Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm still not getting where exactly free speech is supposedly limited right now on any actual scale, not counting violent individuals causing local riots. I don't see the government action to silence journalists like in Turkey, or propaganda influencing people to suppress their fellow citizen's opinions on a large scale with threats of violence or ratting them out to authorities of some kind.

Evidently journalists are sensitive flowers who don't like it when they are called poopy faces.

Yes, because it's the journalists' fault that the administration and its members can't handle being criticized.

Way better than the previous administration which tried to get them on felonies.

Can you cite some specific cases here? Most of what I'm remembering didn't go after the journalists, but those who leaked information to them.

Wire tapping of the Washington Post's phones. Investigating Rosen for federal charges.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Also, the argument that:

Lower courts have said that because Hernández was a Mexican citizen in Mexico, he lacked constitutional protection against unreasonable use of deadly force under the 4th Amendment, as well as due process rights under the 5th Amendment.

I find incredibly chilling. Sure there will be a whole can of worms to extending the protections of the constitution beyond the US border but still, to argue that it grants zero protection against US police officers shooting you, regardless of whether it is justified by US law, in your own country is quite cold.

Brought an image to mind of illegals being herded over the border to then be gunned down by machine gun fire, a la The Great Escape. Obviously that won't happen but still, scary.

Not exactly true... One of the main reasons that Gitmo detainees were not brought to the US, and the facility remained open, is because once they are in the US, they have Constitutional protections. Or, at the very least, from what I've read, this is the legal experts' opinion on the matter.

I'm sure a court that's a bit higher would have something rather strongly worded to that affect in this argument as well.

Issues with mexican police or military assisting Narcos or firing on US Border patrol agents are issues that should have been addressed with the Mexican government and pressed, because that is absolutely unacceptable, but it doesnt mean that a US agent firing into Mexico and killing a minor on Mexican soil is ok either, and the US Constitution works differently than Mexican law and does provide protections for noncitizens. The issue is if those protections can be enforced when issues arise on foreign soil at the hands of US law enforcement.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm still not getting where exactly free speech is supposedly limited right now on any actual scale, not counting violent individuals causing local riots. I don't see the government action to silence journalists like in Turkey, or propaganda influencing people to suppress their fellow citizen's opinions on a large scale with threats of violence or ratting them out to authorities of some kind.

Evidently journalists are sensitive flowers who don't like it when they are called poopy faces.

Yes, because it's the journalists' fault that the administration and its members can't handle being criticized.

Way better than the previous administration which tried to get them on felonies.

Can you cite some specific cases here? Most of what I'm remembering didn't go after the journalists, but those who leaked information to them.

Wire tapping of the Washington Post's phones.

When was this?

Investigating Rosen for federal charges.

LOL.

Really, Frazzled? Rosen was named by Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the guy who leaked information to him and claimed that Rosen approached him. That's why Rosen was being investigated.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Issues with mexican police or military assisting Narcos or firing on US Border patrol agents are issues that should have been addressed with the Mexican government and pressed, because that is absolutely unacceptable, but it doesnt mean that a US agent firing into Mexico and killing a minor on Mexican soil is ok either, and the US Constitution works differently than Mexican law and does provide protections for noncitizens. The issue is if those protections can be enforced when issues arise on foreign soil at the hands of US law enforcement.

Did you read the linked article?

What part(s) of the courts (lower and SCOTUS) arguments do you not agree with? Which non-citizens not in the US do you think ought to be protected by our constitution? If the border is not the defining line, where would you draw the line (or do you want the constitution to cover the globe?)

 Vaktathi wrote:
Issues with mexican police or military assisting Narcos or firing on US Border patrol agents are issues that should have been addressed with the Mexican government and pressed, because that is absolutely unacceptable, but it doesnt mean that a US agent firing into Mexico and killing a minor on Mexican soil is ok either, and the US Constitution works differently than Mexican law and does provide protections for noncitizens. The issue is if those protections can be enforced when issues arise on foreign soil at the hands of US law enforcement.

Court has no jurisdiction. No US citizen, not US territory. Also no US law.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Issues with mexican police or military assisting Narcos or firing on US Border patrol agents are issues that should have been addressed with the Mexican government and pressed, because that is absolutely unacceptable, but it doesnt mean that a US agent firing into Mexico and killing a minor on Mexican soil is ok either, and the US Constitution works differently than Mexican law and does provide protections for noncitizens. The issue is if those protections can be enforced when issues arise on foreign soil at the hands of US law enforcement.

