Obama Justifies FEMA Imprisonment Of Civilians!

Submitted by: auburnjunky 5 years ago

Hmmmmmm. Am I Madest, or 5Cats?
There are 94 comments:
Male 3,285
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
4377 Posts Friday, May 13, 2011 1:56:32 PM
It`s not a partisan issue. It`s unconstitutional.

Imprisonment without charges. Hmmmmmm.

------------------

Oh you mean the constitution where they change anything they feel like, whenever they feel like and call it an amendment?
0
Reply
Male 150
This happens with almost EVERY US president, everyone loves him, yadda yadda yadda, everyone hates him.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]madow sucks!!![/quote]
Yeah, but not dick!
0
Reply
Male 2,384
drat me i`m moving out of america
0
Reply
Male 835
WHen Bush did it, it was OK, but when Obama does it, it`s evil? Fox, CNN and people who watch it are all drat*ing morons.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"By the way, Obama has basically upheld all of the policies of the Bush administration regarding terrorism and gitmo."

Upheld? He`s done more than that. He seems to be taking it to a whole new drating level. The crazy poo Bush did get getting dwarfed by the bat poo crazy stuff Obama is proposing to do.
0
Reply
Male 437
"For anyone who thinks this is recent news, you are a moronic loser."

It is recent news. Obama just gave this speech, and he is suggesting new legislation.

By the way, Obama has basically upheld all of the policies of the Bush administration regarding terrorism and gitmo.
0
Reply
Male 2,514
This crap happened 2 years ago when Obama first becamse president. He was merely trying to figure out what to do about the cluster f/u/c/k that the Bust administration caused at Gitmo.

For anyone who thinks this is recent news, you are a moronic loser.
0
Reply
Male 3,076


Wake up and stop your government before it RAPES the rest of the world in the poo poo, by pushing our own government behinde our backs, we are sick and tierd of cleaning up after you.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
@lazyme--The USA already is a prison. Those that have taken power, have created a prison of the mind, and soon will will work toward on of the body politik as well. Much like the Borg of Star Trek, resistance will be futile. Fortunately I`m reside outside of the USA, unfortunately being a neigbour will bring about a police state here, (or those Fascist scum will at least try)
0
Reply
Male 25,416
ok then
0
Reply
Male 2,229
So let`s get this straight...`prolonged detention` (illegal under Geneva Conventions regarding POWs and civilians caught in the "crossfire") And those in Gitmo, well those persons were transfer there from other imprisonment or out right kidnapping in other jurisdictions out side USA law, in violation of local law enforcement (illegal, by the way, violates international law).

So the USA instigates TWO bogus wars, and those that fight back in defense of themselves and country men and women, are "dangerous terrorist" that need to be stopped?
0
Reply
Male 84
madow sucks!!! USA USA USA!!!!
0
Reply
Male 296
We`re at war with these slime bags which makes them POW`s when they`re captured. They don`t get out until the war is over. IMHO we should take no prisoners to begin with. They`re warriors at war with our country whether you like it or not and they want to kill us. If they get out that`s exactly what they`ll try to do. So get over it.
0
Reply
Male 3,578
so what elas is new?
dont worry this wont happen to you white people, just the brown
0
Reply
Male 36,512
[quote]So, does that mean we have to threat them BETTER than soldiers?[/quote]
Actually it allows for them to be executed on the spot. You suspect he`s an insurgent? BANG! Case closed.

(still laughing at @LazyMe`s 40% comment)
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Sounds like the same speech simbha.
0
Reply
Male 412
Completely out of context. Huffington Post (and probably other places) have the full transcript of the speech here. As an example of the speech being taken out of context...

"I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in e
0
Reply
Male 2,513
The speech was horribly annoying. Lies, pulling crap out of nowhere, taking out aggression unjustifiably on others, and her smug voice started to piss me off towards the end.
0
Reply
Male 2,513
That was article 75 of the Geneva convention you were referring to Ollie. There will never be an armistice with a tribal militant group as we are dealing with today. That said, we need to stop collecting trophies to pay for in our already overcrowded prison systems, and just do what we did in WWII. Shoot or release them already
0
Reply
Male 2,513
Article 75 covers release at the end of hostilities. The release of prisoners should form part of the armistice. If this is not possible then repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace. This particular provision was to cause problems after World War II because as the surrender of the Axis powers was unconditional there was no armistice, and in the case of Germany a full peace treaty was not signed until the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany in 1990.
0
Reply
Male 2,332
Slippery slope you`re on there Obama. Surely the result of several backroom deals.

