Right now, there ARE American prisons where individuals are held and tortured in complete disregard of right to a fair trial and Habeas Corpus. http://tinyurl.com/36f3a5 (NPR Article)

+16

also.... political c*cks!

+11

Suppose you join them someday, ExFurry?

+11

they probably deserve it

-14 [show comment][hide comment]

You know what I hate? N*GG*RS!

-4 [show comment][hide comment]

Would you happen to be a fellowRon Paul supporter?

sexual chocolate

-8

HEY DUMBASS THE PATRIOT ACT ENDED A FEW YEARS AGO. IT WAS ONLY FOR 9/11 AND A FEW MORE YEARS

-13 [show comment][hide comment]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act It has been continually re-authorized. Do your research, "ptkfgs", and please refrain from name-calling.

+8

oh you're right. Sorry. I support your effort, icenine0.

+4

@ Exfurry, it's better to let 9 guilty men walk free, than to have 1 innocent man in prison. Also c*cks.

+2

what if im not an american? this ytmnd dsnt mean anything :)

-1

lol, europe

Right now, the President DOES have the power to detain you, or any other American citizen, FOR YEARS WITHOUT TRIAL OR CHARGE -- simply by claiming you as an enemy combatant. http://tinyurl.com/9ze4p (Washington Post Article)

+15

Penises.

+2

PROTIP: Citing actual legislation rather than reading off what some editorial tells you help you become less of a Ron Paul/Jewf*g

-3

Actually, see, your claim has one fatal flaw. The President does not define "enemy combatant". It has an actual internationally recognized and politically established definition. The President can't simply change it, but in today's post 9/11 world if you march up and down the street chanting "death to America!" you can fully expect to find the FBI knocking on your door. This is not the President's doing, simply the FBI doing its job.

-6 [show comment][hide comment]

this is very true. also, i encourage you all to inform yourselves on what's REALLY happening in the gaza strip. the palestinians need justice.

+1

You expect, Machiavellian, that the president often follows international standards and lives up to their laws and definitions? The same administration that called the Geneva Accords "quaint and outdated"? I highly doubt he had international law in his mind when his administration decided upon the phrase "enemy combatant." It was selected because it is vague, convoluted, and expansive, and in an age of the "war on terror," so many people can be accused of being perspective terrorists that it's absurd.

I think the palestinians just need a good Hi 5

Right now, federal agencies can and DO snoop on what you books read, authorize noticeless searches OF YOUR PROPERTY, monitor your phone and internet access, and examine your personal records ALL SECRETIVELY AND WITHOUT WARRANT. http://slate.com/id/2087984/ (Slate Article: A Guide to the Patriot Act)

+8

Dicks.

+6

Dressing in fur suits has obviously driven you into sexual frustration, hasn't it, Ex?

+5

Think these laws can only be used on foreign terrorists? Section 802 of the Patriot Act creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," or influencing the policy of a government through intimidation or coercion by a US citizen. YOU CAN BE DENIED YOUR RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT -- NOT A PUBLIC COURT, NOT YOUR PEERS -- CONSIDERS YOU A TERRORIST. The coming VICTORY Act will extend these powers to 'The War on Drugs' and so called 'narco-terrorism' http://tinyurl.com/234gvp (Wired: Patriot Act II?)

+7

this wont happen under TED DANSON!

+13

DANSON 4 PREZ! One correction: The VICTORY Act did not pass. However, portions of it were signed into law as part of an intelligence spending bill. (http://tinyurl.com/zbxz)

+1

...wang?

-2

what the F*CK

+2

Most YTMND users live in France.

+14

and in Québec too.

Also af*genda

+4

I fear for the Senate pages that will have to take those calls...

+1

You're concerned about the death of democracy, yet you made a number of 'Don't Tase Me Bro' sites. Hypocrite!

-5

How so? He never endorsed the tasing, just laughed about it. Likewise many non-racists will laugh about "n*gg* stole my bike" sites. Oh and democracy is already dead.

