Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Americans buy enough guns to outfit Chinese and Indian armies so far in 2009

 

[genocide roach]

good job obama!
~gR~

 

[cookiecutter]

That's fucked up

 

[Cythraul]

awesome

 

[no country for old wainds]

Y SO SWN FLU?

the pork knight starring beef ledger

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Americans buy enough guns to outfit Chinese and Indian armies so far in 2009

I bought 2

 

[cookiecutter]

Damn it can't you people think about the poor Indian and Chinese armies that are going without guns this year because of you?

 

[metal paddy]

U GOT THE FLU OVER IN THE USA BRUVS ???????????????????

 

[Dak]

This happened in NC, and I grew up watching this station/anchorman-woman.Kind of chilling:

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

didnt Ben Franklin say something like...
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

 

[genocide roach]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505...not_welcome;_ylt=AuYNGJOFzZf3c1xHmzJNQbN0bBAF

UK 'unwelcome' list bars 22 alleged extremists

Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Play Video Mideast Video:Islamic Jihad, Hamas ally -- and sometimes rival AFP Play Video Mideast Videoefense Begins Case In Trial For Oral Surgeon KDKA Pittsburgh Play Video Mideast Video:Budget-friendly fun: Dr. Jazz KMOV Channel 4 St. Louis By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press Writer – 29 mins ago
LONDON – For the first time, Britain on Tuesday published a list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to publish the names of 16 of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate. She cited unidentified "public interest" reasons for not disclosing the other six names.

"I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Smith told GMTV.

Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate" is on the list. Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."

The list includes Americans Stephen "Don" Black, founder of a Florida-based white supremacist Web site, and anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps, who leads a church in Topeka, Kansas.

The British government previously acknowledged that Phelps was banned. His daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, also was banned. The pair have picketed the funerals of AIDS victims and claimed the deaths of U.S. soldiers are a punishment for tolerance of homosexuality.

Yunis Al-Astal, a Hamas lawmaker in Gaza, and Egyptian cleric Safwat Hijazi are on the list. So is Israeli settler Mike Guzovsky, who Britain's Home Office said was involved with military training camps.

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, two leaders of a Russian gang, are barred from entering Britain. They were imprisoned for 10 years in Russia last year for their role in racially motivated killings of 19 people.

this crosses a freedom of speech line me thinks. and the UK definitely recognizes freedom of speech

even though i find phelps to be a complete fuck head, he still has a right to say what he wants, and travel where he wants. im sure there are fuckheads like him living in the UK too. there are certainly islamic fanatics in the UK too, something they cant seem to control.

however, i'm glad someone is recognizing guys like phelps are religious extremists. wasnt there a US gov. report that detailed US organizations that could breed terrorists? many of them were evangelical christian groups. just something i heard on talk radio one morning on the shuttle
~gR~

 

[genocide roach]

here it is:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/homeland-pulled-back-extremism-dictionary/

Homeland agency pulled back extremism dictionary
Black power, white supremacists, abortion foes make list
By Audrey Hudson (Contact) | Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The same Homeland Security Department office that categorized veterans as potential terrorists issued an earlier report that defined dozens of "extremists" ranging from black power activists to abortion foes. The report was nixed within hours and recalled from state and local law enforcement officials.

Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" that came out of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) in late March.

The lexicon lists definitions for key terms and phrases used by Homeland Security analysts "that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States," the report said.

Black separatism was defined as a movement that they said advocates the establishment of a separate nation within the U.S., and its members "advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence directed toward local law enforcement" to advance their goals. Black power is a "term used by black separatists to describe their pride in, and the perceived superiority of the black race," the report said.

Under the listing "antiabortion extremism," the lexicon cites a movement that "advocates violence against providers of abortion-related services." It notes that some people in the movement "cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities."

"The lexicon was not an authorized I&A product, and it was recalled as soon as management discovered it had been released without authorization," said Amy Kudwa, Homeland Security spokeswoman.

"This product is not, nor was it ever, in operational use," Ms. Kudwa said.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the report "causes further concern that Congress needs to get to the bottom of exactly how DHS determines what intelligence products to distribute to law enforcement officials around the country."

the lexicon PDF:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/lexicon.pdf
~gR~

 

[Dak]

Personally I think targeting/labeling "extremism" is dangerous. Who gets to define what is "extreme"? What is "extreme" to you might not be to me and vice vs. I would say the majority gets to decide what is extreme, but in the cases I see, it is the government that gets to decide what is extreme. What if listening to metal is soon on the list of "violent extremist tendency indicators"?

You shouldn't be able to list and target/punish someone for voicing their opinion.

 

[genocide roach]

having an opinion isnt an issue, identifying groups who use violence to force their opinion on others is

domestic terrorism, specifically against abortion clinics and enviromental targets has long been a sore topic for the US. we need to admit that it has happened and will probably continue to happen.

i do agree that deciding who decides who is an extremist and who isnt is a sticking point. the obvious answer is the president though. not his sub agencies, but his desk himself
~gR~

 

[Dak]

the obvious answer is the Supreme Court

FYP

 

[genocide roach]

hmmmmmmmmm. i dont think i agree. only because the courts job is to define laws which the president and his agencies should follow. they can lay down guidence, but its ultimately the presidents job as commander in chief to identify threats
~gR~

 

[Dak]

hmmmmmmmmm. i dont think i agree. only because the courts job is to define laws which the president and his agencies should follow. they can lay down guidence, but its ultimately the presidents job as commander in chief to identify threats
~gR~

To my knowledge, that job discription for the president isn't in the constitution.

A citizen has a right to trial and due process through our judicial system, "extremist" or not. As that isn't the case currently with the Patriot Act, we are no better than any other totalitarian country in regards to citizen rights.

 

[genocide roach]

youre veering off point. i'm not getting into another patriot act debate.

how is national defense not in the presidents job description? he is the commander in chief of our military (which is there for national defense). i know you know the oath of enlistment. does "all enemies foreign and domestic" ring a bell? since our president is our boss, and we must give this oath to work for him. i'm pretty sure it IS his job.

now, you could argue that the military has no place in civil law enforcement, and you would be right because of posse comitatus (unless the constitution or congress says otherwise). its just a wierd contradiction.
~gR~

 

[Dak]

youre veering off point. i'm not getting into another patriot act debate.

how is national defense not in the presidents job description? he is the commander in chief of our military (which is there for national defense). i know you know the oath of enlistment. does "all enemies foreign and domestic" ring a bell? since our president is our boss, and we must give this oath to work for him. i'm pretty sure it IS his job.

Double checked the consitution and he is the commander in chief. He can't declare war though, only Congress can, although for quite some time presidents have been getting around that by just using the military and not declaring war (which is bullshit).

now, you could argue that the military has no place in civil law enforcement, and you would be right because of posse comitatus (unless the constitution or congress says otherwise). its just a wierd contradiction.
~gR~

The line about "foreign and domestic" wasn't put in until 1960, and as far as I am concerned is illegal. If domestic is meant as a citizen then the military has no right to engage, we have the law enforcement and judicial system for that.

Current law regarding military involvement in law enforcement:

Insurrection_Act

Been reading more and more articles lately about military being involved in traffic stops, security at public events, etc. Totally illegal, but is happening anyway because the people making the decisions don't give a damn about the law and the average citizen is too busy thrill seeking.


The military should exist strictly to kill/destroy the enemy. Law enforcement is an entirely different beast that is completely opposite of the purpose of the military.

 

[genocide roach]

yeah, it all comes down to what domestic means. maybe its a foreign operative acting within our borders
~gR~