The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of
the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to
arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this
president—and every future president — the power to order the military
to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the
world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by
the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even
within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU
Washington Legislative Office.
Yes the link is from snopes and this Legislation would completely make the Constitution worthless. This will be the DEATH of America and the creation of AMERIKA Comrades!!
Well, it's not "from Snopes". It's from a message board on Snopes, which is populated by the same people you'd find anywhere. Nothing there is necessarily fact checked.
However, the bill does seem to present a threat. The question is, how do your Congress-critters feel about it?
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur … fine-being asks you to contact your Senator, but many of them have already stated their objections.
If yours has not, then yes, give them an earful.
Sheesh, look at that - RB and PC on the same side. Second time in history, folks, get your tickets now!
Wow, the defecation of liberty has gotten so bad that even Pcunix is against it.
I think this is something that just about every citizen would be against!
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.”
This is exactly what they are trying to achieve. A hostile populace to bring in to line.
Just because atrocities have never occured in the US before does not mean they will never happen. I forget the phsych term for this?
Lincoln. the Dictator did by executive order arrest and detain people without trials, lawyers or any resemblance of Habeus Corpus.
John Adams prior to that did pass the alien and sedition acts.
In our lifetime nothing like this has happened to citizens of the U.S.A. At least not to my knowledge.
If you have info John share it please. I am quite interested in this.
The one that sprang to mind, and possibly not in the way you were thinking, was Kent State University back in the day, when several protesters were summarily executed by state guards.
During WWII American citizens were detain because their ancestors were born in Japan! How soon we forget!
There were even sound reasons to be concerned about Japanese intelligence operations. The Black Dragons and Black Tide were active all around the Pacific Rim but German Americans were not shipped to camps despite an actual incursion by Germans and German-Americans actually joining the Wehrmacht. Did the Great FDR have harbor racial prejudices against the Japanese? After all he was a "One Percenter" of the highest order with a racist, Nazi sympathizer ally in Joseph Kennedy - another "One Percenter."
Unfortunately, there was widespread anti-Asian prejudice in North America (and beyond) since the building of the trans-continental railways at least. There was supposed to be a "Yellow Peril."
FDR arguably deserves some blame, but he was probably more representative of social attitudes than the reverse in this.
Speak for yourself - I didn't forget squat.
I have been warning everyone of these problems since I started HubPages.
So have I, unfortunately we were correct!
So are you saying you are against taking terrorists into custody?
No. But I'm against taking SUSPECTED terrorists into custody, locking them up and throwing the key away without a trial to determine what if anything they are guilty of.
RD--We suspected Japan was going to attack us and because we did not want to do anything about SUSPECTED, well we know what happened 70 years ago.Truthers claim we knew 911 was going to happen and we did nithing, the same truthers that complain we should not act against SUSPECTED terrorists.
RB-- If I have to define terrorist to you then you do not qualify to be a part of this conversation
Wow a little harsh ey?
What gives you authority to determine which conversation I qualify to participate in?
Define terrorist anyone? Is trying to hack in to foreign countries computers terrorism? Is the entire United States Federal Government engaging in terrorist activities every day?
Did not mean to come across as harsh, sorry if I did. But you were the one who asked for a definition on a topic you started and made comments on. I ask you this, have you read the 926 page Senate bill S. 1867? IF you are wondering how I know the bill is 926 pages is because I read it. I know you got you information from a blog aqnd made you opinion, but let me tell you this, nowhere in the bill does it say " No trial, no lawyer, no jury." The articles you have read are just scare tactics which one comes to expect these days from opposing views. Not to mention S. 1867 being passed is not going to the Presidents desk, It is going to the House because the two bills are different. So there is more debate on this to come before the Prez sees it, but to me it is a conversation that is long overdue. I am currently writing an article about the bill. Be looking for it and will look forward to your input.
Do you think this bill will detain anyone from the terrorist organization known as the Government of the United States.
I believe the largest terrorist organisation in the world resides within the ten mile radius known as Washington D.C.?
Murdering civilians, bombing sovereign countries without a declaration of war. Killing ally forces within their own nation. Hacking sovereign nations computer systems, attempting assassinations on Iranian nuclear scientists..... The list goes on and on!
Murdering American citizens simply because the President has determined that the evidence was so overwhelming no trial was necessarily. Where is the evidence, what evidence? Combined with the murder of a minor with no evidence of wrong doing. All this, again being done within a Nation in which no declaration of war exists.
You are supporting a tyrannical Law that will end the Nation as we know it.