0
Reply
Male 55
IMPEACH THIS CRAZY LYING IDIOT!!! IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!!! He`s WORSE than Bush because he goes behind our backs and LIES to our face. IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 280
Reminds me of the bush doctrine: " We are allowed to preemptively invade any country if it poses a threat to America" Scary poo
0
Reply
Male 108
Who is that dude reading to me???
0
Reply
Male 15,832
So, does that mean we have to threat them BETTER than soldiers?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@old ollie: It also says that insurgents and terrorists are not soldiers, and do not fall under their jurisdiction.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The Geneva Conventions allow for POWs to be held "for the duration of hostilities" and expressly FORBIDS putting POWs on trial.
0
Reply
Male 490
It cant start until i get my Remington 870 express 12 gauge, aka zombie killer.
0
Reply
Male 649
That Zombie apocalypse really needs to hurry up and get here cause I am really getting sick of society and human kind in general......
0
Reply
Male 37,890

Instead of building a wall between us and Mexico,

couldn`t we build one around Washington DC and lock those idiots in there?
0
Reply
Male 1
not that im into politics.. or commenting.. but what is wrong with what he said? the time has come, pretty much, to realize that there is no perfect political system. Since democracy also fails since it cant be perfected, why not naturally move to communism and spend some 10-20 years to realize that it also doesnt work? =) ... Smart people dont go into politics. which follows logic, but is unfortunate..
0
Reply
Male 36,512
And for goodness sake, I hope no one here is STUPID enough to think I`ve compared Obama with those bad men! C`mon, obviously not! Unless YOU believe in "pre-crime" too...

I am saying that this sort of `blanket law` can be used in horrible ways in the hands of evil people. Let`s hope it never happens.

Also Obama hasn`t PASSED the law yet, he simply proposed it.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
vv Rednecks, Jews and IAB readers make up 40% of the population of the USA???
WHO (besides @lazy-butt) KNEW!

It`s a paraphrase of a famous saying about Nazis, idiot. How DO you think things like that start? Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler & etc. Thought you were smarter than that...
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] First they`ll come for the `rednecks`
Then they`ll come for the Jews
Then they`ll come for YOU!
And it will all be perfectly legal! [/quote]
*applause*

Oh well done 5cats!

You`ve come up with something that makes perfect sense. I agree with you completely. This is just a flawless description of what will happen! America will turn into this machine where 40% of the population is in prison and the remaining 60% support the prison system by providing guards, guns, food and build more prisons. Yes... that is perfectly logical. Nobody is going to have a problem with that. People will even enjoy being in prison!
0
Reply
Male 138
I wish the world was awake... We are going to die very soon and still can`t see it coming.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] Yes, our masters are very kind to us.

Well off until the actual market crashes? Give me your study notes please.
[/quote]
Your pessimism surprises me. Your market won`t collapse, at least not to the point where your society somehow degrades to the level of developing countries. Not in this age of globalized interdependency.

... well not unless a great number of you want that sort of thing to happen, and parts of your country are sort of like developing ones, *cough* ... but you`ve still got massive production capability! ... dependent on oil, which you`re running out of, yet you refuse to develop alternatives quickly enough.

Nah, that`s not enough. I think what we`ll see is more oil wars and another recession. Not so bad when you put things in perspective. It`s just that I was really hoping for a mars mission within 20 years.
0
Reply
Male 240
Oh yeah. I can`t see how this could go wrong...
0
Reply
Male 392
Now I believe Obama is the devil. FEMA has Camps built in the USA that resemble Holocaust death camps.
0
Reply
Male 168
Don`t worry, there not going to go to jail, they will simply be "relocated" to "happy camps". Now please go back to hugging your bible, and cleaning your gun.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
Well, it IS from at least 3 months ago. So the MSM has otherwise completely overlooked this, what a huge surprise!

