Jews specifically for their religious views. His goal was to essentially purify Germany of anyone who didn't fit the standard mold of a normal German citizen. Nobody ever talks about the equal amount of non-Jewish people he killed during his time in power.

Our government is currently trying to distinguish normal U.S. citizens from who they consider "terrorists". With that being said, they've just established that the President now has the right to authorize military action upon those considered to be aiding or plotting with enemy forces against the United States. They can also pull people from other countries bound by treaty to a U.S. detention facility.

Starting to notice a few similarities?

Nope

F1V1 wrote:Hitler was cruel but he was not hypocritical despite his heritage. Hitler believed in a greater God but did not practice Judaism, and he also didn't murder Jews specifically for their religious views. His goal was to essentially purify Germany of anyone who didn't fit the standard mold of a normal German citizen. Nobody ever talks about the equal amount of non-Jewish people he killed during his time in power.

Our government is currently trying to distinguish normal U.S. citizens from who they consider "terrorists". With that being said, they've just established that the President now has the right to authorize military action upon those considered to be aiding or plotting with enemy forces against the United States. They can also pull people from other countries bound by treaty to a U.S. detention facility.

Starting to notice a few similarities?

> comparing Nazi Germany to Modern day america
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this

antknee wrote:Nope

Then I suppose further explanation wouldn't be necessary.

Can't say I agree with any opinion that I've seen so far....

Terrorist or not, if you are an American citizen, this is goes against the Bill of Rights, which, in Amendment 6, states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

If you can be thrown straight into jail indefinitely without a trial, this is unconstitutional.


The only thing that I don't understand is... well, what if you are NOT an American citizen and are deemed a terrorist threat within the country? Would you still be thrown straight into an American jail? Do you still have these constitutional rights?

---

F1V1 wrote:Hitler was cruel but he was not hypocritical despite his heritage. Hitler believed in a greater God but did not practice Judaism, and he also didn't murder Jews specifically for their religious views. His goal was to essentially purify Germany of anyone who didn't fit the standard mold of a normal German citizen. Nobody ever talks about the equal amount of non-Jewish people he killed during his time in power.

Our government is currently trying to distinguish normal U.S. citizens from who they consider "terrorists". With that being said, they've just established that the President now has the right to authorize military action upon those considered to be aiding or plotting with enemy forces against the United States. They can also pull people from other countries bound by treaty to a U.S. detention facility.

Here's the difference:

Hitler was trying to build "the perfect race" of Germans, ever heard the blonde hair, blue eyes thing? So yes, in a way Hitler was hypocritical, he had brown hair and brown eyes, his grandmother was Jewish, and thus, he didn't fit the model. His goal in the end was to take over the world. Plus, yes, people do ignore the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust; however, it is really because there were about 6 million Jewish killed.... the next highest death toll per groups would be the 2-3 million Soviet Union POWs that they killed.

In America, terrorists are according to Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State): "Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"


So, here in America... we seek out public enemies, those who wish to harm our country and its citizens... not people of a particular religion. Though, I will agree, that those who are of the Muslim religions are more likely to be convicted simply because that is the most practiced religion in the Middle East... and, obviously, that is where Al Qaeda was formed, though it is worth mentioning that said religion is used to get those in Al Qaeda to be willing to perform a suicide bombing attack.



Though, it is sort of funny, by definition, Hitler was a terrorist... In the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust, it says: "Hitler and the Nazis also hated German leftists because of their resistance to the party's racism. Many leaders of German leftist groups were Jews." So that's:

-Premeditated
-Politically motivated violence
-Against noncombatant targets
-By subnational groups

Straight out of the definition.

Cynon wrote:This bill would not be an issue if it explicitly defined what a terrorist group is defined as.

If it is defined as an entity that has openly committed an act of violence against American civilians, then I don't think there's much to be worried about. However, the fact that they haven't defined terrorist group in that bill suggests that the term can be applied from anything to nonviolent protests such as the Occupy movement to legitimate terrorists.

Don't think the government is capable of writing legislation that is intentionally ambiguous and then not repaired? Please research the 14th Constitutional Amendment and whom a vast majority of Supreme Court cases involving the 14th amendment have applied to. Then get back to me on that.

Cynon, as we do disagree politically and there are issues with your statement about the Occupy movement (Being 'non-violent' when there are examples of the contrary) But I'm not here to talk about that. This NDAA, passed by both establishment Republicans (The Neo-Cons, hawks, progressives... yes they are on both sides of the aisle.) and the Democrats (Including Harry Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House) is considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It's people like those who are the establishment, who believe they are above the very laws that they pass. It makes me sick that it has to come to this to bring those who would be political rivals together to say how idiotic the legislation is. The quote from the Declaration of Independence happens to been claimed to be 'irrelevant', the same could be of the Constitution, being called a dead document or 'living and breathing'. The common theme here is why we as a nation don't care about the law of the land until something like this legislation pops up. I believe it is due to a set curriculum of Federally Mandated and Approved material that drives us away from our core values and why our founding fathers fought for our nation's independence! It was to get away or remove ourselves from a overbearing, overtaxing, centralized institution that has politicians who claim to represent us as Americans but really only represent themselves and those who are connected to the hip.

