On Oct 17 2011 5:14 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> Guys like you have all the answers sitting in behind your computer. If you
> were POTUS and charged with the responsibility of protecting the country and
> had the authority to fashion ways to do that, it would become complicated in
> a hurry, with lots of tough, gray-area decisions.
Rule of law shouldn't be a matter of convenience. And you're making one
absolute whopper of an assumption – that the POTUS believes he has an
actual responsibility to protect us, American citizens. He's shown little
evidence of this. Think about it, particularly as it pertains to the
current financial crisis. Has he shown any interest in protecting you, me,
or anybody else who doesn't cut him a six figure check every four years?
Has anybody been prosecuted for blatant, obvious fraud that has cratered
the economy and put hundreds of thousands of people on the street?
> Then, when some of those tough decisions are made, you would have to listen
> to the tin-foil hat crowd squawking about concentration camps and FEMA
> gulags.
Who cares what he has to listen to? He has a tough job and a lot of
critics, boo hoo. No one forced him to run for office.
> What is your answer then? You are POTUS and have top-secret intel that a
> citizen of the U.S. is in Pakistan actively plotting terrorist attacks
> against the U.S. or has done so in the past. What is your move?
Work with our so-called Pakistani allies to have him arrested and
extradited. Or barring that, break the law, and face the consequences. But
there should be consequences, and rules, to prevent potential abuses. What
you're promoting is total lawlessness.
This "24"-like situation is such an extreme example, it has no bearing on
reality. The federal government is taking full advantage of this hysteria
to expand its powers, and I'd argue that this is no accident. Look at
Anwar Al-Awlaki – all he was ever proven to be was a motivational speaker,
an Al-Qaeda propagandist. He wasn't any kind of direct or imminent threat.
And yet he was assassinated, same as if he had been planning to mount a
suicide bombing in Times Square tomorrow. Once this precedent is
established, you think the federal government is going to stop or slow
down? GMAFB. They've seen they can get away with it with no consequences.
It's game on now.
You lawyers seem to share this deference to authority disease, where you
believe everyone in power exists solely to protect you from the terrorist
boogeyman. This naivety is just mind-blowing. I've got a news flash: The
people running the show have agendas, and our welfare is not on the list.
Go revisit Sibel Edmunds' testimony re: 9/11 if this is unclear – there
were multiple warnings within the CIA and FBI that an attack was imminent.
The warnings were snuffed out by superiors in both organizations, because
– gov't complicity issues aside – THESE ORGANIZATIONS EXIST TO ENCOURAGE
TERRORISM, not fight it. No terrorism, and half of the national security
complex vanishes, overnight. Don't you fools see this? There's an
inherent, systemic conflict of interest in that the military industrial
complex NEEDS terrorism, needs a cast of boogeymen, in order to justify
its existence. They don't exist to protect us – as currently constituted,
the system exists only to PROTECT ITSELF.
You and Snowflake are not stupid people. Misguided and confused and
hopeless naive about the true machinations of power, yes. But not stupid.
Surely you can see the folly of what you're encouraging. Because if you
can't, I fear there's little hope for the rest of these American zombies.
------