[BlackGriffen]

You'd think that people so afraid of government intrusion into their lives and gun stockpiles would be more cautious about letting the government give itself the ability to lock someone away forever in secret without public trial or contact on the say-so of the President.

Perhaps they need a little help imagining what that actually implies. I don't think I can do a better job than Hunter at DailyKos:

The Hidden Upside to the End of Constitutional Protections: Jailing James Dobson, Forever

We have been dismayed by the parlor game going on in the halls of power, true enough. An anti-torture bill designed to codify torture; the acceptance and legalization of domestic espionage without court order or demonstrable cause; the removal of habeas corpus, one of those petty legal terms that the entire arc of American law relies upon. The Republican Party decided that their election-year strategy, this September, would be to take boxcutters to the Constitution, and they found just enough accomplices to do it.

But there are upsides, here. And the primary upside is that, after being a movement dominated by the terror of government ready to go amok, people who carried the Bill of Rights on cards in their wallets and stockpiled guns with the belief that only guns would save them, the conservative and far-right movements have finally given us the precise legal tools to remove the far-right from the national landscape. Forever.

Before Osama bin Laden, there was the American citizen and terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who drove a truck full of explosives to the front of a government building and detonated it, as an act of terrorism against the United States. Before the Cole bombing, there was an organized series of mail bombings against judges, bombings of abortion clinics, assassinations of abortion doctors, conducted by those affiliated with Operation Rescue and an assortment of domestic terrorist organizations. Weaponized anthrax, sent to news outlets and liberal politicians. The Atlanta Olympics were attacked by terrorists as well, a shrapnel-laced explosive detonated in the crowded Olympic village in order to cause as many deaths as possible. Even if al Qaeda had not existed, the unholy wraith of terrorism against Americans, on American soil, still would be a compounding and urgent problem. And all of those acts were perpetrated by Americans, and specifically by the American far-right.

These acts of conservative terrorism have been all but forgotten, after bin Laden's crimes. But they are domestic terrorism, and were explicitly intended as such, and of the sort that these new Republican, conservative laws are precisely aimed at taking on.

The advantage of these new laws in these new times is, bluntly, that normal rules of evidence no longer apply, and that those charged with aiding terrorism need not be granted a trial; no actual crime need be alleged; no evidence need be presented against them; nobody else is required to be even informed of their imprisonment; there is no appeal. If the President of the United States determines them to be affiliated with terrorism -- and it does not matter if that President is Republican or Democrat -- the judgment is final. All that is required to strip an American citizen of their Constitutional rights, strip them of their citizenship itself, and declare them an enemy combatant in the fight against terrorism is the say-so of the President. That's it.

So if we are dejected, today, that Americans no longer are protected by the Constitution, cheer up just a bit. Because from now on, American terrorists and their conservative supporters aren't protected by the Constitution either. It has been changed, in this time of war, according to their own new laws -- and that means that at the first point in which the Republicans lose power, these same new laws can be used to imprison those that all reasonable men agree are terrorists, and their supporters, and those giving them assistance and comfort.


The entire far-right conservative movement is tied, in no more than two or three degrees of separation, to U.S. terrorist Timothy McVeigh. His roots and his support were based in the conservative militia movement, a collection of far-right groups and organizations, many of them white supremacist in nature or affiliated with the even more noxious Christian Identity movement. Many of these groups stockpile guns and ammunition in the direct belief that those guns will be required against the U.S. government, and in places like Ruby Ridge and Waco, have brought those weapons to bear. They are proven terrorists; this much is indisputable. Under the new laws, future Attorneys General will be able to mark these individuals as enemy combatants, and no further Constitutional protections will apply. Janet Reno will be marked as the last Attorney General to have had to deal with terrorism unequipped with the new laws designed to strip such figures of their citizenship and trial rights.

[...]

But as horrific as Oklahoma City was, as an act of terrorism, a man detonating, among other things, the children of a preschool, in his one horrific terrorist act, the terrorist acts of the far-right "Christian" movement are worse. Throughout the 1990s, and before, and since, far-right domestic terrorist groups such as Operation Rescue and their affiliated groups have conducted organized campaigns of intimidation, bombings, and assassinations. The "lone wolf" terrorism of a Timothy McVeigh -- which, as I pointed out, is far from "lone wolf", but was supported and encouraged by a network of thousands of like-minded militia members, many of whom have been arrested in the course of planning or collecting weapons for similar terrorist attacks -- is one thing, but anti-abortion terrorism is quite organized, and extensive in reach.

