Martial Law will soon be approved

[John Cuthber]

"I don't see your point here. I don't remember the media glorifying terrorism before 9-11"

They call it "terrorism" rather than crime. In doing so they make it sound different, which it isn't.

 

" I don't see our country putting down protestors in such a manner. "

Look again.

Now, could you let me know how you missed that before?

[kitkat]

After seeing this video, it is amazing that the public were not outraged by this demostration of police brutality. Yes, pepper spray is nasty stuff and it was totally unnecessary for the police to behave in this manner. It's obvious people do not have the right to protest in this country.

[CaptainPanic]

After seeing this video, it is amazing that the public were not outraged by this demostration of police brutality. Yes, pepper spray is nasty stuff and it was totally unnecessary for the police to behave in this manner. It's obvious people do not have the right to protest in this country.

What do you mean "the public was not outraged"? It hit mainstream news all over the world (at least in the Netherlands, it was frontpage on most news websites). Millions of people commented on it (almost all negative about the police).

 

The last thing "the public" should have done was to be even more outraged than that. They were quite outspoken, but remained calm and peaceful.

 

The next thing "the American public" should do, is use their democratic rights to get some changes. But looking at the way the elections in the USA are developing, I think that "the public" thinks that is one bridge too far. The large majority of "the public" will probably vote for the two ruling parties. If they do, I think we can blame "the public" for being stupid and screwing itself. If the US was not a democracy, we could blame a dictator. But it is a democracy, so the public have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

And obviously also that policeman for being an idiot.

[dimreepr]

What do you mean "the public was not outraged"? It hit mainstream news all over the world (at least in the Netherlands, it was frontpage on most news websites). Millions of people commented on it (almost all negative about the police).

 

The last thing "the public" should have done was to be even more outraged than that. They were quite outspoken, but remained calm and peaceful.

 

The next thing "the American public" should do, is use their democratic rights to get some changes. But looking at the way the elections in the USA are developing, I think that "the public" thinks that is one bridge too far. The large majority of "the public" will probably vote for the two ruling parties. If they do, I think we can blame "the public" for being stupid and screwing itself. If the US was not a democracy, we could blame a dictator. But it is a democracy, so the public have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

And obviously also that policeman for being an idiot.

 

Your completly correct. Unfortunately democracies greatest asset is also its greatest enemy.

[ydoaPs]

"I don't see your point here. I don't remember the media glorifying terrorism before 9-11"

They call it "terrorism" rather than crime. In doing so they make it sound different, which it isn't.

 

" I don't see our country putting down protestors in such a manner. "

Look again.

Now, could you let me know how you missed that before?

I thought you'd use a video like this one to make the point:

[JustinW]

Are you kidding? All it took to turn a good size portion of people against the Occupy Wall Street protesters was to imply that they were littering the park they used as their base. As soon as the peaceful protesters became dirty, filthy, law-breaking litterers, there wasn't as much of an outcry when the police got rough with them on the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Spinning the story to get the protesters away from your Burger King or Burlington Coat Factory store front is MUCH easier when you also own all the Clear Channel radio stations. You could probably even get the American public behind invading a sovereign nation if you paint the protesters as terrorists.

I was commenting on the premise of using labeling someone a terrorist to stifle free speech. I think it is a far leap to imply the government can silence Americans with the threat of being labeled a terrorist.

[iNow]

I think it is a far leap to imply the government can silence Americans with the threat of being labeled a terrorist.

It's not a far leap. It's now a law.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/271024/20111221/ndaa-bill-controversy-who-considered-terrorist.htm

 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) bill contains some controversial language that codifies the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, who is suspected of being a terrorist or supporting terrorists.

 

All they have to do is label you a terrorist and your right to due process is extinguished.

[JustinW]

It's not a far leap. It's now a law.

The law is vague, but it hasn't been used to detain anyone, or any group of people for protesting. And I don't think it would be used in such a way.

 

 

All they have to do is label you a terrorist and your right to due process is extinguished.

They would have to have justifiable cause, some connection or shady action, that links someone to these groups. The way I've heard folks talk about it here makes it seem like they are pulling people off the streets at random in the name of fighting terrorism. I don't know this for sure, but it would seem that the groups mentioned in that link must have given some cause to be labeled as dangerous. Maybe made some sort of threats or insinuated an act of violence or property damage to be looked at as a danger.

[Phi for All]

All they have to do is label you a terrorist and your right to due process is extinguished.