RB, There is no possible response fro that rant. Who is a war with themseleves, murdering there own with Washington?
You are pissed at the US if we engage in Cyber war, but you think its OK for other counrties to do it to you. Assasinations? Really? Are you OK with all the attempts on our leaders you never hear about? How about the attempts on you RB? Or are you one of the blind ones who thinks no one will blow up the mall, theater, or any other public event you go to. Do not think it could not happen to you. Ask those thousands who went to work on 911, ask me for I was there. Is that the kind of murder without any evidence of wrong doing you are talking about?
What I support are laws PERIOD.
No I do not condone terrorism in any form but if it is terrorism to attack our country why would it not be the same definition to those countries in which we attack. Do you think the citizens of Yemen,Pakistan see us as saviors? I think not, I think they feel we are engaging in the same kind of terrorist activities that we claim to be fighting.
If I am going to be harmed, the greatest threat to my life wears blue uniforms and carries badges. I am not willing to live in a Police State simply because our government is instilling fear in the population.
I am not afraid of bogeymen, I am more in fear of Government agents engaging in fear producing activities. Check out my latest hub?
Al Awaki and his son was involved in 9/11? Where is the evidence that allowed our President to unconstitutionally murder American citizens with no Due Process?
(nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Sound familiar as it is the Law Of the United States?
I guess I missed the part of where we just attacked today because the sky is blue, or did we go after the people who are trying to kill us? HMM they rtied to kill us, sounds like justification to me. When will you all stop with the phony garbage. What the hell do you think the President does, throw a dart at the wall and say who are we bombing today? And after all this time, if you do not believe the terrorists and where they came from were behind 911, then you do not get it.
If you think cops are your greatest threat in life, you have lived a very sheltered life and based on your bio I would say thats true.
I did go read you hub and made a small comment
I do not live a sheltered life, I live a free life. I cannot condone actions done in response to similar actions. Saudi citizens attacked us on 9/11 and in return we bombed Iraq and Afghanistan. That does not seem strange to you?
Do you think our recent activities have made the rest of the world respect us? I think not, I think that most of the world looks at us as terrorists ourselves.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Cops are the greatest threat to my safety, I live in a rough neighborhood very high crime rates. Yet I have no fear of walking on the streets of my city. The last few times I was assaulted was by badge wearing thugs. Everyone else in my city knows I am no easy mark and I demand either respect or fear. Just a couple of nights ago I was almost struck by an unmarked police car while crossing the street in a crosswalk. The officer was too busy playing with his toys to notice me. I banged on his window and he drove off. Not even an apology.
Thank you for reading my hub, at least you are civil even if we disagree.
What good does not being civil cure? Congress is a great example of that. I write and do my show because I really do want to make a change. Oh I have my attacks and sarcasm but I also write about solutions. I push my ideas to Congress and others hope for a difference. Me listening and debating my views with civil people like you helps me to understand all views and come to the conclusive ideas for my solutions.
As for where you live, I was born in the Bronx NY.I know the projects real well. I was a firefighter in NY for 15 years, assigned to the busiest house. It was not busy because I was on park ave. LOL. I have seen time when NYPD questionably cross the line, but I have to be honest, in some of them I understand why. Some call it profiling, I call it a cliche' There is a reason a cliche' became a cliche'
I live in Texas now and it is funny how things are different yet they are the same.
Look forward to more of your articles and more forum chats. Read some of my articles, would like your perspective
Please define terrorist?
This law terrorises me, so by definition are the federal government terrorists?
Would sending drones in to a sovereign nation to drop bombs be considered terrorism?
They aren't terrorists, they are suspects.
Then they are alleged criminals.
Then they are guilty.
Obama fully supports this bill.
You will be the terrorist soon.
Lincoln is the guy who successfully freed Americans from the filth of Europe's banking cartel.
The Japanese internment camps on the west coast WWII. The reservation policies dealing with the indigenous people. Two examples of why this is not a far fetched idea, and two examples why our government isn't to be trusted. I speak freely because I am already marked.
and this is what the OWS thing is about at its core, the citizens are no longer the government and this would be decided by people who do not represent the wishes of the people any more.
I would wager that we both want the same things out of life, we only disagree on how to get there. The destination is the same
Well it is about time to bring back that time honored practice. After all, if we were Japanese and that hero of democracy, FDR, was President we could count on Democrats to protect our rights. Look at the names in the ACLU posting regarding this bill. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the two "Republicans" - despised enough by conservatives, that they sat on their votes in 2008.
No one should be surprised by any Democrat name on that list - after all FDR was one of theirs and didn't Obama just execute al-Awalaki via remote control?
