Michigan government relevant topic regarding NDAA

the ACLU has been known to defend open carriers.
http://www.copblock.org/13418/mark-fiorino-update-philadelphia-open-carrier/

kubel said:

Being the policeman of the world is what got us into this mess. I think the whole problem can be solved with a correction to our foreign policy. That means stop occupying foreign countries, stop nation building, stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, etc... But if you have to detain a terrorist (which is what this is all about), that detainment should be done while respecting their rights. So yes, that means Miranda, courts, and prison or execution if due process was followed. Though I'm not in favor of government executions. I would much rather they be killed as an imminent threat.

So we should just sit on our hands, and hope no one hurts us?, ask Neville Chamberlain how well appeasement works. You still don't seem to grasp that foreign terrorists, captured oversees have NO RIGHTS under the US Constitution, and are thus not entitled to a meranda warning, or even a trial.



Saudi Arabia for one. Prince Sultan Air Base was closed following 9/11 because it was a huge recruiting device for Al Qaeda. 15 of the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks were from Saudi Arabia. If you aren't aware of the relationship that the US has with the The House of Saud, you should dig a little deeper. We prop up the Saudi dictatorship in exchange for a supply of oil.

If it wasn't that it would have been something else do you honestly believe that if it weren't for that they wouldn't want to kill us? You believe the propaganda hook line, and sinker.

Paul Wolfowitz: "There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed–but it’s huge–is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle (sic) grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."

False.

National Security Council, 1954, said "The Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance," as it "contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world" as well as "essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict." Absolutely, the US has been and is occupying the Arabian Peninsula- and it won't end any time soon- there's still oil left.

It is of strategic importance, which is precisely why we should have bases there.

Our foreign policy makes our own enemies, unfortunately. I'll also point you to Michael Scheuer, former CIA head of Bin Laden unit in the 90's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU

Former: read fired.

And you say I'm the one buying the lies? I fear you are drinking the neo-con Kool-Aid if you say 9/11 wasn't blowback. 9/11 was obvious blowback. Read the 9/11 Commission Report findings.

You are just repeating whatever you are told, like blindly calling anyone who disagrees with you a "neo-con", I dought you even know the meaning of the word. There is nothing neo about it, I am just a plain old Conservative.




The precise undefined terms were "substantially supported," "directly supported" and "associated forces."
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Section 1021 and 1022.
https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutndaa/

Try an actual legal cite (like the actual text of the bill) not some advocacy site. In this case it sounds as if you would only get in trouble (if it's even possible) if you SUPPORT TERRORISTS, and if you do you deserve what you get. This of course makes the left, and their anti American allies upset because they support terrorists.

Per Wikipedia's article on NDAA: "The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces."

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, anybody can edit it to say anything.

NDAA is bad news for liberty.

Click to expand...

.

i "dought" the opinion of anyone who doesn't know how to spell the word "doubt"

i'm really not sure why this debate keeps turning to overseas policy when the NDAA DIRECTLY threatens us here in the US.

http://amberlyonlive.com/2012/10/10...-to-average-americans-protesters-journalists/

background on the author:

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-c...ist-amber-lyon-blows-the-whistle-2444190.html

she is the reporter who blew the whistle on CNN being payed by the govt to air or not air certain things

griffin said:

No we don't.

Click to expand...

Oh you got me there, I didn't realize oil was sold as a commodity on the global market. </sarcasm> :lol:

You don't think our puppet governments and our 'agreement' with Saudi Arabia is designed to keep a strategic hold on oil supply in the Middle East? If we pulled out our support for Saudi Arabia and the royal family fell (which it would) and we pulled back our CIA and our puppet governments collapsed, our supply of cheap oil, regardless of where it comes from, would be jeopardized. You oil addicts would be paying over $10/gal for gas! Watch the documentary "A Crude Awakening", it's actually really interesting. Another good one is Collapse (if you don't mind a few conspiracy theories thrown in here and there).

Ultimately, oil is the reason for NDAA, and oil has huge potential to limit our liberty in the near future. See the Hirsch Report. When oil peaks, the US will only get more entangled in Middle Eastern affairs (as will other big players). That means more foreign terrorists (resistance to US imperialism). It also means more civil unrest here at home. That means more domestic terrorists (not necessarily actual terrorists, but more people sick of their government, hordes of people unprepared, and then people who are somewhat prepared that have caches of weapons of ammo). What does the government do with people who they fear may rise up against them? Indefinite detention is a good start. We as gun owners will be the first target of NDAA abuse if the SHTF.

smellslikemichigan said:

i "dought" the opinion of anyone who doesn't know how to spell the word "doubt"

Click to expand...

Typical reaction of a lib, can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.

By the way look at the layout of the keyboard, and see how such a typo can happen.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

Typical reaction of a lib, can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.

By the way look at the layout of the keyboard, and see how such a typo can happen.

Click to expand...

SAC - I have met you both. I have actually stood next to both of you at different events where you were both carrying (unmentionables here). SLM is hardly a Liberal, he is about as pro rights/guns as they come. Let's try and remember even though we may disagree, at the end of the day we are all fighting for the same things: rights & freedom from those in Gov. that would seek to oppress us.

So we should just sit on our hands, and hope no one hurts us?, ask Neville Chamberlain how well appeasement works. You still don't seem to grasp that foreign terrorists, captured oversees have NO RIGHTS under the US Constitution, and are thus not entitled to a meranda warning, or even a trial.

