Citizens To Be Imprisoned Without Charge Or Trial

[stonedar]

Fox news has been covering this, I haven't seen anything on the state controlled media outlets. This morning they had a congressman on saying how crazy an idea this is and how we need to wake up and see how our rights are being slowly taken away. Fox's coverage as usual was fair, and all the commentators were against this. Obama and Fox agreeing on something, you think the worlds about to end?

 

[GP73LPC]

Fox news has been covering this, I haven't seen anything on the state controlled media outlets. This morning they had a congressman on saying how crazy an idea this is and how we need to wake up and see how our rights are being slowly taken away. Fox's coverage as usual was fair, and all the commentators were against this. Obama and Fox agreeing on something, you think the worlds about to end?

Fox gets it right sometimes

and sometimes they just avoid entire stories because it doesn't fit their agenda...

remember when mike wallace interviewed jon stewart and said this...

WALLACE: I don't think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, finally, they're getting somebody who tells the other side of the story


doesn't sound like FAIR and BALANCED to me. Sounds like they have a right leaning agenda to me... I mean just look at what Murdoch's companies did in the UK...

in case you forgot, you can read the whole transcript and watch the video clip here.


now please don't take this as MSNBC is FAIR and BALANCED either because they are biased too. but they haven't sued in courts for the right to lie, like FAUX.... just sayin

stop drinking the Kool-Aid, step away from the Kool-Aid

 

[guest8905]

the whitehouse has said they are going to veto this more then likely

 

[onegreenday]

the whitehouse has said they are going to veto this more then likely

Defying Veto Threat, Senate Advances Indefinite Detention Measure


The Senate has advanced a controversial measure that would authorize the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect without charge or trial anywhere in the word, including the United States. The provision is attached to a large military spending bill that’s before the Senate this week. On Tuesday, the Senate voted 61-to-37 to defeat a measure that would remove the new indefinite detention policy as well as other controversial measures. The White House has promised to veto the entire bill should the provisions remain.

 

[GP73LPC]

FUCKING TRAITORS !!!!!

I'm off to find the 61 who voted YES, so I can post them here. EVERYONE of these cocksuckers need to pay with their jobs...

 

[GP73LPC]

EVERYONE who voted No to is a traitor and should be removed from office through any legal means... These fucktards are wiping their asses with the constitution.

If Obama VETO's this his stock is gonna rise IMO...

I BOLDED the losers so they stand out !!!!


Vote-State-Rep-(Party)

Alabama
Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]

Alaska
Not Voting AK Begich, Mark [D]
Not Voting AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]

Arizona
Nay AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Nay AZ McCain, John [R]

Arkansas
Nay AR Boozman, John [R]
Nay AR Pryor, Mark [D]

California
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Colorado
Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]
Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]

Connecticut
Yea CT Blumenthal, Richard [D]
Nay CT Lieberman, Joseph

Delaware
Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]
Yea DE Coons, Chris [D]

Florida
Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]
Nay FL Rubio, Marco [R]

Georgia
Nay GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Nay GA Isakson, John [R]

Hawaii
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Idaho
Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Nay ID Risch, James [R]

Illinois
Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Yea IL Kirk, Mark [R]

Indiana
Nay IN Coats, Daniel [R]
Nay IN Lugar, Richard [R]

Iowa
Nay IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Kansas
Nay KS Moran, Jerry [R]
Nay KS Roberts, Pat [R]

Kentucky
Nay KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Yea KY Paul, Rand [R]

Louisiana
Nay LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Nay LA Vitter, David [R]

Maine
Nay ME Collins, Susan [R]
Nay ME Snowe, Olympia [R]

Maryland
Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]

Massachusetts
Nay MA Brown, Scott [R]
Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Michigan
Nay MI Levin, Carl [D]
Nay MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Minnesota
Yea MN Franken, Al [D]
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]

Mississippi
Nay MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Nay MS Wicker, Roger [R]

Missouri
Nay MO Blunt, Roy [R]
Nay MO McCaskill, Claire [D]

Montana
Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]

Nebraska
Nay NE Johanns, Mike [R]
Nay NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Nevada
Nay NV Heller, Dean [R]
Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]

New Hampshire
Nay NH Ayotte, Kelly [R]
Nay NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]

New Jersey
Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Nay NJ Menendez, Robert [D]

New Mexico
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]

New York
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

North Carolina
Nay NC Burr, Richard [R]
Nay NC Hagan, Kay [D]

North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Hoeven, John [R]

Ohio
Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay OH Portman, Robert [R]

Oklahoma
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]
Nay OK Inhofe, James [R]

Oregon
Yea OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Yea OR Wyden, Ron [D]

Pennsylvania
Nay PA Casey, Robert [D]
Nay PA Toomey, Patrick [R]

Rhode Island
Nay RI Reed, John [D]
Nay RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]

