As a noose tightens...
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 71

Thread:
As a noose tightens...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,914

    Default As a noose tightens...

    This senate bill is alarming! Why is this neccessary? Why is senate introducing this? Why bi-partisan Dem and Rep (McCain) sponsored? Where is America going ????????
    Looks to me like more Patriot Act type slippery sloping our way to oppression in the future. America should not to be patrolled by military power in any way. When campus cops armed with machine guns look like Seal teams you know we have enough federalized police forces as it is


    » Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Newbury Park, Ca/Mohave Valley, Az
    Posts
    8,169

    Default Hmmmm, maybe....

    Hmmm, Maybe just what we need to CLOSE the southern border... As it is now, we can't use our armed forces in mass to protect our border from within... Well, if this passes it will eliminate that problem and open it up to deployments, ARMED deployments, with the arms facing south..... I'm all for lining our southern border with TANKS, and using them!!! As far as jailing American citizens without trial, if they choose to support terrorists, lets just execute them on the spot...Who needs jails?...
    Ray
    LOUD BOATS SAVE LIVES

  4. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    All I will say is that:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    and

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


  5. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    I searched S 1867(the bill) and this is something I came up with:


    (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.
    And section 1032, subsection (b)(1):
    The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    subsection (b)(2):
    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.

    Did anyone even bother to read S. 1867, subsections 1031 and 1032, the bill that allegedly permits military to arrest U.S. Citizens? : politics

  6. #5
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    This is law is totally unnecesarry. Every state already has a military force which is capable of police actions when needed. They are called the National Guard and are under the direct control of the State Govenor. And given that the govenor of a state has police powers, unlike the president, no declaration of war or martial law is required for him/her to utilize thier national guard. Giving this athority to the president not only infringes on constitutional rights of the citizens, it is one step closer to federalizing all the state militias and making us a dictatorship.

    While we would like to think that no reasonable person would abuse the bill and use the powers for personal or political gain, do you really believe if they can find a legal loop hole to allow them to benifit they wouldn't use it?
    So many projects, so little time

  7. #6
    gn7
    gn7 is offline
    Senior Member gn7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,975

    Default

    zombie, why does this surprise any of you Obummer nut swingers. Dem controlled senate, with the overwhelming approval of the COMMANDER AND CHEIF and your surprised by this? Really? A White House endorses the OWS, this could be potentially used against the OWS and you wonder how this could happen. Was I questioned about Obummer plan.
    Obummer had nothing to do with the OWS planning? Really? The OWS is perfect for government intervention. Could ask for a better scenerio. And Obummer backs OWS and has said as much on national TV. Civil uprising that you can crush with a mitlitary presence. Perfect!

    You guys haven't seen shit yet. Wait and see what he has PLANNED if he gets re-relected.

    I love how you threw in a RINO as if you thought you could use a "republican conservative" to blame for this. give me a break zombie. Next you'll tell us Arnold is all for it as well. that will make it a solid Repulican idea.

    Damn your blind, AND your stupid as well if you think we will buy into your bullshit idea of laying this at the feet of the Conservative Republicans.



    100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

  8. #7
    Senior Member AzMandella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tucson,Az
    Posts
    5,217

    Default

    Seems to me what they are "TRYING TO DO" is be able to apprehend terrorist when they are in our country without having to give them the same rights as citizens. I am sure this is being done because of the Liberals and thier trying to give terrorist the same rights as they have been with the Shoe Bomber and others.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you were not racist, then you better find someone else to vote for to prove your not stupid.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ram78d10 View Post
    I searched S 1867(the bill) and this is something I came up with:


    (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.
    And section 1032, subsection (b)(1):
    The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    subsection (b)(2):
    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.

    Did anyone even bother to read S. 1867, subsections 1031 and 1032, the bill that allegedly permits military to arrest U.S. Citizens? : politics
    IMO opinion this bill purposely has some legal wiggle room using the word requirement (see above). Using the phrases Will not or shall not or other wording which would be much more protective of our constitutional rights you earlier quoted. As I originally noted this bill if passed is moving America further down the 'Slippery slope" towards serious oppression.

  10. #9
    Marine Organism Forkin' Crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mound, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zombie View Post
    IMO opinion this bill purposely has some legal wiggle room using the word requirement (see above). Using the phrases Will not or shall not or other wording which would be much more protective of our constitutional rights you earlier quoted. As I originally noted this bill if passed is moving America further down the 'Slippery slope" towards serious oppression.
    The "Change" we can believe in. Welcome to Obama's USSA!
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

    - - Robert A. Heinlein

  11. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AzMandella View Post
    Seems to me what they are "TRYING TO DO" is be able to apprehend terrorist when they are in our country without having to give them the same rights as citizens. I am sure this is being done because of the Liberals and thier trying to give terrorist the same rights as they have been with the Shoe Bomber and others.
    They can pass whatever law they want but it will still likely be found unconstitutional if ever challenged.

  12. #11
    Icy
    Icy is offline
    Boatless Member :( Icy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    AV, CA
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zombie View Post
    This senate bill is alarming! Why is this neccessary? Why is senate introducing this? Why bi-partisan Dem and Rep (McCain) sponsored? Where is America going ????????
    Looks to me like more Patriot Act type slippery sloping our way to oppression in the future. America should not to be patrolled by military power in any way. When campus cops armed with machine guns look like Seal teams you know we have enough federalized police forces as it is


    » Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
    This is the change Obama promised.

    This is what you voted for.

    McCain is hardly a republican of constitutional values.

  13. #12
    Senior Member AzMandella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tucson,Az
    Posts
    5,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ram78d10 View Post
    They can pass whatever law they want but it will still likely be found unconstitutional if ever challenged.
    That may be. BUt we do need to do something to be able to deal with enemy combatants without treating them as citizens when they are not.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you were not racist, then you better find someone else to vote for to prove your not stupid.

  14. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icy View Post
    This is the change Obama promised.

    This is what you voted for.

    McCain is hardly a republican of constitutional values.
    McCain is sponsoring this bill, not Obama. This is the change all of you that voted for McCain were supporting in 2008. Don't act surprised now when your guy does something like this. You all knew he was screwed up when he selected Palin as a running mate, so don't act all surprised now.

  15. #14
    Icy
    Icy is offline
    Boatless Member :( Icy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    AV, CA
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ram78d10 View Post
    McCain is sponsoring this bill, not Obama. This is the change all of you that voted for McCain were supporting in 2008. Don't act surprised now when your guy does something like this. You all knew he was screwed up when he selected Palin as a running mate, so don't act all surprised now.
    Yeah your right, Obama would never be a leader and ask for something like this.

    Lindsey Graham and McCain are the same type of Republicans that Doc will run in here to tell us they are better than the D running against them. When in fact, they are just all the same. Pushing us towards a new ism at a rapid but slower rate.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95