Yes, for a second time, I'm going to directly address a comment. This comment was posted in response to "That Didn't Take Long":
Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.. At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race. The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason. If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about. - Brian
Brian, Brian, Brian. Here, let me go through this point by point:
Okay, laying aside for the moment what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during a declared war against an alliance of fascist nation-states, this talking point is straight out of the "He did it, so I can do it too" school of jurisprudence so beloved by my five-year-old. While adorable coming from a small child, it's disturbing when a putative adult bases civil liberties and foreign policy decisions on it. I believe the proper response would be, "So, if FDR jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?", save that I doubt a polio-crippled FDR could have managed. We can leave the minutiae regarding FDR's physical limits aside, for my point is made.
Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.
At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race.This is teh funny. In, of course, a bitter and cynical mode of humour. No, we don't have internment camps where the only requirement is race - we have internment camps where the only requirement is religion. Stop me when that starts sounding familiar.
Let's explore that, shall we?
The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason.
From this article on Slate ( and yes, it's the "librul media". You guys think every corporate-owned media outlet save Rush Limbaugh and Fox News is part of the "librul media" - and Rush and Fox don't talk about this):
The data suggests that maybe 80 percent of these detainees were never al-Qaida members, and many were never even Taliban foot soldiers.
So why are they there? Glad you asked:
Most detainees are being held for the crime of having "associated" with the Taliban or al-Qaida—often in the most attenuated way, including having known or lived with people assumed to be Taliban, or worked for charities with some ties to al-Qaida. Some had "combat" experience that seems to have consisted solely of being hit by U.S. bombs. Most were not picked up by U.S. forces but handed over to our military by Afghan warlords in exchange for enormous bounties and political payback.But weren't they all proved guilty of something at their status review hearings? Calling these proceedings "hearings" does violence to that word. Detainees are assumed guilty until proven innocent, provided no lawyers, and never told what the evidence against them consists of.
Read the full article, with the associated studies, then come back and tell me how hard-core those falafel vendors and taxi drivers we're torturing are.
If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.Okay, then. I suppose you don't mind if the cops start searching every house in your neighborhood looking for drugs. Who needs a warrant? After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Be polite when they kick in your door at three AM - they have guns.
Do they not teach civics anymore? Is the bare concept of "rule of law" so alien to you? Do you really want to live in a United States where the powerful can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they wish and your only recourse is that they decide that you're innocent?
And what, precisely, is "conservative" about that vision of America?
Oh, for readers that are interested, Brian can be found at superacidjax.blogspot.com. Enjoy.