It seems pretty clear that he`s talking about average citizens, not "only" Gitmo terror suspects.

First they`ll come for the `rednecks`
Then they`ll come for the Jews
Then they`ll come for YOU!
And it will all be perfectly legal!
0
Reply
Male 562
Sssoooo, I can still download bit-torrents?
0
Reply
Male 36,512
When even RACHEAL MADDOG notices the hypocricy, Obama has really crossed the line.

@auburnjunky! Do NOT place me and "madest" in the same sentence! Eeeeww!

The lies and deception, they aren`t even TRYING to cover them up anymore.
0
Reply
Male 328

[quote=RETARDEDBEAR]
Of course, you are right, if this happened on a larger scale still, there would certainly be outrage, and rightly so. But... I`m pretty sure that isn`t going to happen.
[/quote]

Famous last words...
0
Reply
Male 328
That`s it. I give up. Obama`s just another dirty politician.

Looks like I`m just gonna be voting for the most likable independent presidential candidate for 2012.
0
Reply
Male 52
Obama is a PUBE
0
Reply
Male 143
LOLZ! THis is almost an Onion parody.
0
Reply
Male 533
"I would personally recommend against doing that, although it would take more than 1000 characters to explain. Suffice to say if you live in America then you are likely pretty well off - better than most humans. It would be a shame to ruin it."

Well off until the actual market crashes? Give me your study notes please. I would love to see how this works.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
And if that`s not enough hypocrisy for you, How about this one on on-air campaign fundraising.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Evan: Rachel works for MSNBC which is owned by GE and Microsoft. Well, most of you know, GE makes guidance systems for bombs and military hardware like jet engines. So she is fine with collecting a salary from a bomb maker whose products are dropped on, "..brown people in the Middle East to exterminate them." (her words)
0
Reply
Male 2,345
it sounds like they Obama is talking about Gitmo and terrorist and in those regards we are up poo creek w/o a paddle. Bush held people at Gitmo that were not terrorist but if after nearly 10 years they are released they will certainly become terrorist due to their justified hatred.

so, what do we do with them? do we just release them and hope they do not attack the poo out of us or do we construct a way to legally hold them until we can figure out what we can do with them?
0
Reply
Male 37,890

So to recap, if Bush did it it`s BAD but if Obama does it it`s good... that about right?


O.O


Don`t $hit on my plate and call it steak!

Stupid politicians.
0
Reply
Male 37,890

Lazy - [quote]"Suffice to say if you live in America then you are likely pretty well off " [/quote]

Yes, our masters are very kind to us.
0
Reply
Male 272
Ron Paul 2012? Ron Paul 2012.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] It`s time a for a revolution. [/quote]
I would personally recommend against doing that, although it would take more than 1000 characters to explain. Suffice to say if you live in America then you are likely pretty well off - better than most humans. It would be a shame to ruin it.
0
Reply
Male 290
THE NEW WORLD IS HERE!!! EVERYONE GET YOUR GUNS READY!!!

It`s time a for a revolution. You must know that there are more of us than them. I watch videos of cops beating up on people and stuff, and I see everyone around not involved just watching. They should be swarming those cops. if more come, more people should feel the need to back their neighbors and fellow men (that doesn`t apply to cops, they`re not people they`re drones) and jump the additional cops that come in, or better yet, shoot them in the face. if military comes, we`re still outnumbering them. sure they might have their fancy gear and what not, but it`s that`s only been effective against non-civilian insurgents and such who are usually not EVERYWHERE around you. People on the other hand ARE every. They would have nowhere to run. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can have an actual say in our country and our world.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Total hypocrisy. Is it possible to keep us safer from terrorism by detaining people because they are likely to commit an act of terrorism? Perhaps. Is it worth suspending our basic rights as citizens? Absolutely not. It`s looking less and less like I`ll be voting for Obama in 2012.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] We should also look at it from the other direction: If we know someone (Lets call him Joe) hangs out with terrorists, trains with them, goes to their meetings and has a lot of phone calls with them, and we allow them to continue doing so because they technically haven`t broken any law, is that justice? When Joe decides to fly a plane into the empire state building how will the American people react when it comes out that the government knew for years that he was training to do something like this but "hadn`t broken the law"? [/quote]
Excellent question. What you do in this case is change the law so that it`s illegal to hang out with terrorists.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] Hmmmmmm. Am I Madest, or 5Cats? [/quote]
We judge the link by the description. If that`s the description, then we can`t judge it, can we?