If the border agent fired his duty weapon in an unsafe manner or at improper target or for an unjustified reason then the agent can still be prosecuted by the state in the US and he can be punished by his dept for his conduct. Just because the minor that was killed was a Mexican national in Mexico doesn't mean that the US citizen Federal LEO standing on US soil who fired on the minor can't be punished if the shooting wasn't justified. If the powers that be in the US don't believe that the agent did anything wrong then yeah jurisdiction issues are going to make him immune from Mexican authorities so he won't be punished.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Issues with mexican police or military assisting Narcos or firing on US Border patrol agents are issues that should have been addressed with the Mexican government and pressed, because that is absolutely unacceptable, but it doesnt mean that a US agent firing into Mexico and killing a minor on Mexican soil is ok either, and the US Constitution works differently than Mexican law and does provide protections for noncitizens. The issue is if those protections can be enforced when issues arise on foreign soil at the hands of US law enforcement.

If the border agent fired his duty weapon in an unsafe manner or at improper target or for an unjustified reason then the agent can still be prosecuted by the state in the US and he can be punished by his dept for his conduct. Just because the minor that was killed was a Mexican national in Mexico doesn't mean that the US citizen Federal LEO standing on US soil who fired on the minor can't be punished if the shooting wasn't justified. If the powers that be in the US don't believe that the agent did anything wrong then yeah jurisdiction issues are going to make him immune from Mexican authorities so he won't be punished.

Thats my view also. We'll see how SCOTUS shakes out. I'm waiting for the first ISIL lawsuit...

 CptJake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Issues with mexican police or military assisting Narcos or firing on US Border patrol agents are issues that should have been addressed with the Mexican government and pressed, because that is absolutely unacceptable, but it doesnt mean that a US agent firing into Mexico and killing a minor on Mexican soil is ok either, and the US Constitution works differently than Mexican law and does provide protections for noncitizens. The issue is if those protections can be enforced when issues arise on foreign soil at the hands of US law enforcement.

Did you read the linked article?

What part(s) of the courts (lower and SCOTUS) arguments do you not agree with? Which non-citizens not in the US do you think ought to be protected by our constitution? If the border is not the defining line, where would you draw the line (or do you want the constitution to cover the globe?)

Yes I read the article, noncitizens absolutely have constitutional protections, thanks to the 14th amendment, which extends protections to "persons" not just "citizens". This has been affirmed by the supreme court multiple times going back over a hundred years to the 1800's, and is an error on the part of the lower court. The issue is if US law can be applied to an act against a foreign national on foreign soil for an act at the hands of a US agent. It's a standing issue, not an issue of who has what protections.

 Frazzled wrote:


Court has no jurisdiction.

This would seem to be the big issue, cant enforce US law outside the US. Mexico has standing to press charges but the US wont extradite (for obvious reasons) so thats a dead end there.

I am sure there is an actual group. However it is now being thrown around as a pejorative to describe anyone not with the Dem program. See Slate, Salon, and Washington Post commentaries for examples.

No it's not. As per usual criticism of the alt-right is directed at the alt-right, and the refusal to recognize the alt-right is a criticism directed at the right in general because as we see literally right now we have posters trying to downplay or deny the alt-right in spite of the current Republican administration being loaded to the brim with alt-right hedge monkeys, and the rest of the Republican party in Congress going along with it.

d-usa wrote:Libtards, SJWs, femenazis, special snowflakes.

Are we pretending that it's only left that uses terms to paint huge groups? And are we pretending that actual bad groups don't exist because some people use the label incorrectly?

It's 2016 election time all over again where the entire right takes deep offense at targeted criticisms because "it's the Dems fault all this happened."

The party of personal responsibility, taking personal responsibility seriously!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By all means call a racist a racist, but nation with a 1st amendment like yours, has to allow a racist to hold racist views, however distasteful you and I find them to be.

Without free speech, even free speech you disagree with, the free society is dead.

A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.

Rosebuddy wrote:

A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.

I'm pretty sure any laws passed to allow 'extermination of minorities' in the US will face considerable legal challenges...

Because it's fun;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6OJfviiUJY

Also, I wonder why we don't talk much about that Texas "event". Hunters being hurt in a gunfight, telling it was an "illegal immigrant/mexican bandit attack" and then it seems they just shot at each other thinking they were attacked by intruders.

It's actually a good picture of what's happening in the USA since a few weeks.