[...]

I am merely pointing out the upside, here. I am merely pointing out that, in their fear of terrorism, the far-right has given America, finally, the exact tools needed to destroy them forever. It may have been wiser for the militia movements to carry the Bill of Rights in their back pocket, to distrust government authority, to distrust the notion of President-as-King, capable of nullifying law, seizing without trial, canceling the citizenship of Americans, and rendering to secret prisons, but now that the law has been changed, we liberals must seize the opportunity, and use their very laws against them. We have been spineless in the face of terrorism too long: it is time to confront it where it lives, and where it breeds.

All it takes is one Democratic president, and the force of will to declare the obvious -- that the supporters of far-right abortion bombers are terrorists themselves, every bit as much as those that pulled the triggers or lit the fuses. That the militia movements are terrorists. Not just terrorists -- no longer Americans, no longer with the rights of trial, by presidential decision. Not negotiable. Terrorists, and any that support them, also terrorists. Look at Oklahoma City, at Ruby Ridge, at Waco, and tell me flatly that those men are not terrorists. Look at the bombings of judges who interfered in the violent anti-abortion crusade. Count the victims of the pipe bombs, and you tell me, if you dare, that this is not terrorism. It is. You know it, I know it, and James Dobson himself knows it.

The far-right has degraded America. Now it is time to end them, using the tools they themselves proposed. We are one president away.


Now, you may be thinking that this is all an elaborate joke, of the sort I pull from time to time. A bit of satire notable for being not the slightest, least, tiniest bit funny. That I am not proposing that all those that met and spoke with Timothy McVeigh should be branded themselves as enemy combatants and disposed of as supporters of terrorists, under the laws we have now explicitly crafted to allow the government to do just that. That I am not really proposing that we merely trace the financial links between the very GOP infrastructure itself, Scaife on down, and the actual terrorists who have committed actual acts of politically inspired murder, and using those links to shut down those front organizations and jail their leaders.

But the new law is the new law, and the new law is now quite clear, and we would be foolish, foolish people indeed to let them, the actual supporters of terrorism, use it against their fellow Americans, and have us leave it unused. In defending against terrorism, Constitutional protections must waver. These are unique times, when a single man can drive a truck up to a single building and murder hundreds of men, women and children in a single instant -- and the odds are nearly 100% that, whether foreign or domestic, that terrorist will be a far-right religious fanatic. When a single lone man with a gun can wait outside a doctor's office, and assassinate the man, and then through a collection of like-minded men do it again, and again, this is terrorism. This is what we are fighting, and whether the terrorism comes from Osama bin Laden or the hundreds of willing Eric Rudolphs in America makes no difference, to those that are dead. Is America worth that fight? Do you love it enough to violate it, just a little, in order to save it, and be rid of the violent forever, finally in secret jails where only they know whether we got the right men, or the wrong men?


So -- is this satire, then? Am I pulling your legs?

Well, that is the interesting thing about the conservative movement. Ann Coulter can write with viciousness, can write even about assassinations and murders, and upon the slightest objection, the conservative movement merely claims she is an entertainer, and nobody should take her seriously. I am merely proposing we use the new Republican laws to jail Republicans known to support Republican terrorists; that hardly seems extremist at all, compared to the glib support of murders.

And Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Hewitt, and every militia member on the planet are infamous for that one conservative trait that outshines all the others -- the inability to recognize satire in the slightest. The complete inability to determine when someone is making fun of them, and when someone is deadly earnest.

So is it a joke, or do we really intend to do these things, when the next Democratic president takes office -- one not directly tied to the far-right terrorist groups themselves, as George W. Bush has been, but one willing to use the new American tools of terrorism against all terrorists, not just brown ones?

I propose we don't tell them. I propose we leave them in the dark, and let them wonder. If this were indeed merely a bout of deeply unfunny satire, not telling them so might be the cruelest joke of all.

