Detention Camps For Us Citizens

[antiklaus]

August 14 2002

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

What a Guy.

Gotta love that Ashcroft.

[antiklaus]

http://www.whoseflorida.com/internment.htm#Camps

sorry - no edit -- i intended to post a link.

[lapslf]

Well, I'd say, if you put Australians, Arabs, Germans, Chinese etc. in unconstitutional detention camps, why not Americans? It does make the guy a bit less of a hypocrit from that perspective.

[Lord-Humungus]

hmmmmm....considering the things the US govrenment is doing to US citizens....are all the anti-gun people starting to see the reason why we have a second amendment?

[Spookshow]

At 8/14/04 08:02 AM, Lord_Humungus wrote: hmmmmm....considering the things the US govrenment is doing to US citizens....are all the anti-gun people starting to see the reason why we have a second amendment?

They feel even if the government became blatanly oppressive we (80 million or so that would fight in one way or another) couldn't take the military (100,000 or so.) Even if every law enforcement officer and soldier fought with the oppressive government we could take them.

[C187]

eh...
it's true. They started to hold pople in late 2001.... kept them till he could pass the little shitty ass law.... What gets me is that in WW2, the last time they did stuff like this, there where some people in the news who tried to get the word out. (keep in mind the US Gov't said it never happend for a few years after WW2) Now today, they make a note of it. To the public, hope no one cares... (think about it 2002 who would of said anything anti about it without have'n the shit kicked out of them!) Add to the lack of TV time is the fact that one news station is BB's with bush, and the rest are too lazy to do any real work so they re say what they said...

ehhhhh..... i'm not make'n.... grrrr..... stupid head.... I think I'll post something that you all will get when I wake up later today...

[Spookshow]

While the situations of parts of WW II were wrong they were semi-needed. Look at how the Japanese embacy itself said everything was fine on December 6, 1941...

[d4rkn1t3]

At 8/14/04 07:11 AM, antiklaus wrote: August 14 2002
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.
The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply

accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

"enemy combatants"? not a very specific term for dealing with something so serious, but then again this lets them take in all kinds of people that according to them are dangerous.

president's absolute authority in "a time of war"? dictatorship anyone? the president does not have absolute authority during a time of war, the whole point of having the judicial branch is to stop things like this from happening( checks and balances ), but then again Bush and co. shit all over the democratic system and they have shown this time and time again.

all this stuff makes me wonder why someone would be still be a republican... oh right the tax cuts for the rich but that stills leaves me questioning the republicans who arent rich.

[Spookshow]

I'm still a republican because I get to keep my guns.

[Slizor]

They feel even if the government became blatanly oppressive we (80 million or so that would fight in one way or another) couldn't take the military (100,000 or so.) Even if every law enforcement officer and soldier fought with the oppressive government we could take them.

80 million people would fight.....what have you been smoking? And the US military is bigger then that. I doubt that under a truly oppressive Government you would have guns or the ability to organise effectively - the state doesn't just suddenly turn oppressive overnight (take a look at it now) it would slowly get rid of things that are a threat to its power. If you were a conspiracy theorist you could see the ban on fully automatic assault guns as this sort of a move.

[LexanPhoenix]

At 8/14/04 07:11 AM, antiklaus wrote: August 14 2002

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

What a Guy.

Gotta love that Ashcroft.

You know, Bush is looking at it in the same way. He said as much when he went to the trial involving the imprisoned Iraqis. More here: (my post, bottom of page)

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=159298&page=1

[Gunter45]

I don't think it will fly. It is too big of a leap to justify that with the Constitution. The Patriot Acts, maybe if you're a really loose constructionalist, but this takes the cake. If this passes, I'm going to buy a rifle or a shotgun, no joke. And seeing as how I am legally able to, I most certainly will.

[Spookshow]

At 8/15/04 10:24 AM, Slizor wrote: 80 million people would fight.....what have you been smoking?

Yep. 80 million who would fight in "one way or another". That means protesting, support of gurellias sp* etc.

And the US military is bigger then that.

The amount that would actually be supportive and fighting is about that, in my opinion.

I doubt that under a truly oppressive Government you would have guns or the ability to organise effectively - the state doesn't just suddenly turn oppressive overnight (take a look at it now) it would slowly get rid of things that are a threat to its power.

They managed to organize and fight back pretty well under Hitler. He did it in 10 years.

If you were a conspiracy theorist you could see the ban on fully automatic assault guns as this sort of a move.

If you were a conspiracy theorist you could find a reason for anything in anything. :P Also, since the autos have been "banned" since 1934, this is nothing new.