I really loved the small jab at Golfing Trump in the end. Didn't remember his quote about "I will always be working for you, I will not have time for golf". And golfing six times since the beginning of his presidence.

But hey, he's still as bad as Clinton, after all.

 CptJake wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.

I'm pretty sure any laws passed to allow 'extermination of minorities' in the US will face considerable legal challenges...

At that point it will be too late because existing law enforcement, national guard, militias etc will have long since been coopted. Legality won't matter. That's why you have to prevent some ideas from taking root and spreading.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By all means call a racist a racist, but nation with a 1st amendment like yours, has to allow a racist to hold racist views, however distasteful you and I find them to be.

Without free speech, even free speech you disagree with, the free society is dead.

A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.

If you believe this to be true for whatever you define as the "alt-right", which appears in your case to be limited to neo-Nazis, I hope you also apply this to the fascist "antifa" agitators who show up to left-wing protests in masks, assault their detractors, destroy public and private property, and do not hold back in their views that our entire system of government should be toppled.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.

I'm pretty sure any laws passed to allow 'extermination of minorities' in the US will face considerable legal challenges...

At that point it will be too late because existing law enforcement, national guard, militias etc will have long since been coopted. Legality won't matter. That's why you have to prevent some ideas from taking root and spreading.

So your argument is our system of gov't was a failure from the get go. Frankly, your position is silly. There are way to many constitutional and other legal hurdles for your dystopian fiction version of the US to ever come into existence.

 CptJake wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.

I'm pretty sure any laws passed to allow 'extermination of minorities' in the US will face considerable legal challenges...

At that point it will be too late because existing law enforcement, national guard, militias etc will have long since been coopted. Legality won't matter. That's why you have to prevent some ideas from taking root and spreading.

So your argument is our system of gov't was a failure from the get go. Frankly, your position is silly. There are way to many constitutional and other legal hurdles for your dystopian fiction version of the US to ever come into existence.

To mention nothing of the bogus assertion that our law enforcement officials and national guardsmen are Nazis-in-waiting, which is slanderous.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Both scenarios still give you a liar, an angry man child, someone who says he can grab women by the pussy, someone who says he wouldn't assault ugly women, and someone who panders to the alt-right.

It's almost like the article leaves out the main issues people have with him, but I guess my main problem with the lying pussy grabbing man-child is that he is Republican?

Except he's not a Republican. He's a statist NYer. Reagan would punch him right in the face.

Sorry, Frazzled, but they had a convention. He's a Republican. Turns out, you're the one who's not with it any more.

There's something to be said for the concept that certain ideas have to be opposed, and that just trusting that institutions and military/law enforcement will refuse to follow bad orders has historically proven to be a risky bet.

There are many nations that have failed that test, and the US certainly has failed at all levels at various times in the past. US internment of the Japanese for example. It can and *has* happened here.

At the same time, the US has always been willing to entertain greater risk in exchange for greater freedom, and the idea that said freedom will act as a bulwark to hedge against that risk, and over timr such failures often act as object lessens to prevent reoccurences in the future.

It's always a delicate balancing act, but the US has generally chosen the route of greater absolute freedom in exchange for greater risk as a historical trend.

Turns out, you're the one who's not with it any more.

Dude my idea of a good Valentine's Day date was dancing the jitterbug in a Zoot Suit next to a Hetzer Tank. I haven't been with it for decades...

 jasper76 wrote:
If you believe this to be true for whatever you define as the "alt-right", which appears in your case to be limited to neo-Nazis, I hope you also apply this to the fascist "antifa" agitators who show up to left-wing protests in masks, assault their detractors, destroy public and private property, and do not hold back in their views that our entire system of government should be toppled.

Antifastischistische Aktion are not fascists. Their name is not a historical artefact, it's their sole purpose for existing. Their ideology and material operations are entirely opposed to it. To accuse Antifa of fascism is to not know what either of them is about.

 jasper76 wrote:

To mention nothing of the bogus assertion that our law enforcement officials and national guardsmen are Nazis-in-waiting, which is slanderous.

I'm saying that when outright extermination programs are on the table, the state power mechanisms will have already been taken over. Law will be a formality, retroactive or simply ignored.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If you believe this to be true for whatever you define as the "alt-right", which appears in your case to be limited to neo-Nazis, I hope you also apply this to the fascist "antifa" agitators who show up to left-wing protests in masks, assault their detractors, destroy public and private property, and do not hold back in their views that our entire system of government should be toppled.

