Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

Americans have just lost the right to a fair trial


Saffire

Recommended Posts

The Senate just passed a bill which Obama will sign, that allows the government to label any American a "terrorist" and hold him/her indefinitely without trial or charges, on American soil. We are now officially a police state.

 

These are the (traitorous) Senators who voted for it:

 

Ayotte (R-NH)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Blunt (R-MO)

Boozman (R-AR)

Brown (R-MA)

Burr (R-NC)

Casey (D-PA)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coats (R-IN)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Collins (R-ME)

Conrad (D-ND)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hagan (D-NC)

Hatch (R-UT)

Heller (R-NV)

Hoeven (R-ND)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Inouye (D-HI)

Isakson (R-GA)

Johanns (R-NE)

Johnson (R-WI)

Kohl (D-WI)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lee (R-UT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Lugar (R-IN)

Manchin (D-WV)

McCain (R-AZ)

McCaskill (D-MO)

McConnell (R-KY)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Moran (R-KS)

Nelson (D-NE)

Portman (R-OH)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reed (D-RI)

Risch (R-ID)

Roberts (R-KS)

Rubio (R-FL)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Shelby (R-AL)

Snowe (R-ME)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Thune (R-SD)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wicker (R-MS)

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w]Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. McCain speak on Detainees on Senate Floor - 11/29/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

They're preparing for REX84, which is a "continuity of government" plan following a complete financial collapse.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ]Oliver North Questioned - Rex 84 Exposed During Iran Contra - YouTube[/ame]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Was just about to post about this, part of me can't believe it. I'm in the UK but this is still a highly significant event on the world stage, one that could unfortunately mark the beginnings of a tyrannical global order. If people don't hit the streets by the millions over this, frankly the ruling classes have gotten away with something very disturbing indeed.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWXwzcE5P0M]The NDAA Shreds the Constitution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=feedf]Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3t4wgZCO5M&feature=feedf]Alex Jones: Senate wants martial law in America - YouTube[/ame]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be worthwhile to read the bill, though time is not an infinite quantity for any of us. I am not the least surprised though, if this bill truly is as Orwellian as some are saying it is. It's us against the Blue Meanies!

Habeas Corpus is already partially shredded, sure hope Obama doesn't sign this into law, and it is that bad.

One can't legislate away our rights, they exist because they are natural rights even if they are suppressed, and a matter of correction is in order to restore those rights to their rightful place.

These provisions defile the very intent of the U.S. Constitution, which was very specific on preventing an all-powerful state from arresting individuals without clear evidence and a warrant properly obtained, and with guarantees of a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.

And this concept of a "war on terror" - this is completely the wrong way to deal with the matter. If anything, terrorism is the product of economic and social inequities that enables radical elements to find willing recruits, and the organizations and individuals responsible for acts of terror need to be investigated and detained in a manner respectful of individual rights, and dealt with in an international court IMHO, for to declare war on some amorphous thing, and to consider anyone on this planet as somehow possibly subject to US "enemy combatant status" if there is even the slightest suspicion about their affiliation with a criminal terror group is, simply put, insane. The whole matter of grabbing people at random, and holding them indefinitely in detention sounds and is eerily like a police state, something we fought against in the revolutionary war, something that is simply wrong both then and now.

What if the headlines read "US holds historic elections as military council resists calls to transfer power to civilians." Let's not let it get any further, and let's start undoing the mistakes of the recent past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be worthwhile to read the bill, though time is not an infinite quantity for any of us.

 

Completely agree. So let's see what the contested sections of the bill actually says.

 

Here's Section 1031:

 

SEC. 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.

 

Section 1031 merely affirms the authority that the president already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current Authorization for Use of Military Force. In fact, 1031(d) explicitly states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no language in the bill that could reasonably be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

 

 

 

Now let's look at Section 1032:

 

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

 

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

 

(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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

Moreover, Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who are deemed a more serious threat to national security. As 1032(a)(2) explicitly states, any person detained under this section must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners. The bill also goes on in 1032(b) to explicitly state that the bill DOES NOT extend to US Citizens or Lawful Resident aliens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the whole thing? If so, you would have noticed this:

 

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States."

 

Also, you would have seen the exchange between Rand Paul and John McCain, which I posted at the start of this thread.

 

Here's another video of Mr Paul speaking on the bill:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpfS62zrmAQ]Rand Paul and John McCain S. 1867 - YouTube[/ame]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the whole thing? If so, you would have noticed this:

 

Yes, and you're not interpreting the language of the bill correctly. The provision you cited refers back to paragraph (1) of Section 1032 which says:

 

a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

 

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

 

Section 1032, as written, would mandate military detention of any non-U.S. person who is a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and has planned or carried out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners - the COVERED PERSONS defined in Section 1032(2). Worth noting here is that the President already has authority under the AUMF to authorize the military to take custody of individuals who are part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.

