No longer tin-hat conspiracy theory: FEMA Camps Everywhere

[westkybitcoins]

Well, they're all afraid that they'll start detaining non-criminals for non-crimes.  Like, just being anti-government or something.  I don't see that happening without a huge uproar about it from the people.

Its a gradual process, aka a slippery slope and you are sliding VERY fast. As a non US citizen it really frightens me to see you heading down the road to tyranny. Do read up on the rise of Nazis in the 30s, there are striking parallels.
What is happening in the US now on a regular basis would have been unthinkable and caused huge outcries only a few decades ago and likewise what you consider unthinkable now may well cause an equally deafening silence in a few years particularly if the country is in a bigger turmoil.

Already US citizens seem to accept their president can liquidate US citizens without due process by just saying he is a terrorist (and with virtually no evidence to support it). Other top politicians called Julian Assange a "terrorist". That guy that was jailed for coining his own money, that was labeled an act of terrorism. Software piracy and hacking is being linked to terrorism. How long until they throw people like that in Gitmo, or a drone attack becomes acceptable? Unthinkable? The legal basis is already in place. If you dont stand up to it now, dont be surprised when it actually happens.

They accept it, because of 9/11.  If some terrorists need to be liquidated to prevent another 9/11, then that is ok in my book.  Even if some of them turn up to be innocent.  I would rather one innocent person die than thousands.

If it makes you feel any better, I am a vast minority in that viewpoint.  In fact, I do not know of anyone who shares it with me.  So, most of America is NOT ok with these things.  I just think it makes sense to kill one person (or a handful of people) in order to save many.  I do not believe the judicial system always has enough proof or power to prevent a catastrophic event, and that is why I believe the rules need to be broken from time to time.

Well, I'm not sure if you'll view this as a good or bad thing, but I know plenty of people who agree with you.

Sure, most of them would never actually verbalize the idea of sacrificing the few to save many, even to themselves, but their reactions and preferences make it crystal clear.

[1715003891]

1715003891

[1715003891]

1715003891

[SgtSpike]

Well, they're all afraid that they'll start detaining non-criminals for non-crimes.  Like, just being anti-government or something.  I don't see that happening without a huge uproar about it from the people.

Its a gradual process, aka a slippery slope and you are sliding VERY fast. As a non US citizen it really frightens me to see you heading down the road to tyranny. Do read up on the rise of Nazis in the 30s, there are striking parallels.
What is happening in the US now on a regular basis would have been unthinkable and caused huge outcries only a few decades ago and likewise what you consider unthinkable now may well cause an equally deafening silence in a few years particularly if the country is in a bigger turmoil.

Already US citizens seem to accept their president can liquidate US citizens without due process by just saying he is a terrorist (and with virtually no evidence to support it). Other top politicians called Julian Assange a "terrorist". That guy that was jailed for coining his own money, that was labeled an act of terrorism. Software piracy and hacking is being linked to terrorism. How long until they throw people like that in Gitmo, or a drone attack becomes acceptable? Unthinkable? The legal basis is already in place. If you dont stand up to it now, dont be surprised when it actually happens.

They accept it, because of 9/11.  If some terrorists need to be liquidated to prevent another 9/11, then that is ok in my book.  Even if some of them turn up to be innocent.  I would rather one innocent person die than thousands.

If it makes you feel any better, I am a vast minority in that viewpoint.  In fact, I do not know of anyone who shares it with me.  So, most of America is NOT ok with these things.  I just think it makes sense to kill one person (or a handful of people) in order to save many.  I do not believe the judicial system always has enough proof or power to prevent a catastrophic event, and that is why I believe the rules need to be broken from time to time.

Well, I'm not sure if you'll view this as a good or bad thing, but I know plenty of people who agree with you.

Sure, most of them would never actually verbalize the idea of sacrificing the few to save many, even to themselves, but their reactions and preferences make it crystal clear.

