Topic: No longer tin-hat conspiracy theory: FEMA Camps Everywhere (Read 5643 times)

Defense contractor?

My only guess is a nuclear power plant?

Excellent video on the topic:
Inside Story Americas - US anti-terrorism bill: Liberty vs security

1. Strictly, criminality is definitional. Strictly.
2. If you believe that you would make a lovely patsy for a frame-up, your righteous indignation would only fan the flames.

So, really, all one needs to do is make it appear you are a criminal by some accepted definition, and you're screwed. It's amazing how expensive being innocent can be, I've seen people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees, court fees, fee fees, etc on charges that were later dropped. The gumint kept de money, though, as did the lawyers.

Also does anyone know if its against building code to have barbed wire pointing outwards, away from your property in the towns these Amtrak camps are found in.

You should also be worried about people holding grudges against you and framing you. With regards to government tracking you, you should also be worried about people hacking in /paying off someone to get access to it. What it comes down to is whether you trust the feds with your information and safety. I don't, so this all seems like a waste of money that could fuck me over someday somehow.

You sir, are a fool.

*groan* The good ol' "I've got nothing to hide" argument.  It's like arguing "I'm not African-American, so I have nothing against Jim Crow laws."

Oh, thats where you draw the line? Its okay if it happens to you or anyone else, as long as its abroad and the targets die, rather than rot in a prison. Let me reverse your question; what makes you think your president thinks he does NOT have the authority to do this inside the US?


Its quite the opposite. Your (vice) presidents have gotten away with crimes that no ordinary civilian or low ranking military officer would ever have gotten away with. from Nixon all the way to Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush and arguably Obama. Impeachment hearings is only for really serious things like consensual sex amongst adults  . For abuse of power or war crimes they get a free pass, its usually not even investigated, let alone prosecuted. If ever needed, a blanket pardon is just handed out.


You are delusional if you still think torture provides intelligence, it doesnt work, even if you get the right guy. Of course more often than not, you get the wrong guy who you can torture all you want, he doesnt know a thing because he is just a Canadian software engineer, an Afghan cab driver, a farmer or whatever whom someone completely randomly accused of being terrorist because they got paid for "delivering terrorists". You do realize that by your own governments admission, the majority of detainees in Gitmo have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever. How many US lives do you think it saved to keep them there? How many terrorists do you think are recruited based on US detaining and torturing of completely innocent people?

BTW, torture is a war crime. There are no ifs and buts about providing useful intelligence.


Show me where it says president can NOT do that with an executive order? Clearly he thinks he can kill US citizens abroad. Now they can detain US citizens indefinitely without probable cause let alone trial, even inside the US. But to you, thats nothing to worry about? Piss off the wrong guy and you can vanish forever in to a cell in Mogadishu.  Legally.

1)  I was talking about detaining people in the US, and executing them in a controlled environment.  While drone strikes may be necessary to take care of leaders of terrorist organizations, I do very much agree that it creates more hatred against the US.  But I wasn't talking about drone strikes, only you were.

2)  The president is more trustworthy because everyone's eyes are on him.  If he makes a mistake, there's a public outcry, a call for impeachment, etc.  If someone in the military makes a mistake, a couple of boring news articles might be written about it, and the military leader might be demoted or dismissed entirely.

3)  I am fine with torture too, provided it prevents another 9/11.  Would much rather have the "rights" of a few men violated, then have people who those men are working for keep their secrets and continue to make plans for another mass killing of Americans.

4)  I was asking all the who/what/where/when/how questions about politicians being able to kill people detained in the US, because you implied that it happens.  So show me proof that it happens.  Otherwise, I don't believe it.

Did you dig into what sorts of stats the book uses? Or for that matter read the whole article?

If what you're looking for is a peer-reviewed academic paper using government statistics of data taken from average citizens, then no, that doesn't exist, to my knowledge. If it does, then no, I can't point you to it. Clearly, the only reasonable conclusion is the estimate has no basis in reality. 

I'm willing to take the estimate at face value, for a number of reasons, but as you disagree, let me ask: what's your estimate?

Also, what's the most-unlikely sounding felony you know of? (It would help to exclude drug laws for the purpose of this discussion.)

Take your time... I won't be able to respond for a while.

*citation still needed.

One guy writing a book called 'Three Felonies a Day" does not make it so. I am just saying that as a criminal, I don't commit three felonies a day. It would be fairly difficult to commit three felonies a day without knowing. I could see it in civil infractions and misdemeanors, but not felonies.

Key word: average.

Although it's obviously not a handful of people committing millions of felonies daily, and the rest being squeaky clean.

