hwt 0 #1 December 14, 2011 http://www.infowars.com/40-members-of-congress-protest-indefinite-detention-bill/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter# The media is corrupt and Washington is corrupt... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 December 14, 2011 Obama won't sign it, will he? After all, he campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo. And if it's bad for terrorists, it ought to be bad for Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vanair 0 #3 December 14, 2011 Don't we already have something similar? Correct me if I am wrong but can't a judge lock someone up indefinitely for contempt of court? Mike Sergio, Bandit NYC Mets jumper was locked up for about 6 months contempt of court for not naming the Pilot. No sentence, just, were gonna lock you up till you talk. Released when senator D'amato interviened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #4 December 14, 2011 QuoteObama won't sign it, will he? After all, he campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo. And if it's bad for terrorists, it ought to be bad for Americans. Unfortunately Obama has been as useless in protecting the US constitution as his predecessor. I remember shortly after 9-11 Bush made a speech in which he told the country that the way the evildoers would win would be if America stopped being free as a response. I think this bill may be Al Qaeda's best blow yet. The creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, and warrantless wiretaps give it a good run though. Reagan used to talk of America being the "shining city on the hill." He didn't mean it in terms of military superiority or wealth, he meant it in terms of freedom. America has for 200 years been a beacon, showing the world that individual freedoms are worth the price. Yes the bad guys enjoy them as well, but when you protect freedom for all you grow and prosper as a people. It breaks my heart to see America abandon their soul. It also fills me with trepidation for the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,486 #5 December 14, 2011 Here is what that specific section states... QuoteSEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2). SOURCE: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540 Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #6 December 14, 2011 The real problem is in the determination of who is a covered person. If it is done through the courts with all rights of Miranda and Habeas Corpus being respected prior to the said determination that is one thing. Given the behavior of the US government after 9-11 I don't think that is how it is going to shake out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,486 #7 December 14, 2011 QuoteThe real problem is in the determination of who is a covered person. If it is done through the courts with all rights of Miranda and Habeas Corpus being respected prior to the said determination that is one thing. Given the behavior of the US government after 9-11 I don't think that is how it is going to shake out. Well, there appears to be considerable fear-mongering since the Patriot Act, Version 1 and rightly so... But, since then there have been several sunset provisions that have retired some sections and several other subsequent acts to soften some of the tenets of the Patriot Act. God forbid we just repeal the SOB... But, the NDAA, S. 1867 is not another theft of liberties that some politicians are making it out to be.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #8 December 16, 2011 Quote Well, there appears to be considerable fear-mongering since the Patriot Act, Version 1 and rightly so... But, since then there have been several sunset provisions that have retired some sections and several other subsequent acts to soften some of the tenets of the Patriot Act. God forbid we just repeal the SOB... But, the NDAA, S. 1867 is not another theft of liberties that some politicians are making it out to be. Well, this retired admiral disagrees with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,486 #9 December 17, 2011 QuoteQuote Well, there appears to be considerable fear-mongering since the Patriot Act, Version 1 and rightly so... But, since then there have been several sunset provisions that have retired some sections and several other subsequent acts to soften some of the tenets of the Patriot Act. God forbid we just repeal the SOB... But, the NDAA, S. 1867 is not another theft of liberties that some politicians are making it out to be. Well, this retired admiral disagrees with you. If you read the entire article; that retired Admiral has changed his political position more times than his naval ass can keep up with the legal wind's direction.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #10 December 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteAmerica has for 200 years been a beacon, showing the world that individual freedoms are worth the price. Which individuals had the freedom? Jesus christ, the individual freedom you are talking about is a myth. Go trough you history and see the timelines of your freedom. The freedom you had, was "free marked" and a consumers heaven. What you have left now? Freedom is just a word, and only that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #11 December 18, 2011 Quote that retired Admiral has changed his political position more times than his naval ass can keep up with the legal wind's direction. Changing positions is either a bad thing or a good thing depending on your POV. - Changing with the times and the developments - Not know WTF you are saying from one minute to the next. My problem is those who will stick to their opinion come hell or high water even when proven wrong or when shown better ways. F'n knuckleheads.