*shrug*

It's what makes sense to me.  I could be wrong, could be right, and only the future knows.  I do understand that powers can be abused, and that we should be careful, but I am willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt on that front.  Until I see serious instances of abuse, I'm not going to call them out on it.  And one instance of abuse doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing should be abolished, either.  It just means there is a problem in the system somewhere to be fixed.  It is when there is consistent, purposeful, and blatant abuse that the whole thing should be stopped.  And that hasn't happened.

[P4man]

They accept it, because of 9/11.  If some terrorists need to be liquidated to prevent another 9/11, then that is ok in my book. 

As long as one has reasonable assurance the target in question is indeed a dangerous terrorist, few people will disagree with that. But when its sufficient that some politician can just say he is a dangerous terrorist, with no oversight, no burden of proof, then it becomes a completely different matter. Thats the sort of power that defines a tyranny.

Even if some of them turn up to be innocent.  I would rather one innocent person die than thousands.

Innocent people die all the time already, you really think those predator attacks shoot arrows rather than missiles that kill anyone in the area? Thats not the question however, the question is, is any of it making you any safer? My guess is: nope, quite on the contrary.

[SgtSpike]

They accept it, because of 9/11.  If some terrorists need to be liquidated to prevent another 9/11, then that is ok in my book. 

As long as one has reasonable assurance the target in question is indeed a dangerous terrorist, few people will disagree with that. But when its sufficient that some politician can just say he is a dangerous terrorist, with no oversight, no burden of proof, then it becomes a completely different matter. Thats the sort of power that defines a tyranny.

Ok, so where is the proof that politicians can pull the trigger by just saying the word?  And what politicians are we talking about here?  I would certainly trust the president (whoever it was at the time) to be able to make the right decision, but I'm betting that some random congressman couldn't just issue a kill order on a person.

So, give more info if it is true that a politician can kill people without consequence.  Who can do this?  And what are the steps to accomplish it?  What checks and balances are in place?  Who all would have to be "in on it"?

Even if some of them turn up to be innocent.  I would rather one innocent person die than thousands.

Innocent people die all the time already, you really think those predator attacks shoot arrows rather than missiles that kill anyone in the area? Thats not the question however, the question is, is any of it making you any safer? My guess is: nope, quite on the contrary.

And why would you guess that?  Just a hunch?  Another conspiracy theory, maybe?

If you have proof that killing a suspected terrorist outside of the legal system would cause us to be less safe, then please, do share.  Otherwise, I will hold by the belief that a suspected terrorist dead = a suspected terrorist who can't terrorize.

[P4man]

Ok, so where is the proof that politicians can pull the trigger by just saying the word?  And what politicians are we talking about here?  I would certainly trust the president (whoever it was at the time) to be able to make the right decision, but I'm betting that some random congressman couldn't just issue a kill order on a person.

Are you saying the president is not a politician?  And its not just killing, its also detaining without charges, and torture by proxy. I bet you the president doesnt sign off on all of those.

So, give more info if it is true that a politician can kill people without consequence.  Who can do this?  And what are the steps to accomplish it?  What checks and balances are in place?  Who all would have to be "in on it"?

Great questions! You feel okay that you dont know the answer?

And why would you guess that?  Just a hunch?  Another conspiracy theory, maybe?

If you have proof that killing a suspected terrorist outside of the legal system would cause us to be less safe, then please, do share.  Otherwise, I will hold by the belief that a suspected terrorist dead = a suspected terrorist who can't terrorize.

Are you kidding me? They have a fancy word for it: blow-back.
It doesnt take genius to see what it is happening all around the world, but you have to be really blind to not see particularly in Pakistan what its causing, as a direct result of those drone attacks. You kill (maybe) a few foot soldiers of the Taliban (and a handful of innocent children and women as "collateral" damage),  and you will end up creating a sworn enemy thats closely aligned with that very same Taliban, but armed with an arsenal of 200 nuclear bombs.

Only you will feel safer for it.

BTW, look up the definition of terrorist; its someone exploiting fear. Precisely what your government has been doing.

