This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
Submitted by Gonzalo Lira
But with yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.
First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?
A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.
In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)
What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.
A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.
A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.
The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.
For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.
Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization.
The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.
My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.
In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who is not—without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is curtailed—as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.
For example, if the Executive—in the form of the Secretary of State—decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech—nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International.
But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks—including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses—would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.
This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a police-state. The state determines—unilaterally—who is detrimental to its interests. The state then represses that person or group.
By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine who is a terrorist and who is not—and therefore has the right to silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to speak to them, or hear them.
And let's just say that, after jumping through years of judicial hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.
So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the terrorists—and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.
Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.
»
- 45682 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Net neutrality = GoogleTV, it really is that simple.
Google, largest purveyer of computer electricity, who keep a permanent record of every bit of their traffic.
May need an underground EMP to fix that...
AMEN..outside the Gv't, there's none worse.
Anyone who use's Google, is crazy.
***********"Why are we still using copper wires when fiber optics have existed for decades?"**************
Excellent question! The answer:
Quantum Cryptography. Without it NSA's Echelon program was born(and others). All children of Carnivore.
http://mc2.gulf-pixels.com/?p=341
"Quantum communication involves encoding information in quantum states, or qubits, as opposed to classical communications use of bits. Usually, photons are used for these quantum states. Quantum cryptography exploits certain properties of these quantum states to ensure its security. There are several different approaches to quantum key distribution, but they can be divided into two main categories depending on which property they exploit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)
http://www.nsawatch.org
Insist on fiber optics. The light transmission in fiber allow for a very secure method of crypto that does not have a lot of overhead and can be built into browsers and email clients with ease.
************** Let's get our communication privacy back!
Why are we still using copper wires when fiber optics have existed for decades? Simple: political corruption.
No, you f***ing idiot, it's not; it's economics. I worked in telecom for many years. The Public Utilities Commissions (PUC) in most states continue to regulate telco basic service rates. Those rates are set on a "rate of return" basis, where the telco is guaranteed a rate of return on capital invested, with certain criteria applied. One is the rates are generally set on the basis that fixed plant had a 30-50 year working life, depending on the technology. Fixed outdoor plant (poles, wires, etc.) had the longest expected life. Ripping them out prematurely would mean that the telco would be prevented from adjusting its rate base to recapture the costs of installing fiber. Thus, it only becomes economic to replace copper when the telco estimates that the number of customers for real broadband (as opposed to xDSL) and broadcast services is high enough that they will generate enough new unregulated revenue to overcome the hit on their regulated rate of return.
The rate at which people are abandoning traditional land lines for mobile or Voip phones, and the increasing demand for real broadband is accelerating this changeout. However, finding a good fiber op tech is not as simple as finding, say, an ACORN volunteer. It takes specialized trucks and equipment as well, none of which is cheap. So again, telco beancounters have to decide whether it's worthwhile to buy, say, 10 new trucks, kit them out, and hire the staff for a one-time changeout, or whether it's better to just wait and continue to phase out copper over time. Conspiracy sounds well and good, so long as you have no idea what you're talking about.
That said, I have no quibble with the original post vis-a-vis a police state. Instead of using terms like fascist, farscist (love that, though!), or police state, let's just use the simpler term "thugocracy"; I think that pretty much covers it.
And BTW, here in Toronto, as the G20 shrimpfest (Thai shrimp, of course - none of that oily Gulf stuff!) unfolds, it was revealed today that the Ontario government passed a law in secret through an "Order in Council" (which I think is comparable to the US's "Executive Order") requiring people within 50m of the G20 "security zone" to display ID to police upon demand, which is not normal Canadian practice. If you're just minding your business in a public area, the police have no right to demand ID unless they are attempting to detain you. That preternaturally polite Canadians will generally acquiese to this demand at any time is by-the-by; our laws don't require it.
Until now.
This issue seems to really rile people up.
Bribing politicians is included in that cost/benefit analysis. And they're expensive.
At least one serious study found corporations got a lot of bling for their political bang...
that new law... the contagion spread. sad news from the north.
double
"The net" is not air. It's a creation of human labor. That means to get it, you'd better pay for it, unless you're a socialist. And libertarians aren't socialists.
Who should we pay, the inventor and entrepreneur,
or big bad government?...
Take two blue pills and call me in the morning.
No mater how you look at it everything the US Government Requires of you is ultimately enforced with the Real Threat of Death, enforced at the end of a gun. Everything.
(Jay walk, refuse Ticket, refuse arrest, refuse forcibly abduction. You will be threatened with death. For jaywalking.)
Can we sat hyperbole, Edward? Death for jaywalking? In theory, yes. In practice, once every 150 gazillion jaywalking violations. Get real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUZ3vNIkrKE
Jaywalking Often Leads to Take-Downshttp://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-06-16/news/jaywalking-often-leads-to-t...
The point is this. If a cop doesn't like you, or the way you look, or for any other reason; you're in for it.
especially if you mouth off, swear, resist & have your friend get involved.
I don't like everything the police do, and I worry about what direction we are headed - but if you insist on being a moron I don't have a lot of sympathy.
"A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another."
Moron A jay walk crosses the street. This moron is white, has khakis and a collared shirt on, and has just as bad an attitude as the girls in the video above. The cop looks the other way. The bad attitude and mouthing off is never discovered, and the take down never occurs.
Moron B jay walk crosses the street. This moron is black, dressed like a hooker, accompanied by a friend in the same garb, and has the exact same piss poor attitude and manners. The cop decides to enforce. The bad attitude and mouthing off gets them in trouble (ie discovered), a fight ensues, and a violent take down occurs.