Under U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d), the definition of terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". You could lose your cool at an OWS rally, punch someone who was heckling you and, instead of going through due process, be instantly labeled a terrorist and disappear under a cloud of federal agents. The news headlines, with attached video of you assaulting an unarmed onlooker, would probably read, "FBI detains suspected terrorist infiltrator", or worse, "US citizen involved in suspected terrorist attack".

 

Spun in a skillful way, half the country would want you hung. If they ever heard from you again. That's the worst part, we can't even know if they're already doing it. Friends of someone taken this way might fear association if they speak out.

[iNow]

The law is vague, but it hasn't been used to detain anyone, or any group of people for protesting.

Uhmm... It was signed three days ago. I'm surprised that you think your argument here is in any way meritorious.

 

And I don't think it would be used in such a way.

Well, we'll see. Let's hope you're right, but "hope" is not a very effective strategy or plan in most cases.

Edited January 4, 2012 by iNow

[Phi for All]

The way I've heard folks talk about it here makes it seem like they are pulling people off the streets at random in the name of fighting terrorism.

Have you ever heard of the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951? It basically says that if you submit something to the US Patent Office that is deemed detrimental to "national security" (that vague phrase again), the invention and everything about it will be seized and kept secret and you will be guilty of treason if you ever say anything to anybody about it. In the interests of "national security", your trial for treason wouldn't even show up on the books if you tried to protest publicly.

 

Due to the nature of laws like these, there may even be provisions to cover up disappearances. If you wanted to grab a terrorist suspect, would you want his compatriots to be able to trace the disappearance back to the government? Hundreds of people disappear without a trace EVERY DAY in the US, and the usual assumption is that, for some reason, they don't want to be found, and that explanation ends up satisfying almost everyone concerned.

[JustinW]

Have you ever heard of the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951? It basically says that if you submit something to the US Patent Office that is deemed detrimental to "national security" (that vague phrase again), the invention and everything about it will be seized and kept secret and you will be guilty of treason if you ever say anything to anybody about it. In the interests of "national security", your trial for treason wouldn't even show up on the books if you tried to protest publicly.

And has anyone ever been tried under the act? Assuming we would even hear about it in the first place. Just because the law states something doesn't mean it can be used as an example. But, if you could find a case that someone was persecuted without just cause under the letter of that law, then it would be a legitimate example.

 

 

 

Under U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d), the definition of terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". You could lose your cool at an OWS rally, punch someone who was heckling you and, instead of going through due process, be instantly labeled a terrorist and disappear under a cloud of federal agents. The news headlines, with attached video of you assaulting an unarmed onlooker, would probably read, "FBI detains suspected terrorist infiltrator", or worse, "US citizen involved in suspected terrorist attack".

You probably could, assuming that the law would be interpreted in a way that overlooks the phrase premeditated. In your scenario of the OWS rally the situation wouldn't fall under those conditions. It seems like you're automatically assuming that everyone is out get someone. Detaining protesters as being terrorists just to get them to shut up would raise a stink that Washington D.C. couldn't even wash off.

 

 

Look, I'm not arguing the fact that this law isn't a step in the wrong direction where our rights and freedoms are concerned. I'm just saying that it is highly unlikely that it will be used in such a manner.

[ydoaPs]

I was commenting on the premise of using labeling someone a terrorist to stifle free speech. I think it is a far leap to imply the government can silence Americans with the threat of being labeled a terrorist.

As late as 2009, the DOD labelled protesting as "low level terrorism" in their official training manual.

[JustinW]

As late as 2009, the DOD labelled protesting as "low level terrorism" in their official training manual.

 

Did they lock 'em up and throw away the key? I would label the threat of my wife making me watch soap operas if I stay home from work "low level terrorism". But does that mean I'm going to lock up my wife for an indefinite amount of time? Well.......Probably not. It's a far fetched idea that our government will stifle the free speech of an entire group of people in such a manner.

 

I can understand the concern with the videos above, but protest demonstrations have had a habbit of getting out of hand since way before these laws have come about.

[ydoaPs]

It's a far fetched idea that our government will stifle the free speech of an entire group of people in such a manner.

Not really. They shoot peaceful protesters already. They added that provision for a reason. You don't accidentally add legislation to allow the US government to detain citizens with neither warning nor charges nor trial and then torture them. They just have to say "you're a terrorist" and then you're gone and no one knows why.

