| Author | Message | ||
     Fahren |
This is a really bad thing, and, for me, another indicator of why the red and the blue are essentially the same, and equally broken. Time for a re-set. http://www.infowars.com/senate-moves-to-allow-mili tary-to-intern-americans-without-trial/ | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
All but one repub candidate is for continuing and even enhancing the patriot act just as our current banker/corp lobbyist prez is. There is no doubt to me most of them also support patting the genitals of grandma and our kids or running them through scanners that may be harmful to us long term but worked out to be a sweet deal for michael chertoff. Ah buts its prolly just coincodence he had past dealings with the scanner producers just like pelosi just happened to get some sweet ipo stock deals from credit companies while working on credit legislation. If republicans want to back progressive conservatives than I think I may just speed things along and vote for our current crop of clevor campaign slogans and empty suit leadership. Iam just about out of patience and optimism. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The only Republican that thinks McCain is a Republican is McCain. | ||
| Sifo |
I think I would wait to see how they vote before painting them all with the same brush. One are that I do find rather disconcerting is that this bill has 150 amendments added to it so far. I bet that's not unusual either. | ||
| Moxnix |
http://www.truth-out.org/why-iceland-should-be-new s-not/1322327303#.TtKS6zlokz8.facebook Left wing site link, but this is how to take back one's government. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Even if it does pass, it'd be struck down by the SCOTUS. | ||
| Hootowl |
Struck down by the first judge who is asked to rule on it. An appeal is unlikely, as it is unconstitutional on its face. Won't even make it to SCOTUS. 'Course, Obamacare is unconstitutional on its face too, so maybe DOJ will decide to appeal. Depends on who is president at the time I suppose. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Although, it would be just the law needed for an insecure president hell bent on retaining power to use in conjunction with quelling a fomented and artificial uprising. Good thing there wont be a bunch of battle hardened soldiers returning from combat without orders for their next deployment. Oh crap!  Do gotta wonder why this originated now from a democratic held Senate. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Here's a link to Sections 1031 & 1032 as reported in Fahren's link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./tem p/~c112d7mPuG:e462417: It seems only to cover Al Qaeda & Taliban uglies, but perhaps I'm reading it too literally? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Considering Al Qaeda and Taliban are groups comprised of volunteers not recognized by any nation, what is to say that any of us can be accused of being a member without the capacity to challenge the charge? | ||
| Blake |
Odd that the topical article fails to provide any quoted material supporting its rather alarming accusations. I suspect it's overblown alarmism, but I could be wrong. As some have noted, we do have the 4th amendment. | ||
| Blake |
Can anyone point to the exact portion of the bill that is problematic as asserted by the article noted by Fahren? Here's the bill... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: | ||
| Sifo |
As some have noted, we do have the 4th amendment. Tell that to Anwar Al-Awlaki. He was targeted under legislation with virtually identical restrictions. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Does the 4th amendment gaurd us from having internet access shut down in the US? I like alot of what Gingrich and other candidates have to say but by and large they are willing to trade liberty for security while lining the pockets of their partners. Increased security spending IS NOT a solution to our economic woes. | ||
| Blake |
The article states the following: "The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill."