[westkybitcoins]

They accept it, because of 9/11.  If some terrorists need to be liquidated to prevent another 9/11, then that is ok in my book. 

As long as one has reasonable assurance the target in question is indeed a dangerous terrorist, few people will disagree with that. But when its sufficient that some politician can just say he is a dangerous terrorist, with no oversight, no burden of proof, then it becomes a completely different matter. Thats the sort of power that defines a tyranny.

Ok, so where is the proof that politicians can pull the trigger by just saying the word?  And what politicians are we talking about here?  I would certainly trust the president (whoever it was at the time) to be able to make the right decision, but I'm betting that some random congressman couldn't just issue a kill order on a person.

Why is the president more trustworthy than a congressman? He's just "some politician" like any other, it's not like there aren't congressional committees that get briefed on military issues and international intelligence.

So, give more info if it is true that a politician can kill people without consequence.  Who can do this?  And what are the steps to accomplish it?  What checks and balances are in place?  Who all would have to be "in on it"?

You can google most of this stuff. It's pretty hot news, there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, and a lot of people scrutinizing the latest relevant bills. It's all out in the open. There is no "in on it."

For an example, the president decided just recently to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. He ordered it done. Drones struck. He was killed. I can't imagine there wasn't "collateral damage." Two weeks later, his 16-year-old son, born in Denver, living overseas, was also killed, same scenario.

There was apparently only one step required: "do it." And no check or balance of any sort seems to be in place.

Was the man a terrorist? Was his 16-year-old son? How could we (the people) determine that? Will we ever know, considering how fast this is all moving and such "old news" is being left behind?

Even if some of them turn up to be innocent.  I would rather one innocent person die than thousands.

Innocent people die all the time already, you really think those predator attacks shoot arrows rather than missiles that kill anyone in the area? Thats not the question however, the question is, is any of it making you any safer? My guess is: nope, quite on the contrary.

And why would you guess that?  Just a hunch?  Another conspiracy theory, maybe?

If you have proof that killing a suspected terrorist outside of the legal system would cause us to be less safe, then please, do share.  Otherwise, I will hold by the belief that a suspected terrorist dead = a suspected terrorist who can't terrorize.

....

Have you heard the news reports of U.S. forces hitting the wrong targets? I know the mainstream media doesn't focus on such reports for any length of time, but there have been a number of them over the last decade. It can go even further back if you count Clinton bombing aspirin factories to distract from his scandals.

One of the more egregious "mistakes", if one can prioritize them, are those that hit weddings. I believe it's happened at least twice. The goal wasn't to hit a suspected terrorist, as the bombing was a mistake. But even if it was, clearly not everyone at a typical wedding party is involved in the same business as a few of the attendees.

So, we have a roomful of innocents. It's a wedding. A time of joy. Perhaps there's singing and dancing, or the groom and bride are about to kiss. Point is, in an instant, bombs hit, there's rubble everywhere, people are injured and dead.

The survivors stagger out, and begin the mourning. Days later, they discover the bomb was dropped by the U.S. military.

What do you think is going to go through their minds?

Particularly the young ones (especially the ones who lost loved ones, which is probably many) who have been told by radicals "Those devils just want to kill us all! Just wait, they'll hurt someone you love, and then you'll see we're right!"

Personally, I can't think of a more effective recruiting campaign for new terrorists.

[P4man]

BTW, when it comes to detention and torture, its not just your president that has its say; not even only members of congress. Military commanders and military intelligence people (you know, the very same ones that told you about saddams WMDs) now get those privileges now too:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

Now before you say "thats only for terrorists", do read.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially 9
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces 10
that are engaged in hostilities against the United 11
States or its coalition partners, including any person 12
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly 13
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy 14
forces.

Just about anyone could fall under that. Including the current chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who used to support the IRA. Anyone supporting palestenians.  And lets not mention just about everyone in the CIA over age 50 once involved in arming and training Al Qaeda when you still thought they were your friends (blow-back, remember that word?). Oh and quite a few US military Im sure, arming enemies of your enemies in Iraq, Iran and God knows where else.