Conspiracy theories are silly and advanced by nut jobs unless you distill them and connect the dots.This[though it's not a C theory]information is another dot to be connected.
I've said it before[and was laughed out of the forums]and I'll say it now,
Within eighteen months there will be martial law in America.
Consider the old analogy about how you cook a frog.
Slowly,step by step.
"Inch by inch me catchy monkey".
Was it eighteen months ago that you predicted that or longer back?
How is this for you conspiracy dudes. Perhaps what you are seeing is not a step by step movement to martial law, but a step by step movement of a man who wants to suspend elections indefinatly and remain President. Enjoy
For this to occur there would be need of a false flag scenario to appear. Another 9/11 type strategy to get the population in fear so that the already agreed upon response can be unveiled.
Problem + Reaction = Solution.
It has been used throughout history to push forward particular agendas.
Dude, America died when J.F.K. was shot in the head for circumventing the eurofilth Rothschild controlled federal reserve.
Everything since then has been a funeral procession.
Another law stating blatantly how much America is a democracy! Do you still believe that America is a land of freedom? Harsh reality!
I think it's pretty frightening that this will even be debated in the first place.
Monday (today) for the beginning of debate.
The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself. Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.
http://www.truth-out.org/arrest-mccain- … 1322601515
I think our military should arrest Congress immediately for high treason! For insider trading and simply being completely corrupt.
Then they should arrest the President for taking these actions before the Law was even passed. Murder and High Treason.
I want to see Politicians pay for the crimes they have committed against humanity
Snopes has not determined this to be true or untrue-- "still researching"
http://www.truth-out.org/arrest-mccain- … 1322601515
I wish I was a complete shill on this one but unfortunately it is true and if it passes America is DEAD!!
From the article:
The creation of a permanent state of war in the "war on terror" is precisely what the Founders warned of the most strenuously. McCain and Levin have treacherously undertaken to overturn the Bill of Rights of the Constitution permanently through this device. Since the Constitution, in the Oath of Office, essentially creates a class of criminal, a "domestic enemy" of the "United States Constitution," it is incumbent upon loyal senators to declare treason within their midst, and to direct the Sergeant at Arms to effect the arrest of John McCain and Carl Levin as such domestic enemies.
Personally, I am quite serious about arrests of any Congressman/woman or anyone else that has taken an Oath to protect the Constitution. If they support such legislation as this then they are traitors and execution would be too good for them.
Guantanamo Bay is designed for slugs like this!
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Section 1032 (b) states that the law is not applicable to U.S. citizens or to resident aliens:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c … 7:e464889:
The issue is with section 1031 and not with 1032.
From the ACLU web site:
“Instead, read what one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor <http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428>: "1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland." (1)
(1) http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur … fine-being
To me, it looks like 1031 defines Law of War, and 1032 says who cannot be covered under Law of War. ??
I think the problem is that the bill seems to say that if we are at war in Afghanistan, the "battlefield" includes your street and mine.
Of course, knowing whether or not we are officially "at war" in some place where we are killing and being killed is a source of confusion by itself.
What? Are you suggesting that Congress would write a law that's confusing??
Of course not. It's plainly our fault. That's why they wrote this bill in secret - so as not to confuse us prematurely. That way, they might have been able to just pass it without any of us noticing. Too bad that pesky ACLU noticed.
I just grabbed the bill and read it (off the Thomas website). I agree with your interpretation. It explicitly states that it is not applicable to US citizens.
That said, every time I’ve tried reading a Congressional Bill, I’m left with the feeling that I’ve tried to follow a noodle through a spaghetti bowl while it is still being stirred. It leaves me with the impression that their job security is based on obfuscating a logic tree that associates their laws with who they are applicable too.
Corporations = banks = government = mainstream media. All the same entity!
The scariest part is that no news at all is reporting on this.
Except one, Freedom Watch on FBN with Judge Andrew Napolitano and that is where I saw the story last night.
8pm every weekday on the Fox Business Network. Watch him if you can, you will find him a complete libertarian and bipartisan. He is a strict Constitutionalist.
http://www.judgenap.com/ His website. Check him out, I think you will be impressed.
A Libertarian can't "impress" me. Frighten me? Absolutely. Impress me, never.
Watch him and see. The man was a sitting Judge.
The politics of Libertarians disgust me. I'm not going to watch someone you think epitomizes that ridiculous philosophy.
Well, then just go with your opinion of the man with no prior reason. I could never live my life judging others without seeing it for myself.
Idc if you watch him but he was the one that broke this story and the Congressional insider trading.
