It could be worse. Maybe.

[yendi]

On the one hand, read this article and thank your lucky stars that we don't live in a country where people can be punished for criticizing their government online (and I think this applies to most of my readers, regardless of country of origin).

Then, read this article about the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case regarding the alleged terrorist arrests (link thanks to unwilly), and realize that we're not that much better off than Vietnam, either. It's been over fifty years since our government has instituted concentration camps, but I'd say that, now that our final judicial check has rubber stamped it, there's nothing standing in Bush's way anymore. Other than people like you, taking one hell of a risk, and speaking out against a government that's not even pretending to act in the best interest of its people or its Constitution anymore.

Comments

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

I sent letters to my Congressman, and Senators. I think I will be sending one to my State Bar Association and the ABA.

Y'all should do the same with your govt reps, and any social organizations you belong to.

[yendi]

*nod* It's something I take for granted as the way to express that discontent, but you're right. Few folks actually follow through on contacting their reps and other people in charge, which is especially surprising in this day, when it's so easy to contact our reps via online methods.

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

Yes.

I think I will post the info for online petitions and the CA govt, Fed govt sites.

Several people have asked for them.

[apocalypse-0.livejournal.com]

Some of us are thankful that, for once, the Court recognizes their proper bounds and stays within it.

The military is allowed to treat non-POW fighters however it damn well pleases, and bully for them. People who have guns, but aren't in uniform are accorded NO protections by the Geneva Convention. It's a war zone, and thankfully, we don't have a bunch of idiot bleeding hearts screwing things up.

Secondly, I'm sure even the dimmest of the left-wing crowd can tell the difference between "speaking out" and carrying a gun in armed opposition. Or maybe not, based on your post. In any case, the US government looks poorly upon armed protest by citizen or non-citizen alike.

Finally, with your Bush = Hitler reference ("concentration camps"), I declare Godwin's Law. You lose. If you were at all factual, you'd properly label them "internment camps".

[yendi]

Dude, learn some history. No fucking Godwin here. The concentration camps were in the US. The victims were the Japanese American citizens. When you read some history books, then come back here. In the meantime, I prefer keeping my LJ ignorance-free.

[yendi]

And just responding a bit more calmly to the individual points (aside to anyone else reading -- don't come into my LJ flaming me with your first post, or you won't be coming in here again):

First, no, this isn't standard POW. These are people being rounded up and arrested without any due process. Don't make up your bullshit about people with guns without any evidence (and you have no evidence, because all information here is being surprised).

Second, if you read this as a call to armed protest, you're actually too stupid to even be online. Which is amazing, since you appear to be associated with intelligent people like theferrett and shawnj. But I'm sure you'll go far in the New Order.

Third, the difference between "interment" and "concentration" camps is semantics. There's a nifty site called Dictionary.com that can explain that word to you.

[trouvera.livejournal.com]

surprised = supressed??

although I can't say I'm surprised that evidence is being surpressed...

[yendi]

Erm, yeah. Spell checker went a little wild. I so wish comments could be edited. :-/

[thefirethorn.livejournal.com]

Amen. My grandparents (Texans) described in horror the "POW" camps where Asians were "herded in like cattle" and assured me that nothing like that could ever happen again.

Out of sight, I suppose, out of mind.

[shawnj.livejournal.com]

People who have guns, but aren't in uniform are accorded NO protections by the Geneva Convention

You're wrong about that. By reading the convention itself a while back, I was able to determine that anyone with a gun can be considered a POW. The "enemy combatant" term that the bush administration uses is fictional.