South Carolina
Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]
Nay SC Graham, Lindsey [R]

South Dakota
Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Nay SD Thune, John [R]

Tennessee
Nay TN Alexander, Lamar [R]
Nay TN Corker, Bob [R]

Texas
Nay TX Cornyn, John [R]
Nay TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

Utah
Nay UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay UT Lee, Mike [R]

Vermont
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Yea VT Sanders, Bernard

Virginia
Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]
Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]

Washington
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

West Virginia
Nay WV Manchin, Joe [D]
Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]

Wisconsin
Nay WI Johnson, Ron [R]
Nay WI Kohl, Herbert [D]

Wyoming
Nay WY Barrasso, John [R]
Nay WY Enzi, Michael [R]

 

[GP73LPC]

i think i jumped the gun and drank the kool-aid without reading the bill myself.

anyway, my apologies, this appears not to apply to US Citizens...

Sec 1032 of Senate Bill 1867

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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.

(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.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(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.

(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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

 

[onegreenday]

It looks like that's a special waver........


https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge.


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_face_indefinite

DAPHNE EVIATAR: OK, first of all, the legislation is 680 pages long, and so one reason this has been able to get through so quietly is that the controversial provisions are just three or four provisions within this huge package. The ones that we’re particularly concerned about, are for—-specifically the one you mentioned about creating a system of indefinite military detention within the United States by statute. This would be the first time since the McCarthy era that the United States Congress has tried to do this. In the 1950’s, that was actually repealed before it was ever used. In this case have seen the administration very eagerly hold people without trial for 10 plus years in military detention, so there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t continue to do that here. So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents as well as of people abroad.

 

[GP73LPC]

sec 1032 in the bill states 'UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.'


i'll watch the video when i get a few moments

 

[Hydrosun]

If the USA has the right to steal any human form any part of the globe and imprison indefinitely or kill them; Then by all rights EVERY person in the world has the right to kidnap and imprison any other person at any time, from any location, and for any reason.

A government is the collective manifestation of individual rights. Governments derive their rights from the people and ALL government actions are conducted by individuals.

Actions like this one being debated in congress give ample ammunition to any group that wants to stand up to the immorality of the US government.

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

It looks like that's a special waver........


https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge.


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_face_indefinite

DAPHNE EVIATAR: OK, first of all, the legislation is 680 pages long, and so one reason this has been able to get through so quietly is that the controversial provisions are just three or four provisions within this huge package. The ones that we’re particularly concerned about, are for—-specifically the one you mentioned about creating a system of indefinite military detention within the United States by statute. This would be the first time since the McCarthy era that the United States Congress has tried to do this. In the 1950’s, that was actually repealed before it was ever used. In this case have seen the administration very eagerly hold people without trial for 10 plus years in military detention, so there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t continue to do that here. So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents as well as of people abroad.

Thats how they pass bills... They say they are for something else give them a nice shiny name like the patriot act make it 700 pages long and put in key things that let them do what they want... This shit is chess.... Im sure there were things that were past 2 years ago that didnt matter until new bills are passed and all the sudden the old bill makes sense why they wanted to do shit a certain way...


95% of the bills in congress are put forth by lobbyist... special interest.... ie not for the american people. Are government is totally fucked and if we dont get rid of pacs, super pacs, lobbyist and the federal reserve we are totally done for.

 

[onegreenday]

it looks like part of the WAIVER (4) that's above what you
are quoting.

(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.

(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.

sec 1032 in the bill states 'UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.'


i'll watch the video when i get a few moments

 

[GP73LPC]

if the bill is taken in whole, and i believe that is the way it works (correct me, if i am wrong) then this will not apply to US citizens...

if i am wrong, please point out where i am reading this wrong...

 

[onegreenday]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=uploademail

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKaTxjxnYfE&feature=relmfu

Sen. Rand Paul on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano - 11/29/11

if the bill is taken in whole, and i believe that is the way it works (correct me, if i am wrong) then this will not apply to US citizens...

if i am wrong, please point out where i am reading this wrong...

 

[GP73LPC]

either section 1032 is part of the bill or it's not...

can the military ignore section 1032? if not, US Citizens are not subject to this law...

all these clips of lying politicians does nothing for me... Apparently the ACLU is lying about this also and i support them most of the time...

so again, let me ask: Is Section 1032 part of the law?

if you answer is YES, then


</thread>

 

[onegreenday]

The WAIVER for US CITIZENS only applies if
The Sec. of Defense asks for it in part 4.

it looks like part of the WAIVER (4) that's above what you
are quoting.

(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.