[kitkat]

The OWS protestors are hardly big enough yet to be a threat to national security so the acts of brutality by police officers should be a wake up call to the public that we really do not have the right to protest and the powers that control us will do whatever it takes to stop any protest from growing in numbers in the future. This bill of 2012 will give them the authority to control the masses when the day comes when most of the American people have finally had enough of corrupt government control and will want to protest.

 

It is not a matter of "if" it will happen, it is a matter of "when" it will happen in the future. Our government is fully aware of this being a reality and they are taking steps right now to prevent it. Right now, they are not going to lock up protestors since they really are not much of a threat, as well as the fact that the number of people living in poverty have not increased to the level for a mass revolt from the public. Our government are masters at the art of public brainwashing though lately they are slacking since many are catching on to their game that they really do not care about the people they are suppose to govern.

[Phi for All]

And has anyone ever been tried under the act? Assuming we would even hear about it in the first place.

Asked and answered.

 

Just because the law states something doesn't mean it can be used as an example. But, if you could find a case that someone was persecuted without just cause under the letter of that law, then it would be a legitimate example.

If you haven't noticed, our lawmakers are pretty good at passing laws that have one purpose for public knowledge, but when you dig deeper they've also added some caveats that a special few can exploit. They don't write laws like this and then never use them. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "There were 5,135 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2010" implemented by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

In 2010, 26 of those inventions were handled under "John Doe" status, which basically means these private inventors were slapped with gag orders and the proceedings were completely secret, names were never disclosed and the outcomes are not protected under the Freedom of Information Act. We may never know what happened to these inventors and their inventions.

 

You probably could, assuming that the law would be interpreted in a way that overlooks the phrase premeditated. In your scenario of the OWS rally the situation wouldn't fall under those conditions. It seems like you're automatically assuming that everyone is out get someone. Detaining protesters as being terrorists just to get them to shut up would raise a stink that Washington D.C. couldn't even wash off.

The OWS protestors were just an example. Think about it, in a normal criminal proceeding, premeditation is something that the prosecution has to prove to a jury. If you get labeled as a terrorist, they can grab you on the spot, assuming that you planned violence on noncombatant targets. In fact, once they think you might be a terrorist, under this new law, the rest is a foregone conclusion. It's your word against the Dept of Homeland Security. And that's exactly the way they'd do it, to just a few so the rest are too terrified to speak out.

 

Look, I'm not arguing the fact that this law isn't a step in the wrong direction where our rights and freedoms are concerned. I'm just saying that it is highly unlikely that it will be used in such a manner.

Wait until the profit is in jeopardy. Did you forget we're talking about lawyers and the law here? Fifteen years ago, wouldn't it have been considered highly unlikely that a President of the United States would use a fabricated tale of nuclear weapons to invade another country?

[JustinW]

They added that provision for a reason.

Who is they? This is starting to sound like a big conspiracy theory.

 

 

 

In 2010, 26 of those inventions were handled under "John Doe" status, which basically means these private inventors were slapped with gag orders and the proceedings were completely secret, names were never disclosed and the outcomes are not protected under the Freedom of Information Act. We may never know what happened to these inventors and their inventions.

I would have to say, that is a good example. I will have to think about this a little bit. I know it is an enfringement on peoples rights on one hand, but on the other hand I would have to know what those inventions were and if they actually posed a threat to national security. We don't know who those people were or if they were actually treated bad or not.

 

 

And that's exactly the way they'd do it, to just a few so the rest are too terrified to speak out.

 

Here we go with this they scenario again. It's awfull convinient how all of these people are working together in unison toward the common goal of persecuting the masses. I wonder why I didn't get the memo.

 

Our government are masters at the art of public brainwashing though lately they are slacking since many are catching on to their game that they really do not care about the people they are suppose to govern.

 

I don't know what to say to this.

 

 

Fifteen years ago, wouldn't it have been considered highly unlikely that a President of the United States would use a fabricated tale of nuclear weapons to invade another country?

We should have done it right the first time as far as I'm concerned. There were no WMDs at the time we went in, but there had been. I'm not saying that it wasn't a lie, but I'm saying it needed to be done no matter what excuse we used.

[CaptainPanic]

Who is they? This is starting to sound like a big conspiracy theory.

Oh, come on! Even I can answer that question, and I am not even American.

 

In this case, They = people making that law. On a national level in the USA, that means congress.

And yes, to use your words, it is indeed "convinient how all of these people are working together in unison toward the common goal", which is usually what political parties do.

 

It gets a little more fuzzy when you include the lobbyists who influence everything that happens in Washington. But conspiracy?