| ||
| Buellkowski |
Blake, see my link. I read it that if you're Al-Qaeda or Taliban affiliated and you're caught in the U.S., you go to the brig (as a "combatant") instead of the pokey (as a "defendant"). How do we currently handle foreign spies? Military or criminal justice? | ||
| Blake |
Sifo Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 12:42 pm: As some have noted, we do have the 4th amendment. Tell that to Anwar Al-Awlaki. He was targeted under legislation with virtually identical restrictions. We've discussed that elsewhere. Citizenship is no shield for those actively waging war against the nation. It's been shown convincingly and also from his own words that Awlaki was indeed doing so. The constitution is not a suicide pact. | ||
| Sifo |
We've discussed that elsewhere. Citizenship is no shield for those actively waging war against the nation. It's been shown convincingly and also from his own words that Awlaki was indeed doing so. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Blake, If you can find that thread and read the last post I made, you will find that to not be true. I don't believe anyone ever answered that last post. | ||
| Blake |
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. | ||
| Sifo |
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. Does that leave open the option of open ended detention in civilian custody? I really don't know... Asking a question. | ||
| Blake |
I disagree Sifo. Your standard for convincing evidence would render our war fighting completely impotent. At some point we must trust those we elect and those in our military. The constitution does not require all concerned citizens to be on board with military strikes, nor does it mandate that we all be provided classified intelligence information towards such an end. It does mandate clear chain of command and congressional oversight. My congressman is okay with the strike and he's a reliable strict constitutional constructionist. Additionally, there is no plausible motive for the targeting of alawki other than his enemy combatant status. And again, if we are to be concerned with over-reaching of federal use of deadly force against US citizens, then we should be unendingly outraged and seeking justice for the victims of Ruby Ridge and Waco. If you are going to offer an example of federal criminal use of force, THOSE are the cases you ought to site. It seems your distaste for Obama is distorting your reasoning. I can sympathize! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
in time of war - spies get a bullet in the head - same as pirates - and it is all legal under the Geneva Convention; terrorists get a double tap to the chest too. The detainee camps, internment camps..... I can tell you the units that will be running them - saw this one coming years ago - don't be naive enough to think that it will be used against 'border transgressors' or radical jihadi terrorist f*cks - this is directed and aimed at 'hostile groups'.... not OWS.... yep - TEA PARTY and Returning Vets ; just wait. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Does that leave open the option of open ended detention in civilian custody? I really don't know... Asking a question. What does the constitution say? Also, does the bill govern civilian jurisprudence? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/se nate-defies-obama-veto-threat-terrorist-custody-/ Not sure if this is the same thing. Blake. I agree about the suicide pact. I'm right in there with you on terrorists having NO rights, as their actions put them beyond the pale. Treat them like pirates, or at least far worse than child rapists, another bad apple in the pie of life that has a scary high Recidivism rate, so execution is the only way to prevent repeat crimes. But... At some point we must trust those we elect and those in our military. seems to be FAR too trustful of people who have PROVEN they cannot, in fact, be trusted. I agree we should still be mindful of the lesson of Waco Tx. Where APPOINTED officials lied, and got the military to violate the law and slaughter 70+ people. Most American Citizens. ( Some 24 were Brits ) Anyway, by complaining about this in a public forum, you guys are all now on the list of terrorists. Have fun.  | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-s ays-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html Actually, lying has to do with your proven intent to deceive, you dishonest ^&*(. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/b eltway-confidential/fireworks-issa-compares-holder -nixons-ag/245561 Actually I think John Dean would be a closer match. Not in the job held, but in the resemblance to a weasel. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/b eltway-confidential/holder-nobody-doj-has-lied/244 706 Not "lied" just deliberately mislead, told untrue stories, attempted to deceive, and are complicit in multiple murders and felonies in 2 nations. But not "lied". Oh no, not that. Mother*&^*(...... Pity the original plot of this thread has been left to die. The idea of being held without bail, trial, forever, in secret, is a little disturbing. Don't, please, don't give me the old cliche..."If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Since this admin has made it very clear that those who take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously are suspected terrorists, that includes all vets, LEO's etc. Toss in the claim this Admin makes that they are allowed to lie to you about the existence of documents requested under the FOI act, and are OBVIOUSLY willing to extend that "legal right" to lie to any thing. Any time. By any means necessary. ( for those not paying attention. An anti constitutional group made a lie about guns being smuggled into Mexico. The President of the US repeated that lie, then the Justice Dept of the US through it's BATF arm facilitated the illegal sale and smuggling of millions in guns into Mexico to known Drug cartels. The reason, to make more restrictive gun control laws. ( FACT based on DOJ e-mails )and make the lies of the President true. (Speculation, based on Holder and Obama's character and past actions ) In multiple cases the dealers of the firearms asked for double checks on the sales, because they smelled bad and were ordered to make the sales by Holders minions. BATF agents tried to stop this but were threatened by their "superiors" and told to let the smuggling take place. An impeachable offense. ) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"Pity the original plot of this thread has been left to die. The idea of being held without bail, trial, forever, in secret, is a little disturbing." Maybe it means I get my job back in Uzbekistan | ||
| Davegess |
Interesting that it died after it became clear that the Obama administration was completely against it and the Republicans were backing it.  | ||
| Hootowl |
I think it died after it became clear that it did not affect US citizens and was narrowly targeted at foreigners operating within the US. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I agree we should still be mindful of the lesson of Waco Tx. Where APPOINTED officials lied, and got the military to violate the law and slaughter 70+ people. Most American Citizens. ( Some 24 were Brits ) " That was the ATF, not the military. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Dave its kind of funny how you guys seemed to shut up about patriot act as well as TSA beginning in 2009. Never hear about gitmo either. |