Selective enforcement by the state and or its representatives in the police force is what a police state is all about. This example could just have easily used fraud and theft as an example if needed (corporate bank v small time felon), and that is what is at the heart of the issue; not jaywalking.
selective enforcement = police state
Stuff I dont understand. Why keep discussing over certain topics in the US with the US mentality being known?
In the US, the "if it is good for me, then it is good" prevails.
Police states like all governments are human institutions. They need human beings participation to ensure they thrive.
A selective application of a law in the US seldom bothers people who are on the right fence of it. On the contrary. By the very same way, they are going to side with the system as it is good for them, therefore it is good.
Being able to jaywalk is good for people who can. A kind of statement they are free. This statement is reinforced when they see people who are not free to jaywalk.
This is the way the US was built. Some guys were stated to be entitled to be free. On the other hand, to give taste to this statement, others had to embody the negative of it.
Still stays. Will ever stay the same.
imo this is becoming less true because the state is expanding its power and viciousness at an accelerating pace that is becoming increasingly obvious. i am an upper middle class 62 year old white guy (sometimes wearing khakis) and i am highly concerned that given the direction of the bush/obama... administration(s), the govt is going to eventually target me for sympathy for terrorists (i.e. anyone not likudnik and/or against their wars). therefore i'm opposing them now, when they're still pretty much arresting brown people with unpronounceable names (or black people).
to a whole new generation, it's just becoming clear how pervasive this is becoming.
true - nothing new... but dam. when did all this happen?
i believe that if i get hit in a crosswalk, the driver should get in big trouble. but... if i get hit on the rest of the road, sucks to be me, and i should pay for the dents i made in the car too - or at least my estate should...
that's complete freedom with a social buffer (crosswalks).
not what's happening anymore.
jaywalk, half of these fat fuck american's would not risk their lives jaywalking. it takes them more time to walk across the street then the green/walk signal timer allows. pathetic.
i like J A Y R U N N I N G†
thursday night bike rides, we run red lights and stop signs. the cops can't ticket us, too many disobedients.
long live the subtle R E B E L.
selective enforcement = police state
"Thank you for your service to our nation" aka Bankster Oligarchy Police state empire that rewards ponzi fraud CDO/ CDS banksters.
http://www.breitbart.tv/nyc-cop-beats-iraq-war-vet-with-baton-for-not-showing-i-d/
That's right - any form of resistance is "illegal". Do what your told and obey every single last law to the letter or you will be locked up - as you should be.
Toronto police authorized by Executive Directive to arrest anyone
within 20 meters who does not show ID upon demand...
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/pre-crime-policing
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/17/flashbangs-under-fire
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/14/chicagos-thick-blue-wall
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/jericho-bile
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/05/scenes-from-a-crackdown
http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/28/the-infallible-prosecutor
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/19/sheriff-joes-enabler
Tell it to the little girl in Detroit, shot "accidentally" by the Police.
WW
Of course the jay walker won't be put to death for jaywalking. If the jaywalker resists the ticket, then the forceful application of the ticket, then the police arresting that person, the guns will come out. The "state" has the "right" to impose the ultimate force. The citizen is always supposed to defer to the state.
Consider the example where I was told by my father to never argue with the cop giving me a ticket. Instead, argue in court. This supposes that the court will give me a fair and impartial hearing. If it doesn't, where do you begin resisting? At the cop? At the court?
The poster is talking about the fact that all laws and many social "contracts" are backed by the force of the gun backed by the state. If you resist, eventually you will see a gun pointed at you. The reason many people scoff at the idea that force backs everything is because they rarely if ever resist, thus the guns are never brought out.
Indeed. Chairman Mao, in a rare moment of honesty, said it best: Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
And we have yet to see how an armed civilian populace will respond to the tipping point of tyranny.
Sure we have. It was called Red Dawn. Only, the police state operatives were disguised as Cubans.
Don't remember that turning out very well for most of them. Hope the movie got it wrong in that respect at least.
Easy peasy~
How did Castro take back Cuba? We have seen it, some people are blind to freedom.
That’s because in most instances people will surrender their freedom and capitulate for the fear of escalation. The state is counting on it.
Ed,
You confusing state LE, with Gv't...two separate entities.
You have no threat of death, if you are not aggressive,as for the things you describe, why would you physically fight over such mundane issues.
Pay the fine, if you did it, sign the ticket saying your not guilty(but agree to pay,m or show).
Abduct you?.for what?...........
LE cannot even look in your vehicle unless they have probable cause.
If they do so, after you tell them NOT to, then it will get thrown out.
Most people do not now their rights, if you do not know your RIGHTS, you have none.
Doszap you miss the point. My point is that is you if do not wish to accept the governments Control over the way you cross the street you will be forced to capitulate with the threat of death.
IF anywhere along the line you capitulate and accept the Government control over your ability to choose how you want to cross the street you will be spared.
Most people will capitulate and surrender their freedom.
You can apply this logic to all of the Governments laws, the ones you agree with and the ones you think are wrong and abusive. Comply of Die.
Also the LE. is the state and the state is the LE. They are mutually inclusive, without one the other cannot exist.
Good Luck.
Ed,
No I don't think I missed your points....you carried them to exremes.
Forget the Feds, and focus on your neighbor policeman,state is as in Texas, not THE STATE.
Your city,town has laws.If you are not supposed Jaywalk, and will be charged a fine, and you BREAK that law, you will be fined.
Where I had issue w/your analogy, was who in their right mind breakes a simple law, and forces the issue to the point you get shot?.
That would be suicide by Cop....LOL
And, Best to You Bro.
PS: I do understand your idiology on the rest,truly I do, and I agree.................
But, as long as I have been alive, if you broke the laws, and acted out similarly, 30yrs ago, you got the same treatment..........