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #12 December 18, 2011 Quote But, the NDAA, S. 1867 is not another theft of liberties that some politicians are making it out to be. In theory? Maybe, maybe not depending on interpretation at application. In practice? You apparently trust our goobermint (military included) to do the right thing more so than do I. The door is open to misuse. Hopefully they won't go through that door.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,486 #13 December 18, 2011 I'm all for challenging authority and questioning their motives (as you and I are long-time ago military and the need to question was engrained in us. The Bill in its entirety lays out the specifics for future policy and _appears_ to have the transparency we demand. Can there, will there, have there... been those who misuse even the best of intentions. SUre. We know that from experience, but there's always some PITA like you and I who demand the wrongful deeds in opposition of the intent be righted. As to the Admiral... well, my position stands. He is apparently and overtly looking to get back in the political spotlight and will flip to whichever side is perceived as gained ground. And while I disagree with him on this point... I strongly agreed with him over the Abu Gharib scandal.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aarco 0 #14 December 20, 2011 Get four more primarys as Joint chiefs dem contrasted to combat actions - nations secrets and steath 1 - Builted into a controled open forum - the eye sees the leaks - the door lessons fear for the public! Having something never beats doing (>|<) Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #15 December 21, 2011 QuoteGet four more primarys as Joint chiefs dem contrasted to combat actions - nations secrets and steath 1 - Builted into a controled open forum - the eye sees the leaks - the door lessons fear for the public! What language are you trying to speak? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #16 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteGet four more primarys as Joint chiefs dem contrasted to combat actions - nations secrets and steath 1 - Builted into a controled open forum - the eye sees the leaks - the door lessons fear for the public! What language are you trying to speak? he's made 3 postings today that define any normal comprehension. Maybe it's dreamdancer on a quantum computer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
popsjumper 2 #11 December 18, 2011 Quote that retired Admiral has changed his political position more times than his naval ass can keep up with the legal wind's direction. Changing positions is either a bad thing or a good thing depending on your POV. - Changing with the times and the developments - Not know WTF you are saying from one minute to the next. My problem is those who will stick to their opinion come hell or high water even when proven wrong or when shown better ways. F'n knuckleheads.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #12 December 18, 2011 Quote But, the NDAA, S. 1867 is not another theft of liberties that some politicians are making it out to be. In theory? Maybe, maybe not depending on interpretation at application. In practice? You apparently trust our goobermint (military included) to do the right thing more so than do I. The door is open to misuse. Hopefully they won't go through that door.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,486 #13 December 18, 2011 I'm all for challenging authority and questioning their motives (as you and I are long-time ago military and the need to question was engrained in us. The Bill in its entirety lays out the specifics for future policy and _appears_ to have the transparency we demand. Can there, will there, have there... been those who misuse even the best of intentions. SUre. We know that from experience, but there's always some PITA like you and I who demand the wrongful deeds in opposition of the intent be righted. As to the Admiral... well, my position stands. He is apparently and overtly looking to get back in the political spotlight and will flip to whichever side is perceived as gained ground. And while I disagree with him on this point... I strongly agreed with him over the Abu Gharib scandal.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aarco 0 #14 December 20, 2011 Get four more primarys as Joint chiefs dem contrasted to combat actions - nations secrets and steath 1 - Builted into a controled open forum - the eye sees the leaks - the door lessons fear for the public! Having something never beats doing (>|<) Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #15 December 21, 2011 QuoteGet four more primarys as Joint chiefs dem contrasted to combat actions - nations secrets and steath 1 - Builted into a controled open forum - the eye sees the leaks - the door lessons fear for the public! What language are you trying to speak? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteGet four more primarys as Joint chiefs dem contrasted to combat actions - nations secrets and steath 1 - Builted into a controled open forum - the eye sees the leaks - the door lessons fear for the public! What language are you trying to speak? he's made 3 postings today that define any normal comprehension. Maybe it's dreamdancer on a quantum computer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