+4

it's great, because i come to ytmnd to read up on conspiracies to take away my rights that i heard about 5 years ago

-11 [show comment][hide comment]

laws are conspiracies? ZOMG

+8

I'm not sure you can call it a "conspiracy" when it's in writing and the lawmakers all agree that that's what it does. What they argue over is whether or not it HAS to be done. Conservatives are largely of the opinion that in the interest of safety, some rights need to be rolled back to defend citizens. Liberals are largely of the opinion that both safety and liberty are lost when the latter is sacrificed for want of the former.

i say kill all the politicians

+3

Would've been lower, but then I saw the Description.

+4

Why is this NSFW?

+3

Some bunghole who likes the PATRIOT Act did it, I guess. F*ck him or her.

+3

Will you still like it when a bunch of naked men are piled on top of you in a secret prison? With your name, it wouldn't suprise me.

+3

LET IT RING DAMIT!!!!!!!

+3

nah he's right 2nd amendment is just as important as the others we're currantly pissing on. even if it is a matter of principle, i mean i dont own a gun, but i'd like the option to hunt. meat is expensive, and its bad for your car to run them over to catch them.

+2

You guy's notice how none of the canidets besides ron paul are talking about this?

+2

That's true, and he definitely has a record to back up his words in addition to submitting the AFA act itself. Several of the other candidates have also signed AFA's pledge to uphold and restore the Constitution. (http://tinyurl.com/2hraeb)

+2

Kucinich is talking about this. And everything else we should be worried about that the government is doing in our 'best interests'.

+3

Not true! As stated above me, Kucinich is. So is Gravel. And now we can say Colbert too.

Excellent.

I was mistaken. I just checked out Kucinich and Gravel's sites, and they're great, strong advocates for civil liberty.

Except that Kucinich is also insane.

-1

Jovian-Ever notice that Ron Paul supporters make several grammatical and spelling mistakes like not capitalizing names and spelling "candidates" wrong?

Sorry Jovian. From reading your next reply it seems that you may not be a native English speaker. Perhaps I should have not jumped to such a smart *ss remark. It is just that I am annoyed by the Ron Paul vanguard that is so seduced by his vague concept of "small gov't" without really specifying what that means beyond social issues, and that is probably because saying flat out that one doesn't support intervention in genocide stricken areas like Darfur isn't so appealing.

Gravel is insane, first-of-two. Kucinich is just liberal. And as much as I'm sure you would like to equate highly rational liberalism with insanity, that's a discussion that only one as already-INsane as Anne Coulter has ever seriously entertained.

mrvlcmcs, My family comes from the Ukraine where members of the UPA had to defend their freedoms with their lives from both communist russia, and fashist Germany, so it seems clear to me that abusive governments are NOT a matter of pollitical stance.

A member named icenine0 WOULD sponsor this ytmnd. Either way, I am actually very thankful to see this bill come to light - it's a wonder I haven't heard of it until now. I am definitely going to see where this goes and call somebody about it if it looks legit after I do some research.

+1

rofl, I live in europe.

+4

My name is Istas, and I approve this message.

-1

http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/ http://af*genda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/

+1

you link is not even working because you are a fâg

+1

It is funny when people believe everything they read on "teh interents". Also, Ron Paul supporters make baby jebus cry. Really.

-8 [show comment][hide comment]

There is no such thing as baby Jesus

+2

It's sad when people like you believe everything you hear on TV. These are actual bills, look it up. loc.gov THat's the library of congress, an official government site.

+3

it's sad when no one believes in baby jesus. =(

What is this 'baby Jesus' crap I constantly hear? How could a fücking 2000 year old be a goddam baby?!

correct sir

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion; the public safety may require it." It's in the Constitution. It's always been in the Constitution. Congress can suspend habeas corpus at will, it's their right to do so. You might not like it, but that is how the authors of our government intended.

+3

Yes, it's true, but is there a rebellion and are we being invaded? Also, if so, how long should people allow the government to suspend it? After 6 years, the War on Terror doesn't look like it's ending any time soon.

The writ of habeas corpus applies to U.S. citizens detained anywhere in the world. There have been a series of Supreme Court decisions that have established that. Aliens detained by the U.S. may have a right to the writ of habeas corpus depending on what type of place they are being held. For example, if a member lf Al-Qaeda is detained by the Saudi's in Saudi Arabia but at our reqest, the Writ would not apply. Anyway, the point is if you're an American who gives a sh*t. I get my opportunity to be heard.