 

How can a law be a conspiracy anyway? You have elected these people. The American electorate has allowed for over a decade that the argument of terrorism is milked to pass more and more draconian laws... And with the next elections coming up, you are all gonna vote for the same two parties again, confirming they are doing a good job. (Not that you seem to have much choice, in my opinion, the US is, in a weird way, a two-party dictatorship).

 

I'm guessing that next November approximately 80% of the voters will vote for either the republicans or democrats. How do you think the people in Washington explain that: they think that you all agree with most that happened in the last 12 years. And weirdly, reading this thread, quite a few of you actually do agree! (Or, just don't understand).

[Phi for All]

Who is they? This is starting to sound like a big conspiracy theory.

 

Here we go with this they scenario again. It's awfull convinient how all of these people are working together in unison toward the common goal of persecuting the masses. I wonder why I didn't get the memo.

Oh, come on, you're better than that. What a weak argument, playing the "conspiracy theory" card. YdoaPs was clearly referring to legislators who wrote the laws he mentioned, and I was clearly referring to the Dept of Homeland Security. And you are clearly reaching for straws with this kind of argument.

 

It would actually be fairly simple to indoctrinate those who work for DHS to view protestors as fledgling terrorists. Profile: formerly peaceful citizens who have suffered during poor economic hardships, dissatisfied with the hard work and help their government has tried to provide, disillusioned with the commerce system, banding together in mobs and chanting anti-establishment slogans, together day and night and supplied by unknown benefactors, defiant of local law enforcement efforts to move them from entrenched positions. Conclusion: potential for violence against non-combatants is High, situation is detrimental to established policy and systems. Recommendation: See Handling Potential Terrorists.

 

Btw, you should use the Multiquote button and prune it down so it references who you're quoting when you mix your quotes like this. Alternatively, you can Reply individually, copy the quote along with the ID tag, then Cancel that Reply and paste it into your main Reply.

 

I would have to say, that is a good example. I will have to think about this a little bit. I know it is an enfringement on peoples rights on one hand, but on the other hand I would have to know what those inventions were and if they actually posed a threat to national security. We don't know who those people were or if they were actually treated bad or not.

By now, even you should be able to acknowledge how much big business is able to influence our politicians. Do you think it's conceivable that a panel made up of the Patent Office Commissioner and representatives from DOD, AEC, NSA and the President's Cabinet might be "persuaded" to see a patent for a portable device that creates cheap electricity (some kind of generator, not a weapons-grade device) as a threat to national security, based on the fact that it would upset several industries?

 

And isn't that really against all the principles of a free market economy? If you're a platform Republican, the denial of a patent strictly for reasons that it competes too much with existing products should make flames come out your eyeballs. If you're a platform Democrat, holding an inventor incognito under a John Doe proceeding without recourse to due process should make you equally angry. Libertarians, Greens, practically every political party I know should view this as a gross infringement of personal rights. It's more of a Fascist maneuver than anything else.

 

We should have done it right the first time as far as I'm concerned. There were no WMDs at the time we went in, but there had been. I'm not saying that it wasn't a lie, but I'm saying it needed to be done no matter what excuse we used.

Off-topic red herring. My point was, things you might have considered "highly unlikely" fifteen years ago have happened since. Using the "it's highly unlikely" argument now is moot. We're completely capable of using our military to further our economic expansion, and if a private citizen gets in the way of that, rather than unconstitutionally or illegally handling the situation, our government now has a methodology that makes it simple to deal with protestors. Just change what defines the person and a plethora of possibilities opens up.

 

Big business owns the media, influences the laws and has the clout to not only get the government to declare you a terrorist, they can turn the public against you with a couple of well-rehearsed sound-bytes and some editing. John Doe, you're under arrest.

[iNow]

Indeed, Phi. And frankly, sitting here saying, "Nuh uh... I'm pretty sure that's unlikely" is hardly a quality argument against those points. It isn't addressing the question in good faith, and isn't being very genuine with the discussion at hand.

 

 

Justin - Like Phi, I've found you to be an intelligent and thoughtful guy. I'm just asking that you think about these things a little more deeply before brushing them aside so readily, and then if you still decide to brush them aside you should at least be able to offer some decent reasons why you've chosen to do so... something more than, "it is highly unlikely that it will be used in such a manner."

 

 

Highly unlikely or not... Using them in such a manner even once should be unacceptable to us all.

 

In which case... They shouldn't even be "on the books."