Anyways, I thought what Obama said was that this would be for Guantanamo prisoners. Am I missing something here?

"Imprisonment without charge". Hmm. Well that`s wrong pretty much universally. This sort of thing ended with the magna carta. That was a while ago.

He does say something about the legal system being screwed up - with evidence tampering and elaborate defenses and whatever else... If this is the case, and I wouldn`t be surprised if is, then the right course of action is to fix your legal system. This is just a quick fix. Who cares what your defense is, we`ll just imprison you anyway.

I don`t like this woman`s tone either. She`s clearly biased and glossing over a lot of important stuff.

Main point though: you wouldn`t have this problem if your crime rate wasn`t so high.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
How about checking these sites on google. All built by FEMA.

0
Reply
Male 2,402
Hmmm...why would FEMA need to build a prison camp in Alsaka?
Like this one

0
Reply
Male 437
"I don`t give a damn what the crisis is, the answer is NOT to give all power to a single person."

To be fair, that person has the power to delegate power. Yes, it is bypassing the local government and kind of trampling on the rights of the electorate, but there is no sinister goal behind it. They have had a similar law in effect for almost 20 years now, and it has been used some 17 times. All they did was increase the scale.

Of course, you are right, if this happened on a larger scale still, there would certainly be outrage, and rightly so. But... I`m pretty sure that isn`t going to happen.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Guess there getting ready for May 21st! After the Rapture then the trials begin against the anti-Christ. :-P
0
Reply
Male 437
"Welcome to Amerika"

Hail victory, Kamerad.
0
Reply
Male 37,890

She`s usually so PRObama I`m surprised she actually reported this.

And yes, DrProfessor, I know of the woe in Michigan. Elected officials tossed out and government appointees put in. But why do people need to vote anyway, they`ll elect the wrong guys! *sigh*

the U.S. is dead. Welcome to Amerika
0
Reply
Male 3,894
"Well, when they have a debt crisis, and a district is in a severe state, are they supposed to let it continue to run itself into the ground? The state has to pay for it."

I don`t give a damn what the crisis is, the answer is NOT to give all power to a single person.

You know what? Let`s just blow this up on a larger scale. How about, if any time the US was in debt (oh wait that`s right now isn`t it?) we replaced Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court with one person, who assumed all of the powers of the displaced bodies.

...oh, wait. That`s called a dictator.

We founded our country so that we wouldn`t have any of those anymore.

We can`t allow something like this to happen on any scale, be it small or large. If there`s a financial crisis, force the ELECTED BODY to deal with it. Or force a new election, or something--anything that doesn`t involve throwing out the constitution.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Indefinite imprisonment is unconstitutional."

One could argue that terrorists seized committing hostile acts against the US are not afforded rights under the US Constitution.
0
Reply
Male 437
"they are allowed to put in place an "Emergency Financial Manager" to take control of the situation."

Well, when they have a debt crisis, and a district is in a severe state, are they supposed to let it continue to run itself into the ground? The state has to pay for it.
0
Reply
Male 161
If anyone has the full transcripts of this send it to me at itellifyouask @ yahoo, you know the rest, I have to make dinner and the connection is pissing me off right now.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
*sigh* The news, misrepresenting facts again. Why watch the news?

Really. Why even bother?

No. You know what you people should be pissed about? Over in Michigan, when the state government decides that one of the districts is failing, they are allowed to put in place an "Emergency Financial Manager" to take control of the situation.

Guess what? It`s already been used once, and the "Emergency Financial Manager"s first act was to strip the town`s elected government of all of their powers, and to take them for himself.

Yes. In Michigan, it is legal to bypass democracy, "for our own good."