Of course the President would LOVE to have this power, think of it, anyone who is willing to challenge the government? They would be deemed a rebel/terrorist/traitor and would be assassinated by a missile coming from a Predator Drone. You brought up the 14th Amendment, does anyone recall when people wanted Obama to issue an executive order to stop our government from shutting down due to no funds? I hate to break it to you, he cannot do that because of the enumerated powers of Congress to coin money, etc, and the 14th Amendment has the 5th clause that only CONGRESS can use that amendment, not the President.

I thought Bush was bad when it came to enacting laws (enacting, not creating) that made us lose our civil liberties little by little, but you can go so far back to the Wilsonian or even the Post-Civil War Eras to see what we have lost as a society.

You know what I like about the internet? I can express my views pretty much uncensored and I can access material to read or to back up my viewpoints. Isn't it high time we re-learn our history and our constitution?

Rant Over, I'll leave on my fireproof blanket tyvm.

The sole reason more Jewish people were killed compared to any other ethnic minority was simply because there were more of them. Hitler saw minorities like the Jewish as a threat to German society, much in the same fashion that our own government sees who they consider terrorists. To create our "perfect" American society, the government is looking to rid the country of people that could be involved in acts of terrorism that could threaten the country's well-being. But, lets say now you have somebody that our military captured and this person is being accused of being affiliated with terrorists. If people believe this person is innocent and protest his capture, violent or not, now you suddenly have a situation where numerous people could be labeled as threatening to the country for siding with the suspect. These people could be naturally born U.S. citizens with no Muslim background what-so-ever in their family tree.

F1V1 wrote:The sole reason more Jewish people were killed compared to any other ethnic minority was simply because there were more of them. Hitler saw minorities like the Jewish as a threat to German society, much in the same fashion that our own government sees who they consider terrorists. To create our "perfect" American society, the government is looking to rid the country of people that could be involved in acts of terrorism that could threaten the country's well-being. But, lets say now you have somebody that our military captured and this person is being accused of being affiliated with terrorists. If people believe this person is innocent and protest his capture, violent or not, now you suddenly have a situation where numerous people could be labeled as threatening to the country for siding with the suspect. These people could be naturally born U.S. citizens with no Muslim background what-so-ever in their family tree.

Well... you may have me there.

Just did some research: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8471907/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorist-secrets-revealed.html


I guess I was leaning toward the idea the our government is trying to protect us and all that because I try to see the good in people... but I might be wrong here.

Woody wrote: So, here in America... we seek out public enemies, those who wish to harm our country and its citizens... not people of a particular religion. Though, I will agree, that those who are of the Muslim religions are more likely to be convicted simply because that is the most practiced religion in the Middle East... and, obviously, that is where Al Qaeda was formed, though it is worth mentioning that said religion is used to get those in Al Qaeda to be willing to perform a suicide bombing attack.

People out here crap themselves of a dressed person,that look like the stereotypical type of a terrorist, which makes a person that is not that a little panicked, especially with the facial head thing that most Muslim people wear. There are much much more dangerous people than just Muslims that migrated to other countries who look like your stereotypical terrorist. I disagree with them wearing the facial head thing because of not knowing who and what that person does for a living and not knowing details about the specific person. Hitler was a guy who just wanted Germany to be the elite country and himself to be the most powerful person in the world. Not America, not England. Hitler killed Jewish people just because they posed a challenge to the kind of Germans that were on the top of his hierachy aka the Aryans. Hitler also claimed that Jews were stopping the "master race" from grabbing control of the world.

F1V1 wrote:To create our "perfect" American society, the government is looking to rid the country of people that could be involved in acts of terrorism that could threaten the country's well-being.

so...you don't want us to be able to stop threats against our own citizens?

i'm going to try to stay away from metaphors here because that kind defeats the purpose of debating with facts. but in all honesty it can be assumed that this section of the bill was added in direct response to the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, the first US citizen to be approved for a targeted killing, and have it carried out. He was the very definition of "terrorist", as stated by the bill. This sounds more like they are trying to clear up some of the "grey area" they were operating in when they ordered his death. They are just making sure that it's in writing that they have the legal right to eliminate a terrorist who happens to be a US citizen. I would actually be more afraid if the US was not allowed to target US citizens as terrorists. Then, all a terrorist would need to do to avoid prosecution by the US is become a US citizen before becoming a terrorist. All we could do then is watch the carnage and hope somebody else takes care of it for us

is it going to get as bad as some of you claim it has the potential for? i highly doubt it. the local police can't use force against a violent criminal without every group that feels they are being unfairly prosecuted jumping up in protest. i highly doubt the US will start detaining protesters and non-violent citizens without igniting some serious protesting and/or riots.