[JustinW]

Oh, come on, you're better than that. What a weak argument, playing the "conspiracy theory" card. YdoaPs was clearly referring to legislators who wrote the laws he mentioned, and I was clearly referring to the Dept of Homeland Security. And you are clearly reaching for straws with this kind of argument.

So what I mean is that by the arguments heard here it's not just congress working towards this goal. It's every cop, government agency, big business, those throughout America that support it, along with congress, all working together to shut down the free speech of Americans? Sorry if this sounds like a conspriacy theory but it's got the earmarks for one.

 

 

It would actually be fairly simple to indoctrinate those who work for DHS to view protestors as fledgling terrorists. Profile: formerly peaceful citizens who have suffered during poor economic hardships, dissatisfied with the hard work and help their government has tried to provide, disillusioned with the commerce system, banding together in mobs and chanting anti-establishment slogans, together day and night and supplied by unknown benefactors, defiant of local law enforcement efforts to move them from entrenched positions. Conclusion: potential for violence against non-combatants is High, situation is detrimental to established policy and systems. Recommendation: See Handling Potential Terrorists.

 

Maybe...but you're not just talking about the indoctrination of the DHS. You're talking about the indoctrination of a lot more than that. It would take the cooperation and servitude of anybody from individual cops all the way up through the ranks to make it work as you're claiming it will. That sounds like a conspiracy to me. And one too large to be thought of as pliable.

 

 

 

And isn't that really against all the principles of a free market economy? If you're a platform Republican, the denial of a patent strictly for reasons that it competes too much with existing products should make flames come out your eyeballs. If you're a platform Democrat, holding an inventor incognito under a John Doe proceeding without recourse to due process should make you equally angry. Libertarians, Greens, practically every political party I know should view this as a gross infringement of personal rights. It's more of a Fascist maneuver than anything else.

After some thought I agree with this.

 

 

 

Off-topic red herring. My point was, things you might have considered "highly unlikely" fifteen years ago have happened since. Using the "it's highly unlikely" argument now is moot. We're completely capable of using our military to further our economic expansion, and if a private citizen gets in the way of that, rather than unconstitutionally or illegally handling the situation, our government now has a methodology that makes it simple to deal with protestors. Just change what defines the person and a plethora of possibilities opens up.

 

Big business owns the media, influences the laws and has the clout to not only get the government to declare you a terrorist, they can turn the public against you with a couple of well-rehearsed sound-bytes and some editing. John Doe, you're under arrest.

All of these people that you claim are involved in this...don't you see where it might sound a little too big to be a conspiratorial act to close the mouths of those who speak out against what they feel is wrong? It seems like you've included everybody in America except those who think as you do on the issue.

 

 

iNow's quote,

Indeed, Phi. And frankly, sitting here saying, "Nuh uh... I'm pretty sure that's unlikely" is hardly a quality argument against those points. It isn't addressing the question in good faith, and isn't being very genuine with the discussion at hand.

 

 

Justin - Like Phi, I've found you to be an intelligent and thoughtful guy. I'm just asking that you think about these things a little more deeply before brushing them aside so readily, and then if you still decide to brush them aside you should at least be able to offer some decent reasons why you've chosen to do so... something more than, "it is highly unlikely that it will be used in such a manner."

 

Is this apposed to "I'm pretty sure this is what they're going to do now". It would take alot of cooperation through alot of different people to first; make a move like this, and second; to keep something like this quiet. I damn sure agree with you that this sort of thing shouldn't be on the books in the first place. But to use something like this to a degree that you all are talking about seems just as farfetched and speculative as any arguement I've posed so far.

Edited January 5, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

So what I mean is that by the arguments heard here it's not just congress working towards this goal. It's every cop, government agency, big business, those throughout America that support it, along with congress, all working together to shut down the free speech of Americans? Sorry if this sounds like a conspriacy theory but it's got the earmarks for one.

I don't know where you get this. I used a pronoun after referencing the DHS. YOU made "they" all-inclusive to denounce it as conspiracy. That's the weak argument, part Straw Man, part Misleading Vividness and part Hasty Generalization.

 

 

Maybe...but you're not just talking about the indoctrination of the DHS. You're talking about the indoctrination of a lot more than that. It would take the cooperation and servitude of anybody from individual cops all the way up through the ranks to make it work as you're claiming it will. That sounds like a conspiracy to me. And one too large to be thought of as pliable.

