Go on Infowars.com and read the comments on some articles.
When the ecconomy fails, there be a lot of momentum (occupy movements multiplied), the anger will be already focused towards the government and there will be a lot of deranged pissed off people. There are a lot of open minded people that look towards the government as suspisciouse, but a good majority of the "infowarriors" are just another herd of sheep... Matrial law is innevitable with the mentality of these violent people. The question on who is right is irrelevant. When a bigger threat threatens the entire nation, anyone opening up the door to harm towards the nation will be perscuted by the people as being a threat to the state/terrorists.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
I've thought for a while that governments globally were trying to accrue power for the day when inevitably the economies of the world would fail, when the next collapse of capitalism takes place they're going to see the richest come out of it with their money and assets intact and there's no new threat from bolshevism or anything like it.
I was particularly concerned that the media ignored this story. I bet they cant wait until more Americans are arrested without charge and held indefinitely without right to counsel or a plethora of other rights. Its a Catch 22. Once they are detained and denied access to the courts and counsel (and tortured) it become practically irrelevant if the Act does not apply (or otherwise applied overbroadly) to the individual because there is essentially no practical manner to get judicial review over the detention.
Its like the gang laws/gang enhancements in California. Regardless if your are a gangster or not if you charged with a one of many crimes while hanging out with a Hispanic or other minority don't be surprised if a California D.A. tosses in a "gang enhancement" or "street terrorism" charge which could modify the potential exposure to prison time exponentially (sometimes making what would otherwise be a year prison sentence to a life sentence).
I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.
Originally Posted by Edgar
Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"
To maintain public support for its current counterterrorist program and to defend against future criticism, the FBI has carefully cast its efforts as criminal investigations that lead to prosecution in ordinary courts. Whatever misgivings one might have about the techniques sometimes used -- paid informants, elaborate stings, and so on -- a suspect's fate ultimately rests with an independent judge and jury, not with indefinite detention without due process.
But the new legislation's proponents see this process as inadequate. One of their principal arguments is that regular trials allow terrorist suspects to "lawyer up," thereby depriving authorities of valuable information. The evidence indicates otherwise. Those arrested in the United States or returned there for trial have proved to be treasure troves of information. They can negotiate information for sentencing leniency or other considerations. For example, David Headley, a U.S. citizen arrested for participation in the 2008 Mumbai attack, exchanged information that prevented several attacks in order to avoid the death penalty or extradition. (He is still likely to receive a life sentence.) In an arbitrary and unlimited detention system, suspects such as Headley would have less motivation to talk. Indefinite detention could even encourage coercive interrogation.
Other points are made, but this caught my eye as compelling.
"There is no god; there is only us. Savage and fragile."