If you still feel it doesnt apply to you; just wait until Taliban starts using bitcoin.

[westkybitcoins]

If you still feel it doesnt apply to you; just wait until Taliban starts using bitcoin.

This would be a nightmare, but it's a totally legitimate concern.

Irony is, AFAIK they primarily use dollars, but no one thinks twice about that.

[P4man]

This would be a nightmare, but it's a totally legitimate concern.

Irony is, AFAIK they primarily use dollars, but no one thinks twice about that.

I think it makes even more sense for Somali sea pirates to start doing "business" in bitcoin. Someone should actually give them a hint .  But yeah, it wouldnt be the best publicity for bitcoin, but rest assured our governments will seize the opportunity.

[RandyFolds]

I'm not afraid of the detention camps popping up all over my country. After all, I'm not a criminal. I've got nothing to hide. If you are against them, then you are probably a criminal.
 

Just as an aside, you probably are a criminal. The average US citizen commits three felonies a day, without meaning to. Since none of us has time to go through the thousands of pages and rules and laws that pertain to us, that fact is often not discovered until after you've ticked off some bureaucrat, cop or nosy neighbor and they decide to ruin your life with a single anonymous phone call,  trumped up charge or little rule they pull out just for spite.

There's a reason the US has the largest "criminal" population in the world. No, that's not per capita, it's the largest in terms of raw numbers.

*citation needed

What three felonies did I unwittingly commit today? I will even start you off and give you one that I willingly committed: consuming a schedule one controlled substance. It wasn't purchased today, so that isn't one, and additionally, all federal, California and Los Angeles taxes were paid on it so you can't try and wriggle out with a technicality there. Name two more.

This may be the most BS statistic I have ever seen.

[westkybitcoins]

This would be a nightmare, but it's a totally legitimate concern.

Irony is, AFAIK they primarily use dollars, but no one thinks twice about that.

I think it makes even more sense for Somali sea pirates to start doing "business" in bitcoin. Someone should actually give them a hint .  But yeah, it wouldnt be the best publicity for bitcoin, but rest assured our governments will seize the opportunity.

Then I guess we better start preparing counter-PR then.

The global financial system won't last much longer. People will rush to alternative forms of money, and when it comes to digital money, the only currency that is designed to be counterfeit-proof is Bitcoin. MHO, it's inevitable that they, and everyone else, will start using it.

*goes to investigate whether pirates use smartphones*

[westkybitcoins]

I'm not afraid of the detention camps popping up all over my country. After all, I'm not a criminal. I've got nothing to hide. If you are against them, then you are probably a criminal.
 

Just as an aside, you probably are a criminal. The average US citizen commits three felonies a day, without meaning to. Since none of us has time to go through the thousands of pages and rules and laws that pertain to us, that fact is often not discovered until after you've ticked off some bureaucrat, cop or nosy neighbor and they decide to ruin your life with a single anonymous phone call,  trumped up charge or little rule they pull out just for spite.

There's a reason the US has the largest "criminal" population in the world. No, that's not per capita, it's the largest in terms of raw numbers.

*citation needed

What three felonies did I unwittingly commit today? I will even start you off and give you one that I willingly committed: consuming a schedule one controlled substance. It wasn't purchased today, so that isn't one, and additionally, all federal, California and Los Angeles taxes were paid on it so you can't try and wriggle out with a technicality there. Name two more.

This may be the most BS statistic I have ever seen.

Key word: average.

Although it's obviously not a handful of people committing millions of felonies daily, and the rest being squeaky clean.

Anyway, I'm sort of surprised this isn't more well known. Here's a start:

WSJ: You Commit Three Felonies a Day

If you want to debate whether it's 3.1 or 2.4, we could, but really I think the points made in the original source (and geez, the number itself, even if off!) makes the point.

[RandyFolds]

I'm not afraid of the detention camps popping up all over my country. After all, I'm not a criminal. I've got nothing to hide. If you are against them, then you are probably a criminal.
 