Click to expand...

Rights don't come from constitutions. If you can't grasp that concept, you have no true understanding of what liberty is. That is why you support NDAA. But really, I'm quite selfish when it comes to rights. I care much more for NDAA impacting my liberty than some random person in the Middle East. I know, that's low of me. But back to the side track of foreign terrorism...

Terrorism is a direct result of our foreign policy. Correcting our foreign policy isn't giving in to "terrorism", it's the only way to defeat them. I put terrorism in quotes because it's just a word used to describe anyone really. The people we are killing in Afghanistan and Iraq now are resistance fighters- they had nothing to do with 9/11. They just want us off their land. They are motivated by our foreign policy, and their backwards religion (which says only martyrs are guaranteed salvation) encourages them.

If it wasn't that it would have been something else do you honestly believe that if it weren't for that they wouldn't want to kill us? You believe the propaganda hook line, and sinker.

Click to expand...

I answered your question quite well, and this is the retort?

False.

Click to expand...

LOL. I provided plenty of references. Wolfowitz is a hardcore neo-con, so to hear him say our foreign policy fueled 9/11... it's great. Also, see the 9/11 Commission Report.

It is of strategic importance, which is precisely why we should have bases there.

Click to expand...

If you want to occupy holy land to sustain your addiction to oil, you have to accept the consequences. That means more of our soldiers killed overseas, more attacks at home, and fear of both which means more legislation infringing on liberty, such as NDAA. Fortunately there are more and more people waking up to the concept of liberty.

Former: read fired.

Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? Can you dispute or agree with anything he had to say. Or was that a waste of my time? To further waste my time, he would not have served as a Special Adviser to the Chief of the bin Laden Unit from September 2001 to November 2004 if he was fired in 1999.

You are just repeating whatever you are told, like blindly calling anyone who disagrees with you a "neo-con", I dought you even know the meaning of the word. There is nothing neo about it, I am just a plain old Conservative.

Click to expand...

Interventionism is not a "plain old conservative" concept. It is a neoconcept (lol, new word, it came out that way in error but I'll leave it). I don't use neo-con as an insult. I voted for Bush 2.0, I was a neo-con myself, totally in favor of Patriot Act and probably would have allowed my blind fear for an enemy that doesn't exist to support the NDAA if it existed in the form it does back then. That was before I realized what liberty was and how our foreign policy is destroying this nation.

Now I fear the direction that neo-cons can lead us as much as the direction of gun-grabbing liberals. We are presented with a path of fear that splits into two directions that ultimately arrive at the same location- the loss of liberty. You are just choosing the path on the right. I'm not choosing the path on the left, I simply choose to not venture down that path.

Try an actual legal cite (like the actual text of the bill) not some advocacy site. In this case it sounds as if you would only get in trouble (if it's even possible) if you SUPPORT TERRORISTS, and if you do you deserve what you get. This of course makes the left, and their anti American allies upset because they support terrorists.

Click to expand...

I cited. I even cited the specific sections. The three phrases are not defined. The advocacy site was just a little bonus, it had nothing to do with the cite. But I encourage you to check it out.

People (like me) are very concerned. I'm a classical liberal, aka libertarian. Neolib might work, though I never heard it called that. I wouldn't be offended if you used it. But I might be offended if it were implied that I'm with 'the left, and their anti American allies', and 'support terrorists'. Though I'm not going to be offended because I doubt you would make such an implication simply because I do not support the NDAA. That would be silly.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, anybody can edit it to say anything.

Click to expand...

I didn't know I was composing a thesis. Ad hominem instead of addressing the content, come on, we can do better than this! I was just starting to have fun. Was there anything inaccurate that you would like to point out? Or are you willing to admit that the ACLU, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, journalists, and freedom-loving citizens such as myself are concerned that this bill does not go far enough to ensure liberty is not abused?

Small_Arms_Collector said:

Typical reaction of a lib, can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.

Click to expand...

Hmm, this sounds familiar.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

Former: read fired.

Click to expand...

Small_Arms_Collector said:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, anybody can edit it to say anything.

Click to expand...

Small_Arms_Collector said:

You are just repeating whatever you are told, like blindly calling anyone who disagrees with you a "neo-con", I dought you even know the meaning of the word.

Click to expand...

In each one of those instances you chose not to dispute the message, but instead, deflect and attacked the source.

kubel said:

We as gun owners will be the first target of NDAA abuse if the SHTF.

Click to expand...

I am not for NDAA. I am not for the Patriot Act, and have been against it ever since Bush 43 initiated it.

Kubel, don't confuse "neo-con" with libertarian. They are two totally different things. The two party system always has almost successfully destroyed any new political movement; whether libertarians and Tea Party members by the Republicans or the Progressives by the Democrats.

DrTodd said:

Kubel, don't confuse "neo-con" with libertarian. They are two totally different things. The two party system always has almost successfully destroyed any new political movement; whether libertarians and Tea Party members by the Republicans or the Progressives by the Democrats.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I said that. I said I used to be a new-con. Now I'm a libertarian.

kubel said:

I'm not sure where I said that. I said I used to be a new-con. Now I'm a libertarian.

Click to expand...

I see now where you used past tense when discussing typical neo-con endeavors. My bad.
I do note your distaste for inclusion in the notion of being thought of as "left". As a libertarian, usually using "left libertarian" as a more specific point of where I'd fall, I find that interesting. The finer point is that I see the danger of corporate power as much as governmental power... although they usually work together.