Either we are a Nation of Laws or not................
The Laws that are in violation of the Laws of the Constitution, are not LAWS,and we are not obligated to obey them.
In this case, I would resist, and defend myself from unlawful arrest, to the point of stopping the arrest, by any means neccessary.
Again you miss the mark The point is It does not matter what you think is right or wrong all that matters is that you capitulate to the state or they the use the threat of death to get you to obey. You Obey because of their threat not because you believe in their laws. Not out of civic duty, you only obey because you do not want to deal with the consequences if you resist.
You are a surf, That’s ok though I too am a surf, in fact we all are surf’s to one degree or another.
The only difference is I see clearly where I stand.
Good Luck.
Barney Frank's dildo polices the states by constantly fucking us all in the ass.
The only question left unresloved is; lube, or no lube?
Mister Dabolina, Mister Bob Dabolina...
Mister Dabolina, Mister Bob Dabolina...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h3ynPZEOM4&feature=related
+Zilch
One thing said it all and presaged the final victory of this police state:
free speech zones.
When the people allowed this bullshit to stand it pretty much signaled to the world that we were a bunch of pussies who would rollover at the slightest sign of 'authority'.
That people would stand for being cordoned off in little cages far off to the side of whatever event they were protesting is just the perfect image. Dont people realize the cage is around ALL of us and is getting smaller and smaller by the day?
+ 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.01
and it's not going to get better before it gets worse.
and virtually nobody understands the implications of that reality.
soon there will be protests in triplicate. you get to keep the goldenrod copy.
But don't send more than one protest (in triplicate: public official copy, FBI copy, DHS copy), or you will get arrested for harrassing a public official.
worse - it gives them all license to hire more employees.
there is no reason to congregate and speak with one voice, herd.
people should not behave like sheep. it makes for fleecing and
worse. think.
one mind expressed ubiquitously becomes the unconscious cause
fully embraced by everyone with resulting effect/s.
?
there is no reason to congregate and speak with one voice, herd.
people should not behave like sheep. it makes for fleecing and
worse. think.
one mind expressed ubiquitously becomes the unconscious cause
fully embraced by everyone with resulting effect/s.
?
And why does a group of people deemed terrorists need advice on how to negotiate non-violently?
Unless....
Teaching people non violence is compulsory.
Because non violence as perceived by power structures excludes means that are considered non violent by many people.
It is a maze of laws and with a power structures eager of bringing discredit, a benign move can be turned into an offensive move.
Another level of difficulty is reached when the power structures can afford moves its opponents can not. When performed by the power structures, moves are non violent. When performed by opponents, they are violent.
It can deceive many as they might think since the power structure can do, they can do too.
Non violence is a code, an array of permissions which needs to be taught.
general, i like your use of "deemed". perhaps you don't imagine that you would ever be "deemed" something you don't want to be. part of the problem or part of the solution? you decide.
Unless ... TPTB don't really want them to negotiate non-violently. Violence is actually preferred.
kind of like the bully who pokes at you until you hit him... then he creems you because... you hit him.
no doubt the right/teaparty folks are being "poked" right now.
To the extent that The US is a fascist state it's the Reno 911 of fascist states. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49r-bhnW_IY
Would this administration like to make just about everything in your life either compulsory or forbidden and limit the bill of rights to sex and shopping... yeah probably. But Obama and his goons are such a bunch of ass-clowns they couldn't figure out how to get laid in a whorehouse with a fistfull of $100 bills. They won't pull off anything of the sort. Plus Obama hates the military - you can't just lawyer your way to a police state. Good luck with that Brave New World chief.
Reno 911 of fascist states - hilarious!
Yeah....! Obama is Jonesy.... How bout some Colt 45 and KFC....? Barney Frank is Lt. Dengle, VP Biteme is Garcia....
perhaps you aren't held without trial currently. or the target of drones managed by personnel recently reprimanded for poor conduct. or denied redress of grievance for being tortured in a foreign land via the u.s. government while completely innocent.
momentum and negligence alone will give this administration all the power it needs to do enormous harm (even given that they are ass-clowns). the bush administration saw to that. and you can lawyer your way further to a police state, as these bastards are strenuously trying to do (see cases cited above and those of whistle blowers, as examples of a larger trend).
this administration was supposed to correct some of the egregious evils of w. bush. instead it has given them bipartisan support. considering the deflationary depression, and their ass-clownishness, they may well be a one term pony. so what's next and from where does it build?
How the government treats foreigners is really outside the fascism-or-not debate. That there are still some areas where the Obama administration treats citizens and non-citizens differently should be considered a charming anachronism at this point given the kinds of broader transformations he's pushing for.
Why hasn't the Government freed Martin Armstrong then?
Ummm....because he's in the middle of serving a five year sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud?
Post-Madoff it's tough for Ponzi-schemers to catch a break.
Ummm....because he's in the middle of serving a five year sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud? Post-Madoff it's tough for Ponzi-schemers to catch a break. snip
For Mercury you're not too swift friend.
Anyone who posts the official government propaganda line may not have learned all the facts.
This was pre-Enron, Madoff, Stanford and WorldCon for starters.
Armstrong was held 7 years for contempt without habeas corpus trial, almost killed by a planted cellmate, and put in solitary until he pled out to trial without jury, even though he began to get the support of the NYT et al.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16jail.html?_r=3&oref=slogin
His appeal of 7 years in contempt was denied at the appellate level by none other than Sotomayor, currently SCOTUS with nary a blink from the Senate.
Judge Richard Owen was finally removed from the case and his successor sentenced him to five more years instead of time served. The maximum sentence on all his charges was less.
Republic Bank (HSBC) made good on all the missing money, which MA claimed was their mistake.