And I should add, that U.S. citizens have a Constitutional right to habeas. Whereas, the Supreme Court held that Aliens held by the U.S. on property under the dominion and control of the U.S. had a Statutory right to habeas. Congress created a statute that provided a specific definition of habeas. 28 U.S.C. §§2241. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitutional version of habeas did not intend to include Aliens. Therefore congress passed a new bill narrowing habeas rights. Its not the Patriot Act.

-1

"Access to federal court is available under the Detainee Treatment Act only if a detainee is appealing the determination of his status as an enemy combatant or a war crime conviction." That's from your simpleton NPR article. Detainee Treatment Act sort of sounds like "Patriot Act". Keep using your ignorant liberal buzzwords like, "Halliburton!, Cheney!, Quagmire!, Vietnam! etc" It just keeps your supporters in the dark about what the facts are and makes them sound more retarded. Thus making my job easier

-2 [show comment][hide comment]

I'm not a liberal. I'm concerned about the expanding powers of government -- particularly the executive branch. The definition of rights is narrowing, and the federal government is gaining power to do things it hasn't in the past, particularly the executive branch. There is a consolidation of power taking place that won't be easily reversed, and I want people to be aware of it. That's all.

-2

Wow, two informed YTMND users! The internet has made it possible to spread information quicker than ever before, but it also allows people to get a little bit of biased information and become ignorant fanatics. I don't care what your political position is, but please do your research by blinding accepting whatever is presented to you. KUDOS to necro and zavan for being smart and informed.

I suppose the subtext here is that I'm an "ignorant fanatic." Screw that. Make an attempt to increase awareness about something we should ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT -- CIVIL LIBERTY AND EXPANDING POWERS OF GOVERNMENT -- and you get lambasted as liberal conspirator or a looney tune. You know what, I don't have time to watch CSPAN 6 hours a day and know which details are in which act. I have to rely on the news like everyone else, so if an article has an error, blame them.

The President and federal government are hoarding wartime powers in excess to those normally prescribed, and these are for a conflict that explicitly has no end in sight. The administration's line is "SHUT UP WE'RE AT WAR MAKE SACRIFICES," but I won't shut up. I want to know WHO our enemy is and WHAT is the victory condition and WHEN we can return to the transparent, limited, constitutional republic we're supposedly fighting for.

I'm not accusing you of being an ignorant fanatic, just that their is alot of politcal talk that is obviously biased that makes others speak abou things they don't know about. But your comment about who the enemy is and what are objectives are is very telling. Look at every other successful war in history, and you will find that it is a brutal, nasty experience that should be avoided if possible. However, our congress voted for the war and polls show that citizens wanted to go as well. It is now out duty

to see it through as best as we can. Because of media sensationalism and political opportunists we are making this war very hard to fight. I myself did not agree to going to war with Iraq, but this is a democracy and the people spoke. Look at how long it took to fight wars throughout history, this is not abnormal. In fact, we have already won the war by overturning the government, the only job we have to do now it supress the insurgency. In previous wars in history the armies would slaughter towns where

insurgenices existed. Thankfully today their is enough human rights that we don't murder innocent people during war, but we are not doing enough to suppress insurgents. The true sign of a patriot is speaking out for what you believe in, and I am proud you are doing that, even though I disagree. But before you make a concrete stance do as much research as you can into the matter instead of tackling it blindly. Maybe you have already, I don't know, but we need to have an informed electorate.

"it also allows people to get a little bit of biased information and become ignorant fanatics" Sorry, but the internet is not to blame for the majority of ignorant fanatics. Also, the problem is never the information that is released, but it is the lack of skepticism which is much more a cultural and educational flaw than an "available information fad" flaw. You can find almost anything on the internet, true, false, crazy, or genius. And, if you can't find it, you can write it yourself. Skepticism wins.

lol, internet

+1

SCENARIO: TERRORIST: HI, I WANT TO BLOW UP THIS PLANE./ USA: F*CK THAT, *HANDCUFFS*/ TERRORIST: OH SH*T, I NEED A JUDGE, HERE IS A PAPER EXPLAINING THAT I REALLY SAID "SHOW UP THIS PLANE" BECAUSE I WAS LATE./ USA: SNAPS, NOW WE NEED TO SPEND TAX PAYING DOLLARS TO PUT THESE GUYS THROUGH COURT INSTEAD OF MAKE 12 SOLDIERS MARCH THEM NAKED AND SLAP THEIR NIPPLES IN CUBA./ SILENT MILLIONS: F*CK WHAT THE HELL IS THIS 3% TAX FOR????/ USA: LOL, HABEAS CORPUS.

