Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (71669)	3/29/2010 12:11:13 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 149317

It isn't a question of who was worse or better. I acknowledge Jim Crow and segregation (btw, my jr high school in Bakersfield was segregated until the law demanded it be otherwise) - However this is 2010. To look back to who was worse or better in the past does not deal with the present. And when you speak of who is elected, you are talking on a national level. In Alabama our legislature is 21 to 15 with Dems being the 21, and they voted against an opt-out bill re healthcare. Being 'better' in the past does not make job opportunties for blacks in 2010 in Los Angeles. it does not keep them from being such a massively skewed part of the prison population there. It does not make their schools better. It does not keep 1/2 a million people in NYC, mostly young black and brown men, from being stopped by the police each year for no reason. This is not about 1968, it is about 2010 and dealing with issues that we face today. And maybe if the 'left' had not been so excited to get rid of LBJ we would have made more progress. Maybe if they hadn't deserted Carter and let Reagan get elected, we'd be the leader in green in the world right now. Carter is a facist? not.

To: koan who wrote (71669)	3/29/2010 1:29:24 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

SUSPECTED TERRORISTS CHARGED AFTER MIDWEST RAIDS.... The details are still coming together, but based on early reports it appears that federal officials took eight members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group into custody over the weekend. According to reporting today by the NYT's Charlie Savage, these eight, and a ninth who is still at large, have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges. Based on court filings, it is believed that the nine radicals intended to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer, and attack the funeral procession with explosive similar to those used against U.S. troops in Iraq. The goal, according to the indictment, was to create some kind of "uprising against the government." Eight of the nine were taken into custody over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. The extremists were identified as members of a militia group called Hutaree, which considers the U.S. government its "enemy," and which reportedly was moving forward with its plans for the attack next month. These accounts suggest that federal officials intervened at a key moment, and prevented a devastating tragedy from taking place. Responses to terrorist attacks are important, but so are successful efforts like these to prevent the terrorist attacks from happening in the first place. Given the recent political debates, Tim F. raises a good point. Rightwing antiterror doctrine clearly states that we must strip these "terrorists" (no such thing as alleged in the war on terror) naked and hang them in cold cages by the wrists with their arms tied behind their backs so that the tendons tear and the shoulder joint dislocates. We should waterboard them until they confess and give up their co-conspirators (the Inquisition found waterboarding almost 100% effective!). Without question these people should be held without any trial or access to habeas corpus petitions until the "war" against violent fundamentalist groups is over. At the very least we should shunt these guys into military tribunals where the rules have been rigged to ensure a conviction. Of course Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds and Crittenden and Erickson and any other credentialed rightblogger will agree with what I just said. They have to. That sounds about right. In fact, I'm genuinely curious what the reaction will be to this from some conservatives. It appears that the Obama administration identified a group of religious radicals who consider the United States their enemy, and who have been plotting a deadly terrorist attack on American soil. Based on what's publicly available, the accused are very dangerous. Will the Cheneys demand that they not be tried in civilian courts? Will Rudy Giuliani insist that it's too dangerous to detain the suspects on American soil? With a ninth member of the radical group still at large, will various Fox News personalities call on the president to torture the other eight for information before he/she can do something dangerous? This may sound snarky, but it's really intended to be. It appears that the Obama administration has captured eight suspected terrorists, and prevented a deadly attack. Putting aside whether the right would give the administration credit for stopping terrorism before it happens, will we have to endure the same inane questions from the usual suspects, or do those rules not apply when the accused are white Christians?