This was a guy who exposed the men behind the curtain, exposed GS and ought to be on Mt Rushmore for calling the results of government economic policy correctly for some of the wealthiest clients in the world.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31789911/Immoral-Not-Illegal-a-Crisis-in-Ethic...
MA claimed the CIA wanted his code to manipulate the global economy for black secret ops, and he said No way. They confiscated his computers but could not get them to work, so they confiscated the man.
http://princetoneconomics.blogspot.com/2007/04/latest-on-martin-armstron...
Domestic rendition for torture and judicial terrorism.
Very good reasons for defending, protecting and serving our Constitutuion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_A._Armstrong
Jeff:
to understand what's next we must begin with a simple premise: all elections are intel ops.
obama was/is a place holder, a wannabe sacrifical lamb, inserted into an imploding political paradigm. As the place holder, and here you can think Jimmy Carter, Obama's function is to serve as the lightning rod or conductor who assumes all political responsibilty for the malfeasant decision making which caused that political paradigm to implode.
once the fall-out from those debilitating choices, which were perhaps years in the making, actually come to pass and assume the role of hard, unpleasant reality, the place holder can then be branded and made responsible for any mishaps that occur whether they actually arose from said implosion or not.
in this way the invisible hand can calm the waters, so to speak, and regain absolute political control in the next election cycle by simply selecting a carefully crafted candidate free of all of the negative branding associated with the departing, terminally failed administration.
Bright.
Mafia ops also...
jeff,
IF we get another, it will be far better than what we have had/have...........trust me.( we will still have a Depression/Major pain,and suffering,but if we have a better government,Americans will pull together.)
For the first time in my life(long) we have 1600 Penn, occupied by fascists,commies,socialists,marxists.............I do not think there is ONE believer in the Republican form of governance...........
It has to be Better.
+10 I needed a good laugh!
I was saying that NYC was a police state in 2000. Damn near impossible to get a gun legally, traffic cameras that give tickets, cant enjoy an alcoholic beverage in the open, impossible to find parking. They tow your car if you park "illegally." They even have their own customs tariffs separate from the Federales. That was the anvil that broke the camel. Great for tourists. Sucks to live there.
It's not bad. The NYPD only hunts negroes and hispanics. They leave white people alone. It's like a very expensive South Africa.
If you own a car, here, though, and don't have a garage spot, then you're signing up to be pillaged.
I hear you, TC.
yes, he certainly sounds oppressed.
I am not bitter at all ;-)
Get a mountain bike. You take your life in your hands, but, I've only gotten one ticket in 20+ years of riding.
mt bike, a little overkill. do you have full suspension?
just kidding, your my bro.
i just got a track bike and ride it all day long. it is the first object i put between my legs that has slowed me down to a sustainable level, finally.
ticket on your bike! what for, riding naked?
TC,
We have several states that simply do not belong in the Republic.
They are, and have been Socialist/Marxist mecca's for decades.
We are so polarized at this point, it would be best to separate the US in districts of states.By Democratic elections, and agreements on the Founders beliefs.
We simply have too many ethnic groups(that want autonomy, and their OLD world cultures accepted, new laws for just them), and xenophobes, and political tards, that wish to oust their beliefs onto everone else........by force.
Red/Blue..................Hold a Con Con, and get it done.
The whole world is becoming a police state. Security for G20 has basically shut down downtown Toronto. I was at my dentist's this morning at Bloor and Bay and he told me he had tons of cancellations this week because downtown businesses are either giving people a few days off, forcing them to use up vacation time or work from home.
And then we hear that that the police asked for and were given power to arrest anyone within 5 metres of the security fence and or arrest anyone who doesn't provide identification.... The expanded police powers were just announced this week - not enough time for anyone to mount a judicial challenge as to the constitutionality of this action.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828896--first-secret-law-arrestee-plans-charter-challenge?bn=1
The stated costs of Canada hosting this event are estimated to be around 1 billion - which is a lot for Canada. Once lost productivity and legal bills are figured in, I would guess that figure would double.
And for what - a photo opp?
Humans like being slaves just like sheep like being herded.
Sheep would walk into a circle of fire if thats where they were to be herded.
I wish I could understand it.
-Side note:
Buy an ipad.
that's funny - the sidenote... i think.
Apparently, Stephen Harper has a very teeny, tiny, iddy-biddy
self image.
i've always thought so.
i've always thought so.
And you'd both be wrong.
Harper is a confident, intelligent person. Just look at him speak without a teleprompter, as opposed to Will Smith. If he's at all defensive, it's because he's constantly accused of having a "hidden agenda", all evidence to the contrary, and that even minor attempts to change things are met with outright vilification and calumny.
Let's examine your criticism over the G20 meetings. Yeah, Harper dreamed up the whole idea of the G8/G20 overnight, manipulated all those leaders coming to Canada at the last minute, and spent a billion dollars just because he has a small penis. If he only had five inches, the whole G8/G20 wouldn't even exist.
As for the cost of the G20 - I'm not defending it, but when he mused about eliminating a few tens of millions of government funding for Canadian "arts galas" - e.g. shrimp/wank fests for a group who are, on whole, as meaningless as a grain of sand is to an oil tanker when compared to the G20 - the hue and cry was ludicrous, with portrayals of him as Hitler because the government wouldn't pay for Peggy Atwood's wine spritzers.
Bottom line: Even though the majority of Canadians won't vote for him, they still think he's the most competent by far of Canada's political leaders. Iggy Pop isn't even in Dion (Stephane,not Celine) territory. Compare that to Will Smith; not only will people no longer vote for him, they don't even think he's competent. You wanna leader who makes you feel cuddly, or you want one who does his job well?