Someone call Anonymous, or something. We need help and not enough people are outraged.
0
Reply
Male 1,053
We already do this in the US. It`s often called "preventive detention" and is usually used to keep sex offenders or mentally ill people in prison AFTER they have served their sentence for fear they are still a danger to society.
0
Reply
Male 437
"(And I truly ask this with honest interest) how is she a hypocrite?"

Little things like this.
0
Reply
Male 528
so it`s like locking people up for conspiricy but with no evidence? -_- i`d like to see how this plans out
0
Reply
Male 437
"Oh you mean the constitution where they change anything they feel like, whenever they feel like and call it an amendment?"

You should familiarize yourself with the amending process.
0
Reply
Male 559
CrakrJak: (And I truly ask this with honest interest) how is she a hypocrite?
0
Reply
Male 2,514
Dude, this is from 2 years ago! How the shyt does something like this resurface TWO YEARS LATER???
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Maddow, a hypocrite herself, Outs Obama on hypocrisy ?

Pot meet kettle.
0
Reply
Male 3,061
wow! this is the longest i have ever watched msnbc. i swear rachel maddow was once a man. wish they would do the right thing and put this out of its misery like they did air america.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
4377 Posts Friday, May 13, 2011 1:56:32 PM
It`s not a partisan issue. It`s unconstitutional.

Imprisonment without charges. Hmmmmmm.

------------------

Oh you mean the constitution where they change anything they feel like, whenever they feel like and call it an amendment?
0
Reply
Male 2,545
didnt we do this in the 40`s?
0
Reply
Male 3,285
I love how news companies take words entirely out of context. Go watch an unedited version of that and its almost entirely different. The ones who believe it without even questioning it are the ones that the news are trying to rile up.
0
Reply
Male 3,314
"One civil liberties advocate told the NYTimes today, quote..." Flash to NYTimes graphic with date May 21, 2009.
0
Reply
Male 210
Wow! thank God this wasn`t on Fox or no one would have believed it! BTW, wasn`t Git-mo supposed to be closed over a year ago?
0
Reply
Male 159
Any 1 person that even says the wrong thing could be held.. I`m not American but holy $hit!! I feel very sorry for your soon to be police states governed by big brother.. You are not free people your are the 21 century slaves.. While i say this Canada is right behind you as our government requires more information through online cencus reports. They want to know everything about you i mean everything. We are not free in the least...
0
Reply
Male 1,931
The entire point of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the person hasn`t even DONE anything, then how can they be proven guilty?
0
Reply
Male 21
3 year old video
0
Reply
Male 880
If we know someone (Lets call him Joe) hangs out with terrorists, trains with them, goes to their meetings and has a lot of phone calls with them, and we allow them to continue doing so because they technically haven`t broken any law, is that justice?

Unless there is evidence which gives us reason to believe he is going to commit a crime, then we do not have the right to detain him.

We cannot arrest and detain people for a few years just because of their association.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
i knew it was you AJ `cuz of the little comment :D
0
Reply
Male 2,033
Meh, I think the reporter was putting a whole poo-tonne of words and meaning into that speach that wasn`t there.

Of course this is a giant can of worms, and of course there is the potential for an abuse of power.

We should also look at it from the other direction: If we know someone (Lets call him Joe) hangs out with terrorists, trains with them, goes to their meetings and has a lot of phone calls with them, and we allow them to continue doing so because they technically haven`t broken any law, is that justice? When Joe decides to fly a plane into the empire state building how will the American people react when it comes out that the government knew for years that he was training to do something like this but "hadn`t broken the law"?

The (very loose) proposal here isn`t the ability to arrest anyone they want, but to detain people like Joe who are considered a threat until they can be investigated properly. If this stops the next 9/11 then IM
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Frightening.
0
Reply
Male 2,593
Now that`s a scary concept
0
Reply
Male 10,339
It`s not a partisan issue. It`s unconstitutional.

Imprisonment without charges. Hmmmmmm.
0
Reply
Male 1,122
Bi-partisan president is bi-partisan.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Link: Obama Justifies FEMA Imprisonment Of Civilians! [Rate Link] - Hmmmmmm. Am I Madest, or 5Cats?
0
Reply