Anyway, I'm sort of surprised this isn't more well known. Here's a start:


If you want to debate whether it's 3.1 or 2.4, we could, but really I think the points made in the original source (and geez, the number itself, even if off!) makes the point.

Then I guess we better start preparing counter-PR then.

The global financial system won't last much longer. People will rush to alternative forms of money, and when it comes to digital money, the only currency that is designed to be counterfeit-proof is Bitcoin. MHO, it's inevitable that they, and everyone else, will start using it.

*goes to investigate whether pirates use smartphones*

*citation needed

What three felonies did I unwittingly commit today? I will even start you off and give you one that I willingly committed: consuming a schedule one controlled substance. It wasn't purchased today, so that isn't one, and additionally, all federal, California and Los Angeles taxes were paid on it so you can't try and wriggle out with a technicality there. Name two more.

This may be the most BS statistic I have ever seen.

I think it makes even more sense for Somali sea pirates to start doing "business" in bitcoin. Someone should actually give them a hint .  But yeah, it wouldnt be the best publicity for bitcoin, but rest assured our governments will seize the opportunity.

This would be a nightmare, but it's a totally legitimate concern.

Irony is, AFAIK they primarily use dollars, but no one thinks twice about that.

BTW, when it comes to detention and torture, its not just your president that has its say; not even only members of congress. Military commanders and military intelligence people (you know, the very same ones that told you about saddams WMDs) now get those privileges now too:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

Now before you say "thats only for terrorists", do read.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially 9
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces 10
that are engaged in hostilities against the United 11
States or its coalition partners, including any person 12
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly 13
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy 14
forces.

Just about anyone could fall under that. Including the current chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who used to support the IRA. Anyone supporting palestenians.  And lets not mention just about everyone in the CIA over age 50 once involved in arming and training Al Qaeda when you still thought they were your friends (blow-back, remember that word?). Oh and quite a few US military Im sure, arming enemies of your enemies in Iraq, Iran and God knows where else.

If you still feel it doesnt apply to you; just wait until Taliban starts using bitcoin.

Why is the president more trustworthy than a congressman? He's just "some politician" like any other, it's not like there aren't congressional committees that get briefed on military issues and international intelligence.



You can google most of this stuff. It's pretty hot news, there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, and a lot of people scrutinizing the latest relevant bills. It's all out in the open. There is no "in on it."

For an example, the president decided just recently to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. He ordered it done. Drones struck. He was killed. I can't imagine there wasn't "collateral damage." Two weeks later, his 16-year-old son, born in Denver, living overseas, was also killed, same scenario.

There was apparently only one step required: "do it." And no check or balance of any sort seems to be in place.

Was the man a terrorist? Was his 16-year-old son? How could we (the people) determine that? Will we ever know, considering how fast this is all moving and such "old news" is being left behind?



....

Have you heard the news reports of U.S. forces hitting the wrong targets? I know the mainstream media doesn't focus on such reports for any length of time, but there have been a number of them over the last decade. It can go even further back if you count Clinton bombing aspirin factories to distract from his scandals.

One of the more egregious "mistakes", if one can prioritize them, are those that hit weddings. I believe it's happened at least twice. The goal wasn't to hit a suspected terrorist, as the bombing was a mistake. But even if it was, clearly not everyone at a typical wedding party is involved in the same business as a few of the attendees.

So, we have a roomful of innocents. It's a wedding. A time of joy. Perhaps there's singing and dancing, or the groom and bride are about to kiss. Point is, in an instant, bombs hit, there's rubble everywhere, people are injured and dead.

The survivors stagger out, and begin the mourning. Days later, they discover the bomb was dropped by the U.S. military.

What do you think is going to go through their minds?

Particularly the young ones (especially the ones who lost loved ones, which is probably many) who have been told by radicals "Those devils just want to kill us all! Just wait, they'll hurt someone you love, and then you'll see we're right!"

Personally, I can't think of a more effective recruiting campaign for new terrorists.

Are you saying the president is not a politician?  And its not just killing, its also detaining without charges, and torture by proxy. I bet you the president doesnt sign off on all of those.


Great questions! You feel okay that you dont know the answer?


Are you kidding me? They have a fancy word for it: blow-back.
It doesnt take genius to see what it is happening all around the world, but you have to be really blind to not see particularly in Pakistan what its causing, as a direct result of those drone attacks. You kill (maybe) a few foot soldiers of the Taliban (and a handful of innocent children and women as "collateral" damage),  and you will end up creating a sworn enemy thats closely aligned with that very same Taliban, but armed with an arsenal of 200 nuclear bombs.

Only you will feel safer for it.

BTW, look up the definition of terrorist; its someone exploiting fear. Precisely what your government has been doing.