'tards.
lolol. thanks for the laugh.
Yeah the igster just came out against oil tanker traffic along the northern BC coastline in an attept to derail the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline. This line would provide an alternate market for the bitumen from Ft MacMurray which currently only has the US as a market and sells at a deep discount because "its dirty". But we cannot sell it to China or whomever.
So Iggy is siding with american big oil competeing pipeline interests the whole green freak community and every indian band that thinks there's a payoff to withholding their consent. Yet every other part of the canadian coast have tankers safely navigating those waters.
Iggy is against the economic development of the outer regions of canada.
Thanks for the critique.
Actually, I don't think Harper has any kind of hidden agenda. He's owned and operated by big business, same as Bush, Obama, Clinton, Chrétien et al. They're just crooks who screw us because it's their job. Some people build cars, some cut down trees and some just screw us for a living.
It's a friggin' job. And Harper doesn't impress me.
I dunno, it feels pretty big when his government is doing me up the chute.
+1
The police are not the problem. They are just doing their job within the system presented to them. It's the old families that have racketeering society for the last 300 and more years. They just use the politicians as middle managers and the police/army security infrastructure to enforce the herding of the citizens for the purpose of taxing our labour.
"When people lose everything, they lose it." - Gerald Celente.
Know your enemy, cut the head off the snake.
Everyone pick a bloodline when this sucker goes down and eliminate it...i don't think it's gonna be as smooth as the elites hope.
Neither were the Nazis or all the german people, then.
Our trial of them at Nuremberg was itself a War Crime. The police could refuse just as the enlisted eventually refused to charge in WW1 and the war ended as a result. They ended up shooting their officers.
But the police know that they get a cut of the action.
You make a good point at that level and it's a good example of how the power elite manage the formation of the new order after their contrived chaos.
I'm arguing for getting to the source of the power elite that runs all the way back to the Vatican etc.., not the apparatus they use as a cover for their agenda. If you're not gonna root out the cause once in a while then their arrogance is justified.
that's it, it's the pope. only he works through the jews and the protestants. very sneaky.
LOL, love the humour.
Not picking on the RCs at all but if you know your European history and the relationship the Vatican has with banking you'll get the bigger picture.
Trav is right. As long as the peasants get a cut of the action to meet their needs (and this could include a flat screen TV or new couch, for the mere price of arresting and imprisoning a fellow, innocent citizen, just because they are commanded to do so), especially in a country like the USA where the government and media brainwashing is an epidemic, it's going to be a long, hard road.
Knock! Knock! Knock!
The problem, the enemy, is gubmint. Gubmint way beyond the minimum needed. Big gubmint, creating all manner of dislocation, waste, eventual insolvency. Big gubmint led by exuberant student-council caliber boobs. Think Obama - incompetent narcissist with crazy mindset, unconcerned with truth, completely severed from reality in his perception of himself, his country, the world. Think Pelosi - cheery, plastic, horrificly out of touch with reality. Think Bawney - stumbling, confused doofus - and then purge the thought. Think Reid - bland vision seemingly on the brink of senility, yet hungry for another 6 years of power.
Related problem is the citizenry. They don't understand gubmint, and their rights. They are soft, timid, and quick to allow their rights to be taken away. They are waking up. It'll be interesting to see if they wake up in time.
one might say, perhaps more accurately, poor government. the government of administrations past did things that both needed to be done and that the market wouldn't provide: better, safer food, drugs, education, working conditions, infrastructure, air and water quality; civil rights for minorities; more equitable and transparent markets and justice system, etc. why does the improvement of people's lives through good government stop with the establishment of the constitution? thankfully you do answer that in your second paragraph. we, apparently, have gotten the government we deserve. how unutterably sad.
+++ on both comments.
kind of a change in the opt-in/opt-out model - of individual liberties.
200 years ago, an oblivious citizen still had liberty, even if they did nothing.
now it seems like you only get it if you fight and bitch, and are elite, or live in texas...
i want to opt-out of this current trend, and don't seem to have the correct form to fill out.
Tueday,
Yes, the fist positive thing I will ever have had to say about Big "O",and the last.
He has accomplished something that should have been done years ago............
He did awaken a sleeping giant.
Actually, it was the gross violations of our freedoms, the US Constitution, and the the law by the Bush cabal that really awakened ME, and many others that I know. I was always an anti-government libertarian, but never a radicalized, vocal, truly awakened libertarian until the post-Sept.11 outrages of Shrub and his cronies.
POlice are not the problem?
They taze an 85 year old grandma lying in her bed on oxygen and they are not the problem?
Compliance is MANDATORY in the police state!
I read that article - what a bunch of thugs.
Remember when the police killed that poor shlub in Vancouver?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident
At least here the mainstream press are addressing some of the issues. I was really surprised to see this in the Globe and Mail which leans towards the right:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/opinion/compromised-civil-liberties-the-other-cost-of-g20-security/article1618792/
The Globe leans toward the right?! Only compared to, say, the Red Star. Both the Post and the Sun are considerably more right wing than the Mope and Wail.
duh. ya think?
I did live in the Soviet Union. It was a totalitarian police-state.
The most hated law was called "Anti-Soviet propaganda". Nobody knew exactly what it meant but, regardless of what one said or even thought, he/she could be arrested and sent to a prison. It was a perfect tool for a totalitarian regime to squash any dissent and/or to remind its citizens about brutal consequences they might face stepping out off line.
The Constitutional right to a free speech does not exist in America any more. The Constitution became a useless relic of the past. We are not a free country any more. It is a very sad day for America. American people have lost their freedom without a single shot being fired. The overwhelming majority of Americans is not even aware it has happened.