-1

It just comes down to whiny malcontents like Icenine that value a "cause" more than facts. You don't have time to watch CSPAN is an excuse for being an ignorant twat that uses inflammatory trigger phrases like "Patriot Act" to gravy train on irrational fears. The Left's use of fearmongering phraseology is just another Kristallnacht. Radical actions and beliefs based upon uninformed symbolism is probably the result of too many children left home alone with their See n'Says while mom is out smokin rock.

zavan, are you comfortable sacrificing limits on government for an open-ended conflict? Wars happen and additional powers are granted, it's true. But our enemy here isn't one that's going away: terrorists will always be around, and the justification for these expansions will always remain. Would you accept a permanent redefinition of civil rights? If not, when would you say "okay, it's been long enough, let's go back to the way things were?"

There are still Nazis out there, even over here, but I don't think that means we shouldn't have fought World War II. Or continue to kick their sorry asses whenever we see them.

the Left uses fearmongering phraseology? what has stirred up more fear than anything but the overuse of the term 'terrorism'; terrorists, our broad, ill-defined enemy we now fight, so far in 2 diff mid east countries... and we equate Iraq with terrorism? The Iraqi govt is terrorizng US directly? hasn't dead dude's regime bothered us for a while? it just seems like the scape-goat 4 war is evermorphing in2 newly convenient targets. Is Icenine a terrorist cuz he's scaring us in2 thinkn our rights r diminishng?

As a Republican, I specifically have my doubts about the Patriot Act, because it basically creates secret and Constitution-side-stepping ways to spend my money. I want transparency, efficiency, and friggin oversight in my government, not blind faith in every President proceeding this bill. Also, zavan, The LEFT'S fearmongering? Mr. O'Reilly, you're friggin comparing someone with issues with the Patriot Act to the beginning of the Holocaust! Hypocrisy is the highest form of politics in the nation today.

"The Left's use of fearmongering phraseology is just another Kristallnacht." I'm often amazed when conservatives accuse the campaign of fear of coming from the LEFT rather than the RIGHT, since the only reason laws like this get passed at all is because people are afraid and want safety. You don't think the Bush administration has played on the fear of the American people to accomplish a political agenda? What you need to realize is fear has two types: Fear that makes you do things, and fear of things done.

"What you need to realize is fear has two types: Fear that makes you do things, and fear of things done." Oh I do realize that. Using these words that carry with them powerful but factually hollow imagery is being used by all sides. I just dislike the halos people have when really it is a kettle/pot situation. The fear the Left is spreading is meant to make the population fear its own country and use the "global village" as a crutch. Thus making it easier for a Socialist or Communist insurrection.

While the Right uses fear to maintain is political control. Some on the right do it so they can abuse capitalism and keep making bank through corporate welfare programs. Other's on the Right do it to hold back the Red horde by keeping their sycophants out of power. I guess this might be better suited in the Machiavellian discussion but does the end justify the means? If there's going to be fearmongering, at least I choose the side that wants to use it to benefit the society I'm a part of.

If we are going to choose sides, why not go with the incumbent. We already have Pepsi. If you want Crystal Clear Pepsi then join the causes of the Left. It starts off popular and all the cool kids drink it. But then, its on sale for 10 cents a 2-liter and you can't even give it away at the soup kitchen that Icenine0 frequents after he gets off work as a part time Jizz mopper at the Glory Hole. Just like Crystal Clear 2-liters, Leftist philosophy's only use is as ballast on a schooner full of whale dicks.

LONG-WINDED YET INTELLIGENT DEBATE C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

+1