 

The waiver clause simply means that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, could waive this mandate to not be required to detain the person, if they can show a waiver is in the interest of the United States (e.g. false flag agents). Moreover, this detention requirement is limited by the provisions in 1032(b), which states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're really stretching the language of this bill in order to make me look bad. That's really petty, man.

 

The bill clearly doesn't say what you claim it says, and if it did, the senators in the videos I've linked to are clearly not discussing the same bill you are.

 

"False flag agents"? Where did you hear this? Do you have ANY sources who agree with your weird interpretation of this bill?

 

This is low, even for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're really stretching the language of this bill in order to make me look bad. That's really petty, man.

 

The bill clearly doesn't say what you claim it says, and if it did, the senators in the videos I've linked to are clearly not discussing the same bill you are.

 

"False flag agents"? Where did you hear this? Do you have ANY sources who agree with your weird interpretation of this bill?

 

This is low, even for you.

 

There are several problems with this argument and I'll address them accordingly:

 

1) I'm not stretching the language of this bill - it's exactly as it is written. If you're familiar with legalese, then you can understand the logical progressions of the different premises and how they interrelate.

 

2) You're starting off with the assumption that Rand Paul is correct on this issue and therefore anyone who disagrees must be wrong. I can also take the time to post videos arguing the other side - does that necessarily mean I must be right? This is a classic logical fallacy.

 

3) In fact, my "weird interpretation" of the law is exactly what the Justice Department is arguing: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/justice_department_official_defense_bill_still_harms_counterterror_efforts.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

Again, all you have to do is re-read the bill and understand how the different provisions of the bill work.

 

4) I still don't understand why you always resort to personal attacks when sometimes you might have overstated the facts. I haven't insulted you or called you names - instead, I just broke down the law for people not familiar with legalese. That way, people who want clarification about this bill can come to a better understanding.

 

For the record, I am also against this bill but you're looking at the wrong section if you're looking for issues with the bill as written. The problems lie in Section 1031, not so much 1032.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're starting off with the assumption that Rand Paul is correct on this issue and therefore anyone who disagrees must be wrong. I can also take the time to post videos arguing the other side - does that necessarily mean I must be right?

 

I'm not arguing that - John McCain is! Take a look at the video. If it's true that Rand Paul mischaracterized the content of the bill, why does McCain not point that out? Does McCain, the co-sponsor of the bill, not know what's in it? Is he not a good advocate for his own pieces of legislation?

 

http://www.fox19.com/story/16169862/reality-check-did-the-us-senate-just-give-away-your-right-to-due-process

 

Your argument about the Justice Department is a bit funny, especially given the "Fast and Furious" scandal they're facing now... I'm not so sure they have Americans' best interests at heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 1031 merely affirms the authority that the president already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current Authorization for Use of Military Force. In fact, 1031(d) explicitly states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no language in the bill that could reasonably be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

And then here you sort of seem to be supporting the content of the bill...

 

Again, you seem to be trying to bait me in a frivolous argument over nothing.

 

If you're against the bill, why are you trying to minimize its effect? Are you just doing this to confuse people? Show off your ability to interpret "legalese"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're against the bill, why are you trying to minimize its effect? Are you just doing this to confuse people? Show off your ability to interpret "legalese"?

 

The reason I oppose the bill is not because I believe it will prevent Americans losing the right to a fair trial. In fact, 1032(b) makes very clear that won't be the case.

 

No, I oppose the bill because ironically, it would actually jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda. This has been a point raised by counterterrorism officials from both the Republican + Democratic parties, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence, and the attorney general (among others not listed).

 

Personal letter from the Director of National Intelligence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/11/28/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/DNI%20letter%20to%20Feinstein%20re%20NDAA%20Detainee%20Provisions.pdf

 

That's the real reason why the Obama administration is threatening to veto the bill: “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" - White House Statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) I still don't understand why you always resort to personal attacks when sometimes you might have overstated the facts. I haven't insulted you or called you names
:nod:

Also, Parrotdies wasn't trying to make Saffire look bad. I don't see what was low in what Parrot posted :\

But I think this has come up several times before, eg. by Reilly. Saffire seems too fast to think that people are attacking/bullying him, when they are just giving another opinion on the matter.

Replying with something like "This is low, even for you" with which implicitly is said that Parrot apparently usually goes low (I don't agree) and that parrot's post was some kind of 'attack' towards Saffire to make him look bad .... a bit paranoid, I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...