Hunter likes talk a lot. I excised a good deal of the detail he went in to describing the ties between the far right darling media personalities and the right wing terrorist groups. Well, sometimes the links will require a little "creative encouragement" of detainees to flesh out, but what's a little water boarding or stress positions? After all, Rush Limbaugh famously said that what went on at Abu Ghraib was no worse than college hazing, so I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

Hunter makes a very good point, though. Are you sure you'd trust a President Clinton (either of them) with the same powers the Republicans in office have been so eager to grant Bush the Second?

Sleep well.

BlackGriffen

[dcmacdaddy]

Absolutely! ANYONE who commits terrorism, whether home-grown or from overseas, should be subject to the same anti-terrorism laws being promulgated in the current political environment.

Timothy McVeigh is Osama bin Laden's alter-ego. They are cut from the same cloth, bolstered in their efforts by a militant religiosity that says "killing in the name of God" is both acceptable and appropriate. They both hate the freedoms we cherish as Americans and both worked actively to bring about the downfall of the United States.

I would like to see the current Administration brand the White Identity/Separatist movement as terrorist organizations and use their newly granted legal powers to do so. I would suggest that the terrorists within pose an even greater threat to the safety of this nation because they are home-grown. They exist and thrive because they are "just like us" and so can pass silently among us lying in wait until their next major attack occurs.

Good find, BG.

[Spliffdaddy]

Typical leftwing BS.

Yeah, I'd be willing to bet we won't be seeing anymore Democrat presidents.

Especially since Democrats have made it known that their top priorities are to persecute Christians and bring charges against Bush and his cabinet.

"Look at Oklahoma City, at Ruby Ridge, at Waco, and tell me flatly that those men are not terrorists."

I can tell you flatly that Ruby Ridge and Waco had no terrorists. Seems odd that the author doesn't know that.

Which leaves the liberals, as usual, only a single self-admitted AGNOSTIC (McVeigh) delusional methamphetamine addict to point fingers at.

That's right, folks. McVeigh is not a Christian. His father was a Roman Catholic, but McVeigh was not religious.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Typical leftwing BS.

How's the sand taste?

[Spliffdaddy]

I want to live long enough so I witness once, just once - a well-reasoned post by you.

I don't think you're capable. At least you haven't proven it yet. After 9,200 posts.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=dcmacdaddy]

Timothy McVeigh is Osama bin Laden's alter-ego. They are cut from the same cloth, bolstered in their efforts by a militant religiosity that says "killing in the name of God" is both acceptable and appropriate. They both hate the freedoms we cherish as Americans and both worked actively to bring about the downfall of the United States.

Except for one little minor detail...........McVeigh was not part of a worldwide network funded and supported by leaders of nations and religious leaders. Religion was not what motivated McVeigh. He was anti-government and anybody that paid a bit of attention to that case understood that. That is why he attacked a Federal building. McVeigh was not held up as a hero and cheered, harbored, and protected by the populace. He was convicted and executed whereas the Islamic extremists that intentionally murder as many civilians as they can are praised by many in their populations.

Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic that has been employed by Islamic extremists far more than by any other group.

When Hitler used the blitzkrieg, the allied forces didn't say they were at war against the blitzkriek. They said they were at war against the Germans. The Blitzkreig was a tactic being used by the Germans just as terrorism is the tactic used by Islamic extremists. But in this PC world, we can't say who it is killing people daily through the use of terrorism as a tactic. No, they are just terrorists and have nothing to do with radical Islam.

I would suggest that the terrorists within pose an even greater threat to the safety of this nation because they are home-grown. They exist and thrive because they are "just like us" and so can pass silently among us lying in wait until their next major attack occurs

.


Who are all those home grown terrorists that are targeting innocents everywhere for murder and committing genocide in Africa?

Rednecks from Georgia? Cajons from down on the bayou maybe? Oh I know..........the separatists from Idaho? Maybe the University of Utah Utes or the Fighting Sioux of North Dakota? The televangelists? The Mormon Choir Tabernacle? Gosh, I know those are going to be some of the first groups that come to my mind the next time I see airplanes crashing into buildings and people jumping to their deaths because we can't suspect Islamic extremist nutjobs more so than any other groups............afterall there was TIM MCVEIGH.