No prior reason?
I KNOW what Libertarians want and I KNOW how much damage that would do to this country. I don't need to listen to someone spouting off about how wonderful it would be if the Federal government were feeble and the good old boys could do whatever the heck they want without pesky "interference"!
I can read enough f that nonsense right here, thank you anyway.
Reality, don't waste your time with Pcunix.
He actually thinks that making it illegal to NOT own health care is a good thing.
That's correct, Evan.
I also think it ought to be free for everyone and paid for by tax dollars.
Gosh, what a disgusting concept - caring about other people!
Even if Tax Dollars was one person with the crazy name of Tax Dollars - that would mean healthcare would not be free for EVERYONE.
What an absurd idea. No human product is free. Someone must pay. All actions have one of two origins - voluntary or involuntary. Since liberals are unwilling to fully finance their "free" give away programs from their own property they must force others to pay for their utopia.
"One man cannot receive something for which he has not worked unless another man does not receive something for which he has worked."
hey, Pcunix - being poor is bad, it sucks, and it makes everyone around the poor person's life worse as well.
In fact, being poor negatively affects the economy!
Let's make it illegal!
"The Affordable Standard of Living Act"
Section 1: The government will make sure that everyone will be able to afford a good standard of living (don't ask for a definition, please. It changes year to year and is completely relative.)
Section 2: It is illegal to be poor, everyone making below whatever the president says is poor will have to pay $500/month until they get above the poverty level
Section 3: No. Really. This is all that the health care bill does. I'm just taking "health care" and replacing it with "poverty".
Section 4: Any state that nullifies this law is a terrorist, and will be bombed.
Section 5: The Economic laws of Supply and Demand no longer apply to any transaction in the United States, or any transaction dealing with an American citizen. If something costs $500 in another country, they can only sell it to Americans for $50 - the government will pick up the rest of the cost.
Section 6: Please don't charge us more than what other people are willing to pay, that would be mean.
According to a CBS poll done earlier this month, Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low of 9%. Certainly Congress either isn't aware of this or they don't care as they are continuing to attack the rights of the American people, this time with S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.
http://www.examiner.com/congress-in-dal … itatus-act
S1867 would overturn Posse Comitatus Act
This bill would, in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield.” In other words this bill would allow the military to arrest and detain American citizens in America as though they were enemy combatants without having actually been involved in the theater of war.
According to Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against it, this act would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.”
Continue reading on Examiner.com S1867 would overturn Posse Comitatus Act - Dallas Congress | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/congress-in-dal … z1fAh9Bqr0
Seems its the opposite of how Hitler seized control... He and Himmler took over by controlling internal police power and then putting the military under their party control... This seems like military lobbyists are pursuing military control to usurp internal police control. Pretty soon it won't be just FBI with arresting power at the federal level but CIA as well.
... after looking at Habee's post i'm sure it could not be used internally but it could lead to broad use in the future which is dangerous.
And this was written by an R and a D?? We beg them to work together, and this is what they come up with??
Oops! Just started a new topic on this, having overlooked this one. Sorry 'bout that, chief. . .
But to answer Habee's question below, this bill will be vetoed if passed. Which will set up a situation that mainstream media will not ignore. . .
It is done, passed awaiting the Presidential Seal. He promised to Veto this bill.
Below are a list of traitors. Each yay vote should be immediately incarcerated and brought to trial as domestic enemies!! Congress' treason is blatantly open in this bill. The Sergeant of Arms in Congress needs to make the arrests or the military needs to overturn the entire govt until next Novembers election. We are being led by a bunch of Oath breaking New World Order prison system shills. If this were Law today, I could be arrested for printing this.
Yea: 93 (93%)
48 44 1
Nay: 7 (7%)
3 3 1
Present: 0 (0%)
0 0 0
Not Voting: 0 (0%)
0 0 0
Required: Simple Majority of 100 votes (=51 votes)
(Vacancies in Congress will affect vote totals.)