You know the intelligence services used to pay latin gov'ts to ship us Germans for detention during the big War? Kleptocracy writ large. It didn't matter if they'd been living there for decades; in many cases, the local officials just wanted to seize their property and take the cash.
And in the US the people rallied round the flag and SUPPORTED IT. If you spoke out, what were you, one of THEM? Are you helping the terrrists, Germans, Japs?
The Republic we learnt about died in the 1860s. Since then, the State's power has grown, unabated. The State now is not in such great shape. They are a cornered dog, a weakened Humpty Dumpty except up on a tightrope. Consequently, they will lash out at any threat, even the truth. The Truth is the foremost enemy of the State now.
+1. Word.
"The Republic we learnt about died in the 1860s."
Yup. + a quadrillion Lincoln "greenbacks".
The people still have guns ... and alot of them...the elites have a long road to travel before they take America.
I would agree they appear to have the sheep all wrapped up and coddled but it's not the sheep that will turn on the elites, it will be the top 5% of the country that made the US so strong since the WWII. People (including the security forces) know something is badly wrong with what is happening. It will only manifest itself when no other option is available.
Yep, and when it does happen keep that Wikileaks Apache video in mind and remember, it will be your fault if you 'bring your kids into a war zone'.
Good point OT,
No taking photos or helping out injured reporters - check.
Remind me, who's winning in Iraq and Afganistan again? The fcking US Army aint that's for fcking sure and they about to get their arse handed to them in Pakistan too.
The US army never picks on people that can fight back and even when they do they turn themselves an international joke. Those pricks can't crack an egg. My money goes on the 5%, thanks.
Actually the U.S. Army could win any war it was involved in if it were allowed to win. We have not gone all out to win a war since WW2. I think you are criticizing the Army for a problem that lies with the politicians. If I were unfortunate enough to wake up one day and find myself President of the United States, one of the first things I would do is go on TV and explain that my goal is to avoid war of any kind at almost any cost, but that if I decided I had no choice but to go to war, I would unleash the full fury of the U.S. military with the mission to win the war as quickly as possible with no concern for any collateral damage. That's the only way to do it. I'd make that speech at West Point and yes, I would allow the men to wear their sabers into the auditorium.
In terms of firepower sure the US is untouchable but you can't win an occupational war even in your own country. It never works. The way it has been successfully done since the WWII is to incrementally own countries economies so that the tax payer does not even know it's being occupied (Greece for example).
What you can do is nationalise everything in the US (in the process of during this depression), bankrupt the country (done), sell of all it's nationalised assets to pay the debtors (coming soon) and future taxation of labour(done in 1930's, revamp coming sooon) to IMF banking oligarch syndicate (FED/IMF same people really) and then bail on the country and not give a fck who runs the shithole because it just becomes another 3rd world slave country under the global government.
Obama, Head of the UN Security Council "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."
the "wars" the US engages in are not for winning, they are for destabilising & demoralising populations, to gain access to resources in the "warzone," and the subsequent use of "resources" - human and manufactured - wherever they fucking like.
its the Raison d'être for the military industrial complex - to maintain ITS existence, irrespective of anyone, anything else.
until recently i chose to assume your assertions were *mostly* convenient side-effects of a greater cause.
now i'm not so sure we're doing anything but what you cite.
it's not a good trend when folks like me (the willfully blind) start to see things that way and seriously wonder.
are we too late? were we too late 50 years ago?
"you can't win an occupational war even in your own country. It never works."
?????????
sure it does ... just liquidate every last living thing... then you "win"
... it "works"
"just liquidate every last living thing... then you "win...it "works"
Adolf? Is that you?
States with a "liquidate every last thing" ethos tend to justifiably acquire bad global reputations, with a concurrent existential global response.
"The U.S. Army could win any war it was involved in if it were allowed to win"
Bull. The Soviets were in Afghanistan how long? I don't think anyone would accuse them of utilizing "humane" rules of engagement....
We've got no biz being in Iraq OR Afghanistan....
In answer to the original post, ditto the "Duh"...
But the evidence goes far beyond "Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project". I'm 50 now and I've never seen the country in such a pathetic state. We are at the Apex of Corporatism imo in which our National institutions seem to have been completely subsumed by the Corporate ethos. The only comfort any of us can take is that such systems are inherently unsustainable.
Richard E
I hope you are talking about old-fashioned "wars" where a country intends us harm and we defend ourselves. In this case the best thing for everone (including the enemy) is to end the aggression as quickly as possible, convincing their leaders and military that theirs was a bad idea. Sooner done the sooner violence ends.
But the US has not fought a war in that sense in a very long time. Instead we intervene, with only good intentions, to give people the benefits we have enjoyed by installing our form of government, our economic model, our ideas of justice and behavior. Unfortunately there is usually a group of "insurgents" who resist our efforts, and since this makes them not only our enemies but traitors to their own people, it is necessary to dispose of them and anyone who aids, comforts, or communicates with them. So obviously the only rational thing to do is to kill all of them, leaving only reasonable and compliant citizens who will live from then on in peace, harmony, and gratitude.
But then a strange thing happens! Our efforts to eradicate these troublemakers (with unfortunate collateral death and destruction) prompts others -- often fiercely motivated young men -- to turn agains us in even greater numbers. Of course we have no choice but to continue this process to its logical end. Except there is no end except genocide or strategic withdrawal, which national pride forbids.
cac,
While I agree w/ some of your post, there are around a 100 million Americans who have not lost their freedom,( their awake, never been asleep),know exactly what's going on, and never intend on giving it up, are prepared,and awaiting the bell.
And and woe unto those who try and force the boot on their necks.
Some here give FAR too little credit to a LOT of Americans.........
I had an interesting conversation with a customer of Citi Bank today.
