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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (216492)	2/9/2013 3:36:41 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541997

Can you list any American citizens that were victimized by the government in these "constitution free" zones during Obama's term?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (216492)	2/9/2013 4:07:36 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 541997

"Obama has proven to be far worse than Bush for civil liberties." Post of the Day

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (216492)	2/9/2013 7:13:40 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 541997

I have a letter from the ACLU sitting on my desk to write a check to. It is one of my life long organizations I contribute to regularly, along with PETA, Amnesty International, docs without Boarders and various other communist organizations. If the right wing ever takes over, I am sure I will be at the top of their drone hit list.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (216492)	2/9/2013 10:18:19 PM
From: No Mo Mo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541997

"If Bush had done such a thing, everyone here would up in arms. Somehow Obama gets a free pass." Not completely free, but it feels like it's time to leave or close ranks with your good allies. Message 28715385 Message 28716584

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (216492)	2/10/2013 9:41:10 AM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541997

I must admit that even though I have lived continuously in the CFZ since it was invented Constitution Free Zone The measures that define the CFZ were enacted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during the height of last decade’s terrorism scare. It was upheld by the congress, executive branch, and never challenged directly by the Supreme Court. Essentially, the CFZ defines a 100 mile strip of land, which runs along the interior borders of American territory. Within this zone, federal agents can conduct extra-Constitutional operations including, but not limited to, illegal search and seizure, detainment without charge or legal representation, and general dehumanization tactics to solicit private information. I have never been aware of it...and truth be told your reference is the first time I had heard the term So ya reckon Obama could just tell Boehner and his crew, and McConnell and the "Filibuster over Fucking Nothing" crew at his place that we need to change up the Patriot Act a bit? ...and with real problems facing the nation, this would be a worthwhile expenditure of political capital

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (216492)	2/11/2013 5:55:10 PM
From: No Mo Mo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541997

"Obama has proven to be far worse than Bush for civil liberties." 52% of voters not willing to give him a free pass. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hill Poll: Voters: Obama no better than Bush on security vs civil liberties By Lara Seligman - 02/11/13 05:00 AM ET A majority of voters believe President Obama has been no better than his immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, when it comes to balancing national security with the protection of civil liberties, according to a new poll for The Hill. Thirty-seven percent of voters argue that Obama has been worse than Bush while 15 percent say he has been “about the same.” The results cannot be fully explained as party line responses. More than one in five self-identified Democrats, 21 percent, assert that the Obama administration has not improved upon Bush’s record. So do 23 percent of liberals.The results are especially striking given the liberal hopes that attended Obama’s election, the opprobrium he heaped upon Bush’s national security policies during the 2008 campaign and his early promise to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The vexing issue of how to balance security with respect for civil liberties has taken center-stage since a document detailing the legal justification for drone strikes on overseas al Qaeda members was leaked to NBC News earlier this month. The Justice Department “white paper” surfaced ahead of last Thursday’s Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s choice for CIA director, his chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan. The leaked memo stipulates that the government can lawfully kill one of its own citizens overseas if it determines the person has ties to al Qaeda or one of its affiliates and poses an “imminent threat.” But critics have said the broad language used in the document allows for an elastic interpretation, raising questions over how much authority the administration should have over the lives of American citizens. Americans are, however, inclined to support the government in its lethal attacks on citizens and non-citizens it deems to be terrorists, according to the Hill Poll. The poll found that 53 percent of likely voters said it should be legal for the U.S. government to kill non-U.S. citizens who meet that description. Meanwhile, 44 percent said it should be legal for the U.S. government to kill American citizens who it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat. By contrast, 21 percent of respondents thought such an action should be illegal if the target is a non-U.S. citizen. A slightly higher percentage of voters, 31 percent, thought killing individuals whom the government believes are terrorists should be illegal when the target is an American citizen. A significant proportion of respondents — 26 percent and 24 percent, respectively — said they were not sure if such attacks should be legal, regardless of whether the target was an American or not. When asked whether they oppose or back the administration’s drone program, however, a significantly higher percentage of voters voiced their support. Sixty-five percent of respondents said they support the use of unmanned drones to kill “people in foreign countries whom the US government says are terrorists and present an imminent threat,” while just 19 percent of voters said they oppose the policy. The findings were based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Feb. 7 by Pulse Opinion Research. thehill.com