Just as an aside, you probably are a criminal. The average US citizen commits three felonies a day, without meaning to. Since none of us has time to go through the thousands of pages and rules and laws that pertain to us, that fact is often not discovered until after you've ticked off some bureaucrat, cop or nosy neighbor and they decide to ruin your life with a single anonymous phone call,  trumped up charge or little rule they pull out just for spite.

There's a reason the US has the largest "criminal" population in the world. No, that's not per capita, it's the largest in terms of raw numbers.

*citation needed

What three felonies did I unwittingly commit today? I will even start you off and give you one that I willingly committed: consuming a schedule one controlled substance. It wasn't purchased today, so that isn't one, and additionally, all federal, California and Los Angeles taxes were paid on it so you can't try and wriggle out with a technicality there. Name two more.

This may be the most BS statistic I have ever seen.

Key word: average.

Although it's obviously not a handful of people committing millions of felonies daily, and the rest being squeaky clean.

Anyway, I'm sort of surprised this isn't more well known. Here's a start:

WSJ: You Commit Three Felonies a Day

If you want to debate whether it's 3.1 or 2.4, we could, but really I think the points made in the original source (and geez, the number itself, even if off!) makes the point.

*citation still needed.

One guy writing a book called 'Three Felonies a Day" does not make it so. I am just saying that as a criminal, I don't commit three felonies a day. It would be fairly difficult to commit three felonies a day without knowing. I could see it in civil infractions and misdemeanors, but not felonies.

[westkybitcoins]

I'm not afraid of the detention camps popping up all over my country. After all, I'm not a criminal. I've got nothing to hide. If you are against them, then you are probably a criminal.
 

Just as an aside, you probably are a criminal. The average US citizen commits three felonies a day, without meaning to. Since none of us has time to go through the thousands of pages and rules and laws that pertain to us, that fact is often not discovered until after you've ticked off some bureaucrat, cop or nosy neighbor and they decide to ruin your life with a single anonymous phone call,  trumped up charge or little rule they pull out just for spite.

There's a reason the US has the largest "criminal" population in the world. No, that's not per capita, it's the largest in terms of raw numbers.

*citation needed

What three felonies did I unwittingly commit today? I will even start you off and give you one that I willingly committed: consuming a schedule one controlled substance. It wasn't purchased today, so that isn't one, and additionally, all federal, California and Los Angeles taxes were paid on it so you can't try and wriggle out with a technicality there. Name two more.

This may be the most BS statistic I have ever seen.

Key word: average.

Although it's obviously not a handful of people committing millions of felonies daily, and the rest being squeaky clean.

Anyway, I'm sort of surprised this isn't more well known. Here's a start:

WSJ: You Commit Three Felonies a Day

If you want to debate whether it's 3.1 or 2.4, we could, but really I think the points made in the original source (and geez, the number itself, even if off!) makes the point.

*citation still needed.

One guy writing a book called 'Three Felonies a Day" does not make it so. I am just saying that as a criminal, I don't commit three felonies a day. It would be fairly difficult to commit three felonies a day without knowing. I could see it in civil infractions and misdemeanors, but not felonies.

Did you dig into what sorts of stats the book uses? Or for that matter read the whole article?

If what you're looking for is a peer-reviewed academic paper using government statistics of data taken from average citizens, then no, that doesn't exist, to my knowledge. If it does, then no, I can't point you to it. Clearly, the only reasonable conclusion is the estimate has no basis in reality. 

I'm willing to take the estimate at face value, for a number of reasons, but as you disagree, let me ask: what's your estimate?

Also, what's the most-unlikely sounding felony you know of? (It would help to exclude drug laws for the purpose of this discussion.)

Take your time... I won't be able to respond for a while.

[SgtSpike]

1)  I was talking about detaining people in the US, and executing them in a controlled environment.  While drone strikes may be necessary to take care of leaders of terrorist organizations, I do very much agree that it creates more hatred against the US.  But I wasn't talking about drone strikes, only you were.