This guy seemed pretty put together and on the younger side. He overdrafted by accident. The bank charged him $30 for it.
The part that I thought was funny was that this guy couldn't pay the fee because he had to pay rent, and the bank called him to tell him he was broke, and that he owed money just for being broke.
There are executives working at Citi who are living large; living in mansions, driving Mercedes, flying on private jets. These people only exist because of the taxpayer (the people who bailed them out, and the sole reason they still have jobs in the first place) who is now struggling to pay rent....the same guy they are charging $30 for being broke.
This system is fucked up. But people accept it.
The fact that this guy has an account at ShittiBank instead of a credit union tells me he doesn't really understand the world anyway, and will probably be eternally broke.
Most people don't understand the current world.
Most people in California don't understand much of anything.
They use their welfare at the casino.
This is where we are at.
Sucks but it's the contract he agreed to. Doesn't matter. What does he want? Sympathy? Sorry but this is a business there is no sympathy here. Who cares if your tax dollars bailed us out? Don't worry about how your tax dollars are spent. The people YOU voted in are much more qualified to decide how your money is spent. They know what is best for you. You voted for them. USA baby love it or leave it!
Love it or leave it?
That must be the most idiotic thing anybody said on this board thus far.
You just denied the freedom of speech to everybody by saying so.
If somebody doesn't agree, he or she should speak up and if there are enough of them, things will and must change.
That's the way totalitarian systems work, don't worry you will have your moment for revenge...
The fascist state (.5% of the people) reward the people (3% of the people) in order to openly rape the working/middle class (60% or so of the people).
They lose their working/middle class status and join other 30% already totally reliant upon the state subsidies.
The state then turns the this lower class, that are angry at their dislocation from their liberty and wealth, against the people that did the raping.
Public scapegoating ensues removing the 3% wealth bracket (usually they are killed off in order to prevent an uprising).
Leaving a 1% of superclass, a beaurocracy and a bottom 90% of labour...
Communism anyone?
I just spent 60 days in the jailhouse
For the crime of havin' no dough
Now here I am back out on the street
For the crime of havin' nowhere to go
----- The Band (You don't know) The Shape I'm In
All that's old is new again. See Dennis v. US and Korematsu v US.
The latter was an Exec Order. This by the liberal hero FDR.
Inter arma enim silent legis
Annuit Coeptis /Novus Ordo Seclorum.
Everybody shut up. Fall in line. If you aren't a terrorist then you've got nothing to worry about right? If you aren't doing anything illegal then you shouldn't worry about the gov't. Just do what your told, and fit in with society. That is what is best for you. Be a law abiding citizen. The laws are to protect you. The more laws we make the closer we get to a completely perfect society.
Completely perfect for the few people that make them.
C'mon, over. So to speak, lol. In a "police state" there would be no blogs like this. We would feel unsafe in our homes. This is no police state, unless you are into some serious wrongdoing. The cops are busy enough chasing real criminals. They don't have time to chase bloggers.
Real criminals? You must mean the non violent drug offenders that clog up half of our prisons (and courts subverting due process) that are quickly being privatized for corporate profit?
Safe in your home? Best pay your property taxes, or you're out. Give me your real name and address. I will drop a quick anonymous tip to the local police office so they can have their SWAT breach team pay a visit, or just call 911 to your house. If everyone feels so safe in their homes why do so many have guns in them, hmm?
Blogs like this? I guess you haven't heard about the internet kill switch? Oh, and to keep on point of the article your posts had best not support anyone sanctioned by the government as a terrorist organization.
I would really love to agree with you, but reality just doesn't sink up with your post.
re: internet kill switch... so much for paperless billing
how long ago was it that the government had to try someone before that someone was imprisoned? nine years ago. how long ago was it that the government had to get a warrant to tap a phone? nine years ago. some of the cattle feel safe in their pens outside the abattoir.
Ask 10 people how they define "rich." The variety of answers you get will inform you as to how relative the term is.
"Serious wrongdoing." You sir, are a terrorist. Your participation on this blog is the evidence. This is an anti-government terrorist blog. The mere fact that the definition of "terrorist" has not yet been formally codified to include you is immaterial. You are a terrorist.
If you are not, and you are not into some serious "wrongdoing," post all of your full info and submit to an ankle bracelet tracker.
If not, you admit you are a terrorist.
This is an anti-government terrorist blog.
No, it's a blog for people who are concerned about the direction we are going and want to discuss it with like-minded people.
I'm a fan of government that abides by the constitution and enemy of those that break the oath.
Can't be fairer than that.
Not quite there, but we seem to be on the way...
Tell that to the guys at Ruby Ridge, or Waco for that matter.
i don't sense an argument here, rather it just depends how we perceive these various "leading indicators"
Yes, I think Ruby Ridge and Waco could be described as "leading indicators". Things that happened early and on the fringe. Many of us would view Koresh as a nut . . . however, I am not sure what crime he commited. At Ruby Ridge, they were accused of being white supremist, seperatist, and radical. Those are ill defined terms, perhaps summed up by being politically incorrect. What other activities could become viewed as being on the fringe next . . . owning gold? Home schooling? owning guns? questioning the administration? questioning the fed?
koresh was minding his own business... see where that got him.
Perhaps we should re-visit Timothy McVeigh's legacy....
I gotta be honest with you he didn't sound so insane to me. Symbolically, he has all the makings of a great American Patriot.... I'm just making an observation here, so don't nobody get their asses out of whack....
Econolicious
the whole thing was foreshadowed in this book ive heard. the brother of the governor wrote a book with a terrorist named tom mcveigh or something. so i guess another staged event. id say the last 30-40 years is all different then weve been told
reading gore vidal's "perpetual war for perpetual peace: how we got to be so hated" led me to a similar conclusion, contrabandista13. . .
