How do you determine who is a terrorist?
See if they weigh the same as a duck? Or is that how you determine who is a witch?
So what you’re saying is that you think the government should just be able to slap the label ‘terrorist’ on anyone, including citizens of the US and allied countries, and just torture, imprison, or kill them on a whim, with no need to prove anything at all or follow any kind procedures beyond a kangaroo court in which the defendant can be tortured and forced to testify and isn’t allowed to confront witnesses. And if somehow that circus doesn’t get a conviction, they can just keep holding show trials until one produces the right result. Yeah, that’s extreme authroitariansim, and if you don’t see why ‘the government can just call someone a terrorist, then do whatever to them because if they’re a terrorist the government doesn’t have to prove anything or follow any laws whatsoever’ might be just a bit of a problem, then consider that I would regard anyone who expresses such views as a terrorist, and think how that might affect you.
That’s not at all what he said.
-
You apparently have not read any of my comments stating that terrorists should have human rights that prevent torture and killing.
-
I do not claim to be an expert on international law, but I would posit that there are one to perhaps many international human rights laws or wartime codes of conduct, et al. that could be adopted for terrorist suspects/crimes.
-
How on Earth could you surmize “Including citizens of the US” from anything I have stated? Talk about lost in translation…
-
And I may be wrong, but determining if one is in fact a US citizen should be fairly easy.
Somehow - for reasons I fail to understand - my comments that terrorists should not be given the same rights as US citizens has been twisted to mean that terrorists should just be tortured and killed at will… something I have CLEARLY stated is both wrong and undesired from my vantage point.
Does anybody that we’ve ever heard of hold these views? Or anyone who holds an elective office higher than dogcatcher?
It seems rather pointless to debate who is kookier: Alex Jones of Infowars or Dorkness’ “hardcore leftist friend.” The important difference is that important Republicans including the present President of the United States take talking points from Alex Jones, while I’ve not seem the preposterous quoted proposal even in the stupidest Yahoo blogs.
@ OP — You responded to this “hardcore” viewpoint as though it weren’t just laugh fodder. Is this what American “centrists” now think our politics come down to? Trying to choose between Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh on the one hand, and Josef Stalin and Pol Pot on the other hand? :eek:
Hypothetical: you’re a tourist in London. You’re in a crowd of people, and suddenly one of them accuses you of picking his pocket. Should you have the right to a trial and having a defense attorney or should they be able to say “he’s not a citizen, lock him up and throw away the key”?
I think the digression into legal (not human) rights of non-citizen is masking a general trend toward agreement with most non-GOP policy points.
I would say that adhering to a high standards of rights isn’t to so much help criminals as to keep yourself honest when applying the massive powers of a modern state.
The point is, if terrorists don’t have the presumption of innocence or the right to a defence attorney, can’t we accuse any non citizen of being a terrorist, and then lock them up? Did you see my response to your post? I don’t think I mischaracterized anything you said.
Having just watched Alex Jones on JRE #1255 I can say with some definity that Alex Jones is either the bat shit craziest person on planet Earth or a master showman the likes we have not seen since PT Barum. 
You know you’re a Democrat, right?
I always have issues with the wording or framing on these types of quizzes, and this one was no exception. For example, my choices were the following:
This is asking me whether I agree more with “Bears shit in the woods” or “The pope is Catholic.”
Many obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead are now largely gone. This is a true statement. Women can vote, they are not legally barred from most jobs, etc…
But…
There are still significant obstacles. I work in engineering, so I see how they’re treated differently in a traditionally male dominated field. The obstacles are not the old rigid ones. They’re softer, but they’re there.
There’s a track with 100 hurdles in one lane and one hurdle in lane two. 90 are removed from lane 1. Most of the hurdles, but there are still significantly more hurdles in lane 1.
In the end, I pick the second option, but I really wish these types of quizzes would clean up their wording.
And again, my friend offered his own viewpoint almost as laugh fodder. Although he wasn’t laughing, he absolutely knows he’s far outside of the mainstream and isn’t taken seriously. His point was that people need to stop calling AOC and Bernie Sanders extremists, because they don’t advocate anything like what a real extremist like him advocates.
chargerrich, why do you complain that the Democrats are going “too far left” when those leftist positions are essentially the same ones you go on to tell us you believe in?
What has happened in your life to poison the name and the party for you?
No, read more of what she has said. She will refer to the damage done to Harvey Milk by a handgun- not an ‘assault weapon’, not a hunting rifle- and say things like “I know from first-hand experience what damage … weapons can do to bodies. I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values.”
I think she said what she meant, then walked it back later.
I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values. That doesn’t mean I want to confiscate legal guns. That’s the kind of leap that devalues the discussion and convinces liberals that conservatives can’t be rational on the subject.
Just IMO, bear in mind I’ve just been researching party affiliation and stances the past couple weeks but it seems to me you have the views of a Democrat who is a senior and possibly wealthy.
An ideological Democrat, but with fears of the government reaching in your pocket.
The only republican I know of who kind of fits you would be Bill Weld, who really seems to be republican in name only and had a stint as libertarian likely because he couldn’t get support of Rs on account of being a Democrat and couldn’t get support of D’s on account of having always ran on republican ticket.
To be fair though, I’ve only skimmed the out of date, link on him here
And a couple articles.
So you reject Alex Jones (whose views ARE approved by some Rs including Donald Trump) but fear that the views of LHoD’s batshit friend (who doesn’t even post on Yahoo blogs) are relevant to an evaluation of the Democratic Party. Do you see why I find this incongruous?
@ chargerrich — Can you give us some idea of what your main sources for news are?
Moreover, even if the fiction was true, a Democrat having a belief does not make it a party belief or plan. There in fact are Democrats who would like to make handguns illegal. We have extremists among us. And those who are against any increased regulation. Most who want some new regulation and better enforcement of the laws we have. The party is big enough to hold them all and strong enough to survive the disagreements.
The ability to embrace people with differing views is a strength of the Democratic Party.
OTOH, I was stunned at the first Republican debate 3+ years ago when Megyn Kelly started her first question with “Of course as Republicans all of you want to repeal Obamacare, but tell us …[blah blah].”