2)  The president is more trustworthy because everyone's eyes are on him.  If he makes a mistake, there's a public outcry, a call for impeachment, etc.  If someone in the military makes a mistake, a couple of boring news articles might be written about it, and the military leader might be demoted or dismissed entirely.

3)  I am fine with torture too, provided it prevents another 9/11.  Would much rather have the "rights" of a few men violated, then have people who those men are working for keep their secrets and continue to make plans for another mass killing of Americans.

4)  I was asking all the who/what/where/when/how questions about politicians being able to kill people detained in the US, because you implied that it happens.  So show me proof that it happens.  Otherwise, I don't believe it.

[P4man]

1)  I was talking about detaining people in the US, and executing them in a controlled environment.  While drone strikes may be necessary to take care of leaders of terrorist organizations, I do very much agree that it creates more hatred against the US.  But I wasn't talking about drone strikes, only you were.

Oh, thats where you draw the line? Its okay if it happens to you or anyone else, as long as its abroad and the targets die, rather than rot in a prison. Let me reverse your question; what makes you think your president thinks he does NOT have the authority to do this inside the US?

2)  The president is more trustworthy because everyone's eyes are on him.  If he makes a mistake, there's a public outcry, a call for impeachment, etc.  If someone in the military makes a mistake, a couple of boring news articles might be written about it, and the military leader might be demoted or dismissed entirely.

Its quite the opposite. Your (vice) presidents have gotten away with crimes that no ordinary civilian or low ranking military officer would ever have gotten away with. from Nixon all the way to Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush and arguably Obama. Impeachment hearings is only for really serious things like consensual sex amongst adults  . For abuse of power or war crimes they get a free pass, its usually not even investigated, let alone prosecuted. If ever needed, a blanket pardon is just handed out.

3)  I am fine with torture too, provided it prevents another 9/11.  Would much rather have the "rights" of a few men violated, then have people who those men are working for keep their secrets and continue to make plans for another mass killing of Americans.

You are delusional if you still think torture provides intelligence, it doesnt work, even if you get the right guy. Of course more often than not, you get the wrong guy who you can torture all you want, he doesnt know a thing because he is just a Canadian software engineer, an Afghan cab driver, a farmer or whatever whom someone completely randomly accused of being terrorist because they got paid for "delivering terrorists". You do realize that by your own governments admission, the majority of detainees in Gitmo have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever. How many US lives do you think it saved to keep them there? How many terrorists do you think are recruited based on US detaining and torturing of completely innocent people?

BTW, torture is a war crime. There are no ifs and buts about providing useful intelligence.

4)  I was asking all the who/what/where/when/how questions about politicians being able to kill people detained in the US, because you implied that it happens.  So show me proof that it happens.  Otherwise, I don't believe it.

Show me where it says president can NOT do that with an executive order? Clearly he thinks he can kill US citizens abroad. Now they can detain US citizens indefinitely without probable cause let alone trial, even inside the US. But to you, thats nothing to worry about? Piss off the wrong guy and you can vanish forever in to a cell in Mogadishu.  Legally.

[Mousepotato]

I'm not afraid of the detention camps popping up all over my country. After all, I'm not a criminal. I've got nothing to hide. If you are against them, then you are probably a criminal.

*groan* The good ol' "I've got nothing to hide" argument.  It's like arguing "I'm not African-American, so I have nothing against Jim Crow laws."

[tripper22]

I'm not afraid of the detention camps popping up all over my country. After all, I'm not a criminal. I've got nothing to hide. If you are against them, then you are probably a criminal.
 

You sir, are a fool.

[bb113]

You should also be worried about people holding grudges against you and framing you. With regards to government tracking you, you should also be worried about people hacking in /paying off someone to get access to it. What it comes down to is whether you trust the feds with your information and safety. I don't, so this all seems like a waste of money that could fuck me over someday somehow.

[bb113]

Also does anyone know if its against building code to have barbed wire pointing outwards, away from your property in the towns these Amtrak camps are found in.