There must be a lot of people out there thankful that Tim McVeigh was a White American. Nevermind that his motivation stemmed from a fierce hatred of the federal Govt who he felt was overstepping their bounds. No, that doesn't fit in with the "terrorists can be anybody" mantra.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I want to live long enough so I witness once, just once - a well-reasoned post by you.

I don't think you're capable. At least you haven't proven it yet. After 9,200 posts.

I want to live long enough so I witness once, just once - a well-reasoned post by you.

I don't think you're capable. At least you haven't proven it yet. After 9,600 posts.


Edit: Wow, isn't that weird? We were totally thinking the same thing.

[analogika]

[QUOTE=DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Except for one little minor detail...........McVeigh was not part of a worldwide network funded and supported by leaders of nations and religious leaders.

Neither were the London bombers, nor the recent failed German train bombers.

Al Qaeda as a world-wide network is completely irrelevant by now. The U.S. war path has LONG since turned it into a grass-roots movement with no centralized structure whatsoever.

Today, Al Qaeda is not an organization, it is an agenda.

[pooka]

So what you're saying is that eventually, we'll get rid of all the nutters on both sides of the spectrum? And this is bad why?

Also, speaking of these far-right nutjobs and their wetdreams of a show down with the government...

Time and time again we hear about how armed American citizens would stand no chance against the U.S. military. Therefore, the 2nd amendment is antiquated and serves no purpose in the todays world. Yet we are reminded gleefully by some about the failures of our modern militaries against rag-tag groups in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc that lack the same sophisticated weaponry a "militia" supposedly wouldn't stand a change against.

As for my own opinion, I personally support the disappearing of white power groups, religious nutjobs (of all flavors), abortion bombing jerkoffs and all of their supporters. Find me a lib President with some nuts and lets get to persecuting! Fair is fair.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=pooka]

As for my own opinion, I personally support the disappearing of white power groups, religious nutjobs (of all flavors), abortion bombing jerkoffs and all of their supporters. Find me a lib President with some nuts and lets get to persecuting! Fair is fair.

Of course that would include black power groups such as the Black panthers, and chicano power groups too right? Do these groups that spew every bit as much hatred as any white power group does belong in the above list?

[analogika]

It depends on their affiliation with terrorism, now, doesn't it.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=analogika]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Neither were the London bombers, nor the recent failed German train bombers.

Al Qaeda as a world-wide network is completely irrelevant by now. The U.S. war path has LONG since turned it into a grass-roots movement with no centralized structure whatsoever.

Today, Al Qaeda is not an organization, it is an agenda.

Islamic extremists that employ terroristic tactics share the same ideology which is the result of the religious indoctrination they get from the time they can speak. This religious indoctrination is not something that only a small fraction of them receive. The mainstream Muslims support their prophets revelation that a worldwide jihad in terms of war must be fought so that the world will be allah's only and ruled by Islamic law. Those apologizing for this and trying to downplay this refer to the Qu'ran only, which is a mix of both peaceful instructions and instructions for war against the non-believers. However, the Hadith gives more detailed instructions and explanations from Mohammad and these are what has been considered to be the absolute truths that trump all other prophecies by Muhammad and are clear instructions of what to do with non-believers. None of those instructions include coexisting peacefully with non-believers. It's only a small percentage of more progressive Muslims trying to put a different spin on how we should all be interpreting Islam and these interpretations are flat out rejected by the mainstream Muslim clerics and followers.

Contrast that to our "homegrown terrorists". Abortion bombers (can't remember the last time that has occured), anti-govt libertarian wackos such as McVeigh, ect. Are they fringe groups that are the anomolies, or do they represent the mainstream? Even those against abortion are not for bombing abortion clinics. Do we have madrasis type schools that uniformly brain wash our kids whole sale to become abortion clinic bombers or federal building bombers? Do these types of fringe groups operate with impunity? Are they held up as local heros?

It's the support for the ideology that islamic extremists enjoy that our fringe groups do not. Each and every Islammic terrorist organization does not need to be directly tied to one another in terms of organizational structure and funding, because it is their shared goal that ties them. To win a jihad war against all non-believers in order to fulfill Muhammad's prophecy that the world will be ruled by Allah only and therefore Islamic law.