Imagine you're a cop at a protest rally. You see someone starting to get a bit aggressive with a heckler. You move in to arrest him but suddenly there's a DHS badge in your face and someone who outranks you tells you to back off, they'll take it from here, the suspect is a possible terrorist. For security's sake, they tell you there is to be no paperwork on this incident. They commend you on your vigilance, maybe point out someone else who is getting too rowdy, and they move in and take the suspect to their vehicle and speed away in typical bureaucratic fashion.

 

So how many people were indoctrinated? Remember, the DHS guys are tasked with rooting out terrorism where they find it. If they wait till people get blown up, recriminations fall on them. If they can find the fledgling terrorist and any other cell members using tough guy tactics, they get commended. There's really not much in the way of indoctrination when you've got fear as your POV.

 

 

All of these people that you claim are involved in this...don't you see where it might sound a little too big to be a conspiratorial act to close the mouths of those who speak out against what they feel is wrong? It seems like you've included everybody in America except those who think as you do on the issue.

If you are told by a single government agent that your friend that was next to you at the OWS rally (because we know you were there, Justin) is under investigation for crimes involving US national security, and the more you protest his innocence the more he starts asking questions about you, your place of work, your boss, your parents, your wife and kids, how long can you hold out before you start wondering if you don't know your friend as well as you thought?

[JustinW]

I don't know where you get this. I used a pronoun after referencing the DHS. YOU made "they" all-inclusive to denounce it as conspiracy. That's the weak argument, part Straw Man, part Misleading Vividness and part Hasty Generalization.

If you read back you can tell I wasn't talking about you specifically. In all the scenarios that were put forth there was mention of cops, congress, and government agency that is apart of this so called "inevitable crackdown" on free speech.

 

 

You're a cop at a protest rally. You see someone starting to get a bit aggressive with a heckler. You move in to arrest him but suddenly there's a DHS badge in your face and someone who outranks you tells you to back off, they'll take it from here, the suspect is a possible terrorist. For security's sake, they tell you there is to be no paperwork on this incident. They commend you on your vigilance, maybe point out someone else who is getting too rowdy, and they move in and take the suspect to their vehicle and speed away in typical bureaucratic fashion.

 

So how many people were indoctrinated? Remember, the DHS guys are tasked with rooting out terrorism where they find it. If they wait till people get blown up, recriminations fall on them. If they can find the fledgling terrorist and any other cell members using tough guy tactics, they get commended. There's really not much in the way of indoctrination when you've got fear as your POV.

Apparently the crowd, the family and friends of the protestor, the media that those family and friends might go to, and the cop that doesn't ask questions even when a badge is flashed in his face. Although you could find a scenario for keeping those people quiet, the question still remains. If they would go through all the trouble to silence one guy out of the crowd. How would that ever work towards silenceing the whole crowd, that by the scenario you presented, would never know the reason he was taken or that he was even taken at all? It seems that for this law to work in silencing free speech, you would have to spread the message that if you speak out you will be held as a terrorist. A DHS agent who pulls a guy out of a crowd and tells the cop to keep it hush hush isn't exactly spreading that message. And if that kind of message was spread, you can bet the public in general would be up in arms about it.

 

 

 

If you are told by a government agency that your friend that was next to you at the OWS rally (because I know you were there, Justin) is under investigation for crimes against the country, and the more you protest his innocence the more they start asking questions about you and your family, how long can you hold out?

I don't know.... I've been known to be pretty stubborn.

 

 

 

Look all of these scenarios are possible, yes. But as iNow said was my iligitamate argument, it is "highly unlikely". For several different reasons. The DHS has it's different ranking members who give the orders and carry them out. There are the witnesses that would have to be made to be quiet. There are the family and friends of people detained who would have to be made to be quiet. Out of all of those people the media would find out eventually and they would have to be made to keep quiet. There are too many factors in these scenarios to make them plausable.

 

Does the wording in the law make these scenarios possible? Yes. But to say that this will happen to silence large majorities of the American public isn't accurate and a little paranoid sounding. With the people I know and the demonstrators that I've seen on T.V., I think us as Americans are too stubborn to be made to be quiet. There's alot of people who'll speak out against anything just because they're in the mood. Let alone once given a reason.

Edited January 5, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

Does the wording in the law make these scenarios possible? Yes.

Isn't that really all that matters? Isn't that the entire point being made here? Isn't that all that is required for us to speak out and seek to have it reversed? Stop arguing every example, and realize that only one is required to demonstrate the point.

 

We seem to agree, here. You just think the possibilities being shared are excessive. Even if they are, the central point is the same. The wording in the law makes these scenarios possible. It's time to kill the law.