Yea AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Yea AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Yea AK Begich, Mark [D]
Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Yea AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Yea AZ McCain, John [R]
Yea AR Boozman, John [R]
Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]
Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]
Yea CT Blumenthal, Richard [D]
Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph [i]
Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]
Yea DE Coons, Chris [D]
Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]
Yea FL Rubio, Marco [R]
Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Yea GA Isakson, John [R]
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Yea ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Yea ID Risch, James [R]
Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Yea IL Kirk, Mark [R]
Yea IN Coats, Daniel [R]
Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Yea IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Yea KS Moran, Jerry [R]
Yea KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Yea KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Nay KY Paul, Rand [R]
Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Yea LA Vitter, David [R]
Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Yea MA Brown, Scott [R]
Yea MA Kerry, John [D]
Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]
Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Yea MN Franken, Al [D]
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Yea MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Yea MS Wicker, Roger [R]
Yea MO Blunt, Roy [R]
Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D]
Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]
Yea NE Johanns, Mike [R]
Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D]
Yea NV Heller, Dean [R]
Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]
Yea NH Ayotte, Kelly [R]
Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]
Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Yea NJ Menendez, Robert [D]
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]
Yea NC Burr, Richard [R]
Yea NC Hagan, Kay [D]
Yea ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Yea ND Hoeven, John [R]
Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]
Yea OH Portman, Robert [R]
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]
Yea OK Inhofe, James [R]
Nay OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Yea PA Casey, Robert [D]
Yea PA Toomey, Patrick [R]
Yea RI Reed, John [D]
Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
Yea SC DeMint, Jim [R]
Yea SC Graham, Lindsey [R]
Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Yea SD Thune, John [R]
Yea TN Alexander, Lamar [R]
Yea TN Corker, Bob [R]
Yea TX Cornyn, John [R]
Yea TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay UT Lee, Mike [R]
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Nay VT Sanders, Bernard [i]
Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]
Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]
Yea WV Manchin, Joe [D]
Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Yea WI Johnson, Ron [R]
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Yea WY Barrasso, John [R]
Yea WY Enzi, Michael [R]
All the Yea votes should face death by hanging!
But...if that many senators supported the bill, won't they override a veto?
Those damned libertarians! They done did stolded mah liberty!
... oh wait, no. That was both the Dems and the Reps.
Rand Paul and Ron Paul were both on the nay side.
So which is it, Pcunix? The Libs make good points and their "politics" are at least decent (as opposed to making you sick, as you said earlier on this forum), or freedom is worthless?
Libertarians are dangerous for civil and human rights. That's a fact. Voting correctly once doesn't change that.
"That's a fact." Really, you have numbers on that? Are you sure you don't mean "That's an opinion."
My opinion of those who use "That's a fact" to describe their opinion is personally and privately held, but suffice it to say they fit perfectly into the old adage about opinions.
However, Ron Paul would have us stuck in a foreign policy that still perceives two oceans as sufficient protection from foreign hostility. That hasn't been true since his first term in the House, since 1812. He must not remember that little transoceanic war - it was in all the papers. But then again, memory fades.
It's a fact as far as I am concerned. It is a fact as far as most intelligent people are concerned. If you want to call it an opinion, fine: that doesn't change the reality of how foolish Libertarian ideas are.
So "fact" is malleable. That is so delightfully liberal. So when you look in the mirror does it tell you that you are the smartest, most handsome, most special. It has too, since narcissism is evident in that definition of "fact." But what would liberalism be with out an unhealthy dose of narcissism.
Libertarians might be a little goofy - not to worry. That little bit of goofiness is enough to preclude them garnering much support. I am reticent to label them dangerous. They are mostly just loud.
Yes, indeed. I am the smartest, the best looking and more. Aren't you also?
OK, fine - you are right - they aren't dangerous because most of us recognize how loony their ideas are. But they COULD be dangerous if they ever gained traction.
The only dangerous thing mentioned in this forum was the NDAA. And it has WIDE support from ALL democrats and republicans.
Hahahah - there you have it!!
Even though the libertarians have steadfastly - in the faces of every other politician in DC - fought against this obviously tyrannical bill, PCUNIX STILL THINKS THAT THE "LIBERTARIANS ARE DANGEROUS FOR CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS."!!!
The Federal Reserve has blown over $20 trillion bailing out banks,
Obama didn't do squat for LGBTQs, except let them get murdered in Iraq*;
Congress is LITERALLY DECLARING WAR ON THE ENTIRE WORLD, and Obama WILL sign it into law;
Bush made torture a normal US policy;
They both are bailing out company after company after company with YOUR money....
...and yet "Libertarians are dangerous for civil and human rights" despite their constant rallying against these utter nonsensical policies and obviously tyrannical propositions.*
"the conscience of a liberal", indeed.
*The LGBTQ is an important one to remember: liberals want the federal government to make a decision. Yet, they fail to remember that, even though the states are making marijuana legal, the federal government is coming in and arresting people. REMEMBER: if you want the federal government to vote one way on a bill, they can EASILY change their minds in 10 years. Libertarians want to keep this power limited.
This is why we need to demand arrests.
Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
These Senators are domestic enemies!!!!