Waco was allegedly about unregistered full-auto weapons. Registration involves jumping through a lot of legal hoops, and paying a tax. So, Waco was a tax raid.
Ruby RIdge was an attempt to convert Randy Weaver into an informant by using his known cash-strapped condition to entrap him into commiting a felony.
I agree with some of the above posters that we hgave gotten here incrementally. It was far too easy for "authorities" to hand-wave and use the media lie their way out of Ruby Ridge and Waco, and those "successes" by them set the stage for later abuses, incrementally larger and larger. They say that serial killers test and try to see how far they can go and get away with it, and they get bolder and bolder. The fascists in our government are no different. They will go as far as we let them, until we make them stop.
My recollection of Waco was that Reno was worried about "the children".
The original raid was about unregistered full autos.
Which is why Reno ordered full autos on the child, Elian Gonzalez. See, it all makes sense in a Circle of Life kinda way. Hakuna Matata!
+++ just picturing the warthog... lol
And how many unregistered full autos were found after the raid?
You mean after the incineration of the people and the evidence, then the fencing off of the entire are, then the bulldozing? Is this a trick question?
The other thing they did was a mass criminal background check on the first name/last name of the adults inside. They found name matches with people with outstanding warrants. They did not check social security numbers, or DL#'s. So, they know a Joe Smith is inside, they do a criminal background check on Joe Smith, and find an outstanding narcotics warrant. Problem is that most of the alleged outstanding warrants were not for the people inside, who just happened to have the same name as someone in trouble.
+ (Lots)
Rebel
Those are a little late to the game. I haven't added anything about Labor protests and the use of force.
The US has a shitty History that tends to be glossed over.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/MOVE
MOVE or the MOVE Organization (though the name is not an acronym, it is spelled by followers in capital letters) is a Philadelphia-based black liberation group founded by charismatic leader John Africa. MOVE was described by CNN as "a loose-knit, mostly black group whose members all adopted the surname Africa, advocated a "back-to-nature" lifestyle and preached against technology."[1] The Philadelphia Police Department raided their home in 1978 and later in 1985. During the latter event, the Philadelphia Police shot teargas at the MOVE headquarters and then dropped a four-pound, military-grade C-4 plastic explosive bomb on the house. The bombing resulted in 11 deaths (including 5 children) and the destruction of 65 homes in the resulting fires.[2] An investigative commission formed by the Philadelphia Mayor issued its report on March 6, 1986 denouncing the actions of the city government, stating that "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable."[3] No one from the city government was charged criminally. In a 1996, civil suit in US federal court, a jury ordered the City of Philadelphia to pay $1.5 million to a survivor and relatives of two people killed in the incident. The jury found that the city used excessive force and violated the members' constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.[4] On the 25th Anniversary of the 1985 Police bombing, the Philadelphia Inquirer created a detailed multimedia site containing retrospective articles, archived articles, videos, interviews, photos, and a timeline of the events.[5]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army
The next day, an anonymous phone call to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) stated that several heavily armed people were staying at the caller's daughter's house. That afternoon, more than 400 LAPD officers, under the command of Captain Mervin King, along with the FBI, California Highway Patrol, and Los Angeles Fire Department surrounded the neighborhood. The haunch leader of a SWAT team used a bullhorn to announce, "Occupants of 1466 East 54th Street, this is the Los Angeles Police Department speaking. Come out with your hands up!" A young child walked out, along with an older man. The man stated that no one else was in the house, but the child intervened stating that several people were in the house with guns and ammo belts. After several more attempts to get anyone else to leave the house, a member of the SWAT team fired tear gas projectiles into the house. This was answered by heavy bursts of automatic gunfire, and a battle began.
Two hours later, the house caught fire. Two women left from the rear of the house and one came out the front (she had come in drunk the previous night, passed out, and woken up in the middle of the siege); all were taken into custody, but were found not to be SLA members. Automatic weapons fire continued from the house. At this point, Nancy Ling Perry and Camilla Hall came out of the house. Investigators working for their parents would claim that they walked out intending to surrender and that they were unarmed but police later stated that Hall was shot in the head by police as she charged towards them and Perry was providing covering fire.[18] After Hall's body fell to the ground, it was pulled back inside the burning house by Angela Atwood. Perry followed Hall out of the house and was shot twice in the back. Her body remained outside the house.[19]
The rest died inside, from smoke inhalation, burns and gunshot wounds. According to the coroner's report, it was concluded that Donald DeFreeze committed suicide. After the shooting stopped and the fire was extinguished, 19 firearms—including rifles, pistols, and shotguns—were recovered. Several thousands of rounds had been fired out of the house by the SLA and police in response had fired several thousands rounds into the house. This remains one of the largest police shootouts in history with a reported total of over 9,000 rounds being fired. Every round fired by SLA members at the police missed the officers.
Jun 25 1876
During the Battle of Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer witnesses a large group of Indians fleeing their village, and decides to press his advantage. The cavalry officer shouts, "We've caught them napping, boys!" Then he splits his force of 210 men into three groups, in order to slaughter as many of the retreating noncombatants as possible. Which is right about the time Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse sweep in and kill the white men. Two days later, Custer's body is found amidst a cluster of 42 other corpses, the general entirely naked except for one boot, one sock, and an arrow stuck in his penis.
In all these types of cases, I love the vague and sinister descriptions of the victims. Radical Militants, Separatists and so forth. They pull a guy over and describe finding an "Arsenal". How many guns must a sportsman own before he is militant and has an arsenal? To be designated as such requires no evidence or quantitative analysis . . . just a descriptor placed on someone to justify extreme measures.
How long will it be until threads like this are 'sedition'?