(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.

either section 1032 is part of the bill or it's not...

can the military ignore section 1032? if not, US Citizens are not subject to this law...

all these clips of lying politicians does nothing for me... Apparently the ACLU is lying about this also and i support them most of the time...

so again, let me ask: Is Section 1032 part of the law?

if you answer is YES, then


</thread>

 

[GP73LPC]

okay, now i understand my confusion...

i was ignoring the obvious, the titles of both sections of the bill



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.


and


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.


1032 only applies to MILITARY CUSTODY.

1031 applies to Indefinite Detention

So when when you include the titles of the section it is clear that US Citizens don't have to be kept in Millitary Prisons, but they can in fact be held indefinitely as written in section 1031...

so now i am back to this:

EVERYONE who voted No to is a traitor and should be removed from office through any legal means... These fucktards are wiping their asses with the constitution.

If Obama VETO's this his stock is gonna rise IMO...

I BOLDED the losers so they stand out !!!!


Vote-State-Rep-(Party)

Alabama
Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]

Alaska
Not Voting AK Begich, Mark [D]
Not Voting AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]

Arizona
Nay AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Nay AZ McCain, John [R]

Arkansas
Nay AR Boozman, John [R]
Nay AR Pryor, Mark [D]

California
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Colorado
Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]
Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]

Connecticut
Yea CT Blumenthal, Richard [D]
Nay CT Lieberman, Joseph

Delaware
Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]
Yea DE Coons, Chris [D]

Florida
Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]
Nay FL Rubio, Marco [R]

Georgia
Nay GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Nay GA Isakson, John [R]

Hawaii
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Idaho
Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Nay ID Risch, James [R]

Illinois
Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Yea IL Kirk, Mark [R]

Indiana
Nay IN Coats, Daniel [R]
Nay IN Lugar, Richard [R]

Iowa
Nay IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Kansas
Nay KS Moran, Jerry [R]
Nay KS Roberts, Pat [R]

Kentucky
Nay KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Yea KY Paul, Rand [R]

Louisiana
Nay LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Nay LA Vitter, David [R]

Maine
Nay ME Collins, Susan [R]
Nay ME Snowe, Olympia [R]

Maryland
Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]

Massachusetts
Nay MA Brown, Scott [R]
Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Michigan
Nay MI Levin, Carl [D]
Nay MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Minnesota
Yea MN Franken, Al [D]
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]

Mississippi
Nay MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Nay MS Wicker, Roger [R]

Missouri
Nay MO Blunt, Roy [R]
Nay MO McCaskill, Claire [D]

Montana
Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]

Nebraska
Nay NE Johanns, Mike [R]
Nay NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Nevada
Nay NV Heller, Dean [R]
Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]

New Hampshire
Nay NH Ayotte, Kelly [R]
Nay NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]

New Jersey
Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Nay NJ Menendez, Robert [D]

New Mexico
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]

New York
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

North Carolina
Nay NC Burr, Richard [R]
Nay NC Hagan, Kay [D]

North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Hoeven, John [R]

Ohio
Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay OH Portman, Robert [R]

Oklahoma
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]
Nay OK Inhofe, James [R]

Oregon
Yea OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Yea OR Wyden, Ron [D]

Pennsylvania
Nay PA Casey, Robert [D]
Nay PA Toomey, Patrick [R]

Rhode Island
Nay RI Reed, John [D]
Nay RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]

South Carolina
Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]
Nay SC Graham, Lindsey [R]

South Dakota
Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Nay SD Thune, John [R]

Tennessee
Nay TN Alexander, Lamar [R]
Nay TN Corker, Bob [R]

Texas
Nay TX Cornyn, John [R]
Nay TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

Utah
Nay UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay UT Lee, Mike [R]

Vermont
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Yea VT Sanders, Bernard

Virginia
Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]
Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]

Washington
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

West Virginia
Nay WV Manchin, Joe [D]
Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]

Wisconsin
Nay WI Johnson, Ron [R]
Nay WI Kohl, Herbert [D]

Wyoming
Nay WY Barrasso, John [R]
Nay WY Enzi, Michael [R]

 

[onegreenday]

I thought Rand Paul's speech was outstanding!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjVgWNzQnk&feature=relmfu

from the Senate floor:

Sen. Rand Paul Speaks on the Senate Floor on Defense Authorization Act - 11/29/11

 

[prowler]

that's because they are not a government organization...

they are A PRIVATELY HELD CORPORATION !!!!

Thomas Jefferson strongly warned us about this shit, and we got so fat, dumb and complacent it happened anyway...


Thomas Jefferson's Warning To America

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

I mean...come on this is like every bong rippers must watch?! And i'm from another continent Open your eyes all of you.

 

[GP73LPC]

I thought Rand Paul's speech was outstanding!

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment

from the Senate floor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjVgWNzQnk&feature=relmfu

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

I mean...come on this is like every bong rippers must watch?! And i'm from another continent Open your eyes all of you.

gonna watch both of these when time permits...

actually i am downloading the 3 hour and 35 min clip