The New McCarthyism

Robert Harley
Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:01:36 +0100 (CET)

Rudy Rouhana wrote:
>[...] And to prevent having the rights of AMERICAN's taken away I'm

How about rights of PEOPLE in the US?  Or elsewhere for that matter?

>more than happy to see anyone without citizenship, who is here as a
>PRIVLIGE have to go through 

If you're gonna SHOUT about it, try "PRIVILEGE".

>some scrutinity, and even detention.

So next TIME you have the HUMONGOUSLY IMMENSE PRIVILEGE to be in, say
FRANCE like in those NICE PHOTOS on your WEB SITE, you won't MIND if
you get thrown in the CLINK - I mean, the guy's got SUSPICIOUS
connections to LEBANON and all, besides he's NOT EVEN French, so MIGHT
AS WELL leave him to COOL OFF in there for a day or thirty.

Hey man, CRACKING down on people BORN in nineteen SIXTY-EIGHT could
have HELPED PREVENT the OKLAHOMA CITY bombing, so what are you WAITING
FOR?  No need to TAKE AWAY rights of more WORTHY people.

>This is such BS.  How many American citizens has he detained?  Heck,
>how many people that have been detained were even at Green Card status?

Dude, I bet you don't even have a Carte de Séjour.  You must be a

Now I have to go administer FIRST-AID to my pet LEISURE SUIT!  I'd
like TRAINED SEALS and a CONVERTIBLE on my doorstep by NOON!  YOW!

>And while we can accept that McCarthyism was not necessarily a good thing

"Not necessarily a good thing", eh?  I guess you could say that.

>no communists during the 50's killed 3K+ Americans in one fell swoop.

The risks of nuclear war were far greater than 3K+ PEOPLE being
killed.  Is the fact that they^H^H^H^Hmost of them were American
somehow critical?  I guess so.  Earlier this year a Richter 6.9
earthquake killed 20K+ people in Gujarat, India.  Who even remembers?

NB: When is a swoop fell and when is it not fell?

>When you're an immigrant trying to become a citizen you know (or should)
>that you're not on the same level as those with citizenship [...]

Can I be on your 3L33T level, please?  Pretty please?

>Why is it so hard to conceptualize that this category of people
>who are VISITORS to our country would have go through some hassle?

>I'm more than willing to have new laws and restrictions placed on that
>category as opposed actual American citizens. [...]

More of the same.

Carey wrote:
>We don't suspend the Constitution when someone does really henious
>shit.  Nor do I think we should now.  This is not the same as saying
>'Let them go' .  It's more like giving credence to the bits our
>forefathers put down on paper.  If we can't use those rights and
>powers in the shittiest of times, why bother fucking having them?

Precisely.  It would be pretty lame if people defended their rights
tooth and nail when everything was peachy and didn't bother when the
going got tough.

Hey, why not solve the obesity problem in the US by all going on a
diet.  Except when you're feeling nibblish of course.  One of those
special only-when-you're-not-feeling-hungry-in-the-first-place diets.
That'll work.

L8r dudes,
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.     .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
 /       \       /     \     /   \   / \   /   \     /     \       /       \
/         \     /       \   /     `-'   `-'     \   /       \     /         \
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                    `-'