Too bad Obama can't put it into effect, arrest all those voting yea under the new law, and cancel his signature. That would actually be appropriate.
He's going to sign it. You think he's going to go against something with THIS much bipartisan support?
Give me a break.
The US is about to declare war on the entire world, and no one is talking about it except on the internet.
Don't expect the government to arrest its own.
I have sent out an e-mail to my treasonous Senator that voted yea! The Hades with him, I want him in shackles!
I am dumbfounded! I just don't get it: Some of the most liberal memebers of the Senate, along with diehard conservatives, voted for this!! What are we mere citizens missing??
They are afraid of something. Occupy? Muslim Terrorists?
True bipartisinship unreported.
We are missing the clamp down of the prison society that has been so envied over the years. A worldwide control grid, with an aristocrocy of the elite in charge.
bipartisanship is such crap.
What if both parties are tyrants? then "bipartisan" just means "single".
Tyrants? Both parties are traitors!! At least the vast majority of them. The Government works for us! We control the Government! Not the other way around. Unfortunately the government schools of indoctrination teach things as though anything you get is received from a benevolent government. When in reality they are nothing but thugs ruling through force and coercion!
It may be the one time Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders ever vote the same way on anything. Good for them, though. And Lee, Harkin, Merkley, Wyburn, and Coburn.
This is a rare occasion on the political forum here: liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democratic, and Indie hubbers all united!
That is because we all have one thing in common. We love our Country!
We may disagree about alot of things, mostly the division trickles down from Government to begin with but we all want what is best for our Nation and its People!
Was this not "hidden" or tucked away in a funding bill? If so, did our esteemed representatives even bother to read it? Could it be they don't even know what they voted for? I would certainly hope not!
Oh, they knew, all right. There was a full floor vote on a couple of amendments that would have eliminated or reduced the civil liberties threats. Sen. Udall offered one which would have stripped out that language completely; it went down 61-something.
A good many of the senators who voted for the final bill did so despite their expressed opposition to the "Battlefield USA" provisions. Which means that, should this bill be vetoed as promised, there will be some efforts made to amend it. If we do our bit to build awareness of the way in which this thing undercuts the Constitution, there could be enough pressure on enough legislators that it could be significantly changed in the horse-trading around the veto override.
According to this, Obama asked for the part that protected American citizens and legal aliens to be removed:
Obama’s opposition has nothing to do with the rule of law or protecting Americans, in fact, Senator Levin disclosed and Dave Kopel reported that, “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power.”
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/ent … st+Post%29
That doesn't seem to match with what the ACLU is saying..
Damn. This is very confusing.
OK, here is what the White House actually says:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default … 111117.pdf
Not that it helps much..
Read it again, PQ. It sounds like the POTUS wants section 1032 removed. I think that's the part that protects American citizens and legal aliens. I'll go check the bill to see if my memory is correct. (Sometimes it's not! lol)
If Obama actually signs this, he'll be a greater criminal than Bush and Cheney.
And that's saying something.
Here are a few quotes from the link you posted:
"Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior advisers to recommend a veto."
"The certification and waiver, required by section 1033 before a detainee may be transferred from Guantánamo Bay to a foreign country, continue to hinder the Executive branch's ability to exercise its military, national security, and foreign relations activities. While these provisions may be intended to be somewhat less restrictive than the analogous provisions in current law, they continue to pose unnecessary obstacles, effectively blocking transfers that would advance our national security interests, and would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles."
"Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices."
"The Administration looks forward to reviewing a classified annex and working with the Congress to address any concerns on classified programs as the legislative process moves forward."
"(Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest. Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens. Outlines implementation procedures."
Read the next-to-last sentence. Why does the POTUS want this removed?
I found this, too, which many sites are carrying:
"According to Senator Carl Levin, it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power. See the C-Span video of the debate on the floor of the Senate, at 4:43:29. This is not the Obama I caucused for in Feb. 2008."
http://volokh.com/2011/11/30/defense-bi … -citizens/
I don't know. The link explains that it makes things more complicated. It doesn't address the "inapplicable to U.S. citizens part". As that's the part that gets us riled up, THEY SHOULD.
That's what I hate about Dems. Unlike the GOP, which is always attuned to what the common fool is thinking and forges talking points that meet that thought, the Dems put out things where they assume great familiarity and knowledge.
I am hardly a dumbass, but I can't make out why the White House objects to this. It will require significant effort to figure out.
Democratic Party: usually on the right side, but socially awkward and lacking communication skills.
GOP: seldom on the right side, but ALWAYS able to simplify their position.