Antifastischistische Aktion are not fascists. Their name is not a historical artefact, it's their sole purpose for existing. Their ideology and material operations are entirely opposed to it. To accuse Antifa of fascism is to not know what either of them is about.

If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...

I'm saying that when outright extermination programs are on the table, the state power mechanisms will have already been taken over. Law will be a formality, retroactive or simply ignored.

Ok, in that scenario you're likely right unless the military steps in or the courts stop it, which is what they were designed to do. I don't know about your country but we have a separation of powers here. President Clinton couldn't have declared putting all the lefties in a camp for proper disposal, without the courts, Congress, and the military stepping in.

"It's not fascism when we do it"

Right?

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If you believe this to be true for whatever you define as the "alt-right", which appears in your case to be limited to neo-Nazis, I hope you also apply this to the fascist "antifa" agitators who show up to left-wing protests in masks, assault their detractors, destroy public and private property, and do not hold back in their views that our entire system of government should be toppled.

Antifastischistische Aktion are not fascists. Their name is not a historical artefact, it's their sole purpose for existing. Their ideology and material operations are entirely opposed to it. To accuse Antifa of fascism is to not know what either of them is about.

If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...

But does it goose step like a fascist?

You ever actually try a goose step? The first time someone suggested every else should have immediately beat him with licorice sticks. Its a really cray cray move. Now the electric slide, THATS a cool step (images of Soviet troops doing the slide past Stalin at the annual May Day Parade...hahahah)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:
"It's not fascism when we do it"

Right?

You're Swedish right? Do they actually have Swedish meatballs in Sweden or is it really just a Narn thing?

 jasper76 wrote:

If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...

You have no idea what fascism is. Anarchists don't espouse the supremacy of races and nations, the might of the state or hatred of weakness and femininity. Quite the contrary. That's why they fight fascists, their ideological opposites.

 Frazzled wrote:

Ok, in that scenario you're likely right unless the military steps in or the courts stop it, which is what they were designed to do. I don't know about your country but we have a separation of powers here. President Clinton couldn't have declared putting all the lefties in a camp for proper disposal, without the courts, Congress, and the military stepping in.

I think that the primary defence the US has against such a scenario is its citizenry, not its institutions.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...

You have no idea what fascism is. Anarchists don't espouse the supremacy of races and nations, the might of the state or hatred of weakness and femininity. Quite the contrary. That's why they fight fascists, their ideological opposites.

 Frazzled wrote:

Ok, in that scenario you're likely right unless the military steps in or the courts stop it, which is what they were designed to do. I don't know about your country but we have a separation of powers here. President Clinton couldn't have declared putting all the lefties in a camp for proper disposal, without the courts, Congress, and the military stepping in.

I think that the primary defence the US has against such a scenario is its citizenry, not its institutions.

Do we have a Swedish 2nd Amendment Advocate.
Also...Swedish meatballs, real or imagined?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...

You have no idea what fascism is. Anarchists don't espouse the supremacy of races and nations, the might of the state or hatred of weakness and femininity. Quite the contrary. That's why they fight fascists, their ideological opposites.

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." ~Nietzche

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Ok, in that scenario you're likely right unless the military steps in or the courts stop it, which is what they were designed to do. I don't know about your country but we have a separation of powers here. President Clinton couldn't have declared putting all the lefties in a camp for proper disposal, without the courts, Congress, and the military stepping in.

I think that the primary defence the US has against such a scenario is its citizenry, not its institutions.

Well, isn;t that a terrifying thought.

Is this where I post a brief summary of "It Can't Happen Here?"

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If you believe this to be true for whatever you define as the "alt-right", which appears in your case to be limited to neo-Nazis, I hope you also apply this to the fascist "antifa" agitators who show up to left-wing protests in masks, assault their detractors, destroy public and private property, and do not hold back in their views that our entire system of government should be toppled.

Antifastischistische Aktion are not fascists. Their name is not a historical artefact, it's their sole purpose for existing. Their ideology and material operations are entirely opposed to it. To accuse Antifa of fascism is to not know what either of them is about.

If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...

It seems to me that you don't actually know what fascism means. Just being violent does not a fascist make. It's a particular right-wing ideology. Antifa might not be "good" exactly, but calling them facists misses the entire point. It's like calling communists fascists.

 jasper76 wrote:
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." ~Nietzche

"I can quote things too" Co'tor Shas- 2016