military can now detain us citizens without any rights

Post Reply New Topic

Hey all. This is the time to get the heck outa here

http://www.care2.com/causes/new-bill-al ... itely.html

Jojo

It's a bill, not a law. And it didn't pass. Relax.

^ Good..

During the American Civil War civil rights were routinely violated. Including the privilege of habeus corpus. Somehow, the nation survived.

ruveyn

actually it did pass in the senate..and is being sent to Obama to sign or veto

I really hope he vetoes it.

Jojo

Whoo boy. I am not gonna stick around and argue over nit-picky details, but before anyone jumps to conclusions either way about this thing, they really ought to read the bill itself. Every detail. There is one particularly extremely important clause in it. I have always found the articles written about bills that haven't been signed into law yet always seem to be watered down descriptions of what the entire bill contains, picking out certain clauses out of context.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi ... tion-Bill-

Scuse me now while I duck and cover.

The only way this would get Obama's signature is if he had a political death wish. Groups like the ACLU will be busy writing briefs on how this article violates the 4th and 14th amendment. The Supreme Court, staffed mostly with Republican appointees, will not hesitate to overturn this law. Maybe that would be okay if the public wanted such a law, but I feel they are indifferent at best. Overturning any law he signed is a pr disaster for him.

Obama cannot afford to create disasters of his own choosing. His approval rating is in the tank, and his GOP opponents will exploit every opportunity to humiliate him. The Supreme Court may overturn his health care law, which would be a huge embarrassment for him (not to mention wasted time and effort). Signing this bill is just forking his fate over to the judiciary, and he does not want to do that.

it's a good thing the position of president is doing what you feel is best for the country, not being so obsessive about public image. oh wait....

btw i'm speaking ironically. signing this into law would be a disaster for the country.

also no matter what fox tells me, i think obama pushed that health care bill so much because he actually cares about people having health insurance and leaving it up to these companies who only care about money so you can forget getting health insurance if you have pre existing conditions (or at least good insurance) is a bad idea. besides, canada has a national health insurance and they're doing ok, aren't they?

Even if it was passed, how do you know the military would carry out the action?

Welcome to living in a Deus Ex game. Please put your so called rights in the drop-box at the entrance.

MrXxx, thank you for posting that link. For all those who didn't bother to click on it, it says that only those who were, in some way, a part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, assisted the people who pulled it off, or are/ were an effective part of al-Qaeda.

Well, things aren't perfect, but we seem to be fairly well set. Government spending is currently falling as a percentage of GDP (but is politically palatable because it is stable, or even rising slightly in absolute terms). Economic growth, while not spectacular, is beating expectations. CPP is fully funded on a going-forward basis. Public sector pension plans are also in surplus on a going-forward basis.

Our AAA rating is currently solid, interest rates are still low with no significant further downward pressure evident. The Canadian dollar is a solid safe haven currency.

There are some concerns--health care spending is a significant fiscal exposure for provincial governments, and federal health transfers are likely to continue to grow at 6%, well ahead of GDP. Productivity is always a concern, and likely to continue as the percentage of retirees in the population grows. But with solid working age population growth from immigration, we should still be able to manage the demographic bubble.

On the whole, not a bad country in which to find oneself.

what is written in sec 1031 overrides what is written in sec 1032 if you read carefully.
Quote from official gov web site. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeD ... n=BillText look it up yourself!! !



""S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

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.

(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) 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). ""

the bill number is S.1867 and it is in SEC. 1031 of that bill.
look it up your self at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeD ... n=BillText

Yes but they dont need to prove it! no trial no jury......

this is why you all need to vote for Ron Paul.

they have to follow orders.