I partially agree, but I don't think either Rs OR Ds are necessarily on the right side most of the time. lol
But I think we can all agree that this bill is a clusterf***!!
Currently Bradley Manning is being held (wrongly) in my view in solitary confinement for being a whistle-blower!
Bradley Manning also took an Oath of which he has broken. I support Wikileaks but I cannot condone espionage by our military personnel. Who knows what kind of danger the information he revealed poses to our men/women placing themselves voluntarily in harms way.
Mr. Manning will be convicted justly. He is not a whistle blower, he is a traitor!
A whistle blower would not have gone to a FOREIGN entity with incriminating information. He would have followed the chain of command and carried through with the proper operating procedures.
Wikileaks however is a whistle blower in my opinion. How they receive their info is not relevant. They have the right to expose any information which is given to them. They did not conspire with Mr. Manning to divulge the information. He committed treason of his own accord and should be willing to suffer the consequences of his actions. He chose martyrdom, now the piper wants to be paid.
well he might have sworn an oath but if he sees what is illegal activity what should he have done?
here is another article
wo Welsh MEPs have added their names to a growing list of their colleagues concerned about the alleged treatment of Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning.
The US Army analyst, who grew up in Pembrokeshire, is due in court later this month accused of passing sensitive information to the website.
He has been in military custody in the US since May 2010, accused of making intelligence available to "the enemy".
Plaid Cymru's Jill Evans and Labour's Derek Vaughan have signed the letter.
Ms Evans said US treatment of Pte Manning had become an important human rights issue.
Continue reading the main story
I think anyone who read about the conditions under which he has been held would be very disturbed... it is totally out of proportion to anything that he has been accused of”
Jill Evans Plaid Cymru MEP
During his detainment at a military prison at Quantico, Virginia, it is alleged that the soldier was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and often made to sleep without clothing or bedding.
I admit I have done no research as of yet, but this smells a lot like a permenant extention/expansion of the Patriot Act. I believe most if not all the groundwork to this bill is already laid out in this decade old act.
"The Levin/McCain bill would require that all accused Terrorists be held in military detention and not be charged in a civilian court — including those apprehended on U.S. soil — with two caveats: (1) it exempts U.S. citizens and legal residents from this mandate, for whom military detention would still be optional (i.e., in the discretion of the Executive Branch); and (2) it allows the Executive Branch to issue a waiver if it wants to charge an accused Terrorist in the civilian system."
The apache gunship clip clearly showed civilians being murdered. Bradly Manning is a hero.
Obviously he leaked information to Wikileaks but if that information showed wrong doing by US personnel who probably tried to cover it up then he should be regarded as a hero.
He should have brought the information to the FBI or at least he should have went to an AMERICAN media source. He is being rightly accused. He commited treason, full blown treason and he will be convicted and punished.
"Hey, I know! I found out that the Federal Government just committed a war crime, so I OBVIOUSLY should give the information to the Federal Government! That makes TOTAL sense!!"
Total agreement - wrong is wrong, and I don't give a damn who did it.
He is a socialist. He also has held to his Oath on this vote and showed Patriotism and Honor.
He was also on "The Peoples" side during the criminal bank bailouts just not too may noticed.People get too hung up on labels,Socialist,progressive,conservative, ect. All we need to focus on is Criminal and Traitor. Bernie has stones and stands up for his voters, unlike so many others.
i'm confused as to how a socialist can be against a bailout - I think that the fact that an openly avowed socialist is against propping up a vital company with socialized money shows one of two things:
1) There's an inherent flaw in socialism,
2) he isn't a socialist.
That's what scares me the most - the libertarians and the blatant socialists voted against this bill.
I find this really scary - not just the bill itself, but also that 93 senators voted for it. What do they know that we don't?
REalityBytes, thanks for calling this issue to our attention. I'm unhappy with my Senator, Carl Levin, for his role in the current S.1867 bill. Here's a recent summary of where the issue stands:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1964 … -detainees
I was interested in these two quotes from that Hill article:
Udall warned that holding citizens in military custody indefinitely “cuts directly against principles we hold dear: innocent until proven guilty.”
“If [President Obama] were to veto this bill, it would be saying that giving rights to terrorists is more important than passing the defense authorization, which has many other important provisions,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill.
I'm of the opinion that rights always matter. We shouldn't treat our enemies any differently than we treat our citizens: human beings all deserve to be treated fairly and humanely. That doesn't mean I want to "coddle" terrorists, only that Timothy McVeigh and any Libyan terrorist should have the same rights.
I expect I'm in a very tiny minority on that. That's OK. I'm right.
Thank you, Ralph.
May I take this opportunity to say that you are one of the people here for whom I have great admiration. Your intelligence and humanity are a rare combination. I suppose HubPages would have been just as wonderful had you never posted here, but I am more than happy that you do.
Thanks, the same goes for you. I think we both try to elevate the level of discussion in the Politics Forum.
No, I mostly just get ticked off. You elevate, I get angry.
I agree that you and PQ are pretty likeable...for liberals!!
Do you guys think Obama will veto the bill? Will a veto be overriden? Will their be a revolution? Why isn't this all over the news?? How much wood would a woodchuck chuck...
Well, the really essential problem is determining that someone is a "terrorist." It's any easy charge to hurl; it seems to me that it should require due process prior to indefinite detention. And no, a 'habeas corpus' review isn't sufficient (though it's better than nothing.)
SO many people speaking out against this bill, but then go back and insult libertarian beliefs.
Which is it, people? Rights matter, or they don't. Decide now - this time "voting them out" might not be enough.
93 - 7, that's astonishing.
I want to point out that both Pauls were against this bill.
Is this no different than the communist hunts back in the day? The government has always been this way, it just seems that now there is a bill that protects them in doing so and has empowered the military to act as police.
http://peterslarson.com/2011/11/29/infi … nt-rights/
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article … passes.htm
http://occupychristmas.org/2011/12/mart … ed-states/
This is MUCH different than the communist hunts back in the day:
This bill declares the entire world a battle field.
We're literally declaring war on every other country.
Forgive me, I am not following you. We are declaring war on every other country by arresting Americans on any soil they find themselves on, home or abroad?
The NDAA declares the entire world a battlefield.
http://www.examiner.com/independent-in- … nstitution
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/join-the … t-the-ndaa
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/11 … indefinite
And thus we basically claim the right to invade any country we want to hunt what we want.
PS: here's what you get when you search NDAA into Mainstream Media Sites:
(to save time, you can just read this: "you get nothing than the sound of crickets")
http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=NDAA&a … intl=false
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&a … mp;sm=user
Wow......a little mind numbing isnt it? I found an interview with this guy a few weeks ago. It seems he knew what he was talking about 4 and a half years ago when he gave it.
About 5 minutes in is about "The war on terror"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oygBg6ET … ture=share
we petition the obama administration to:
We the People demand that Obama veto the S. 1867 Bill which views all American Citizens as a terroristic threat.
s. 1867 is a bill that passed the senate which views all Americans as possible terrorists. Any American Citizen, under this bill, can be detained and held indefinitely with out a trial, for something as simple as having a weeks worth of food in their home. This Bill will force American Soldiers to detain the citizens they have sworn to protect. We demand this Bill be Vetoed. This is the United States of America and we demand liberty and justice for all!
Do it now: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/% … hank-you=p
The House of Representatives is curently in discussion on this matter. We will know if it will make it to Barry's desk soon.
It sounds like we are in for a fight. Time to assert our Second amendment right to arm our selves for the coming dictatorship. If you believe in the Declaration of Independence we need to secure new measures to control what our politicians want. The enslavement of the American Citizen. This started with the so called "Patriot Act" and we need to end this NOW!!!
Hey there, Geordmc. How are you doing today?
There are measures already in place to turn back tyranny in all forms. The country can wait until the law is passed and for the Supreme Court to rule. It does not seem like the America is at the point of insurrection just yet.
Stay cool and stay tuned.
NDAA Is A Hoax: You Can't Legalize Tyranny
Please, WAKE UP!!
So you were helping to spread the hoax? I'll remember that. It is true about the ammo.
And next step is to send the army to any protestation! All power will be concentrated to the military/police branch. SCARY. And meanwhile people are blogging about places to go to visit, the barns of Tennessee... What a fucked up America!
by Quilligrapher 7 years ago
Congress and the President still intend to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional right to a trial by jury."National Defense Authorization Act: House And Senate Negotiators Agree On Bill Hoping To Avoid Obama Veto The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens...
by ZACHARIAH 9 years ago
will there be chaos in the streets of america soon?will we have another GREAT DEPRESSION in this country?
by Mike Russo 17 months ago
Too bad there is not an article or amendment in the Constitution that outlines how The President of the United States of America should act and behave. I don't think one has been necessary until Trump has come into office.When I was in the Air Force, the military had/has the Uniform...
by Marlene Bertrand 2 years ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.
by Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4I supported...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The subject is the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" which seeks to amend the federal judicial code "to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity by authorizing U.S. courts to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|