Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Legislation Alert! Re: Elimination “Probable Cause” For Arrests

  1. #1
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Post imported post

    As OCers, and as we post on this forum, if this passes we will have to watch what we do and what is said over the internet as an individual and agroup, even gathering at picknic's while ocing could become a red flag to those in power, should theyperceive it as a threat.


    I know it seems that one shouldn't be so paranoid, and this bill in its appearance is aimed atterrorist and anti government activities to include verbal and written anti government views in country, out of country and over the internet, but the language is so broad, that itcould allow law enforcement to interpret any written, verbal and gatherering activity as anti government and apply an arrest and detention without probable cause to its own citizens. As a society, with the pasage of this billit is possible we couldbecome afraid of voicing our opinions against government policy, especially when we start to see our next door neighbor disappearing and not returning, could it happen, I wonder!!


    For example, look at section (E) below and question its intent, meaning and who it may apply to, if passed:



    S. 3081: Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010


    Read the entire bill at the link below

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s111-3081


    Please read it and ask yourself if there are loopholes or vagueness in the wording.
    Such as "(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate" It is assumed "hostiles to the United States" implies people connected to Al Qadea: "(9) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—
    22 The term ‘‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’’ means an
    23 individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
    24 (A) has engaged in hostilities against the
    25 United States or its coalition partners;1(B) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture." But my question is what is really considered "hostilities against the U.S.? Could it extend as far as anyone who's fed up with the way policy is going and speaking out against it, or trying to get them changed?
    This big clincher in the (9) lines 22-25 are written prior:
    (3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT
    6 AND RIGHTS.—A individual who is suspected of
    7 being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not,
    8 during interrogation under this subsection, be pro
    9vided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona
    10 (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of
    11 any rights that the individual may or may not have
    12 to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Mi
    13randa v. Arizona.
    EVEN ON AMERICAN SOIL! For Shame! Questioning without representation because they "Suspect" a person. Isn't that the same as guilty until proven innocent?
    I understand our needing to be protected from those who would harm us, but lets take a look at this a little closer. I read some headlines that stated military was refusing to destroy heroin poppies over seas, due to wanting the people in the poor communities to cooperate with them and Al Qadea telling those people that they would avenge them if such things went on. Yes, the drug poppies fund Al Qadea forces, also heroin is illegal in the U.S. and our leaders have said if a person uses drugs they are funding our enemy. Do you see where this can lead? More overzealous drug laws and enforcements against people who really have no connection with the enemy forces.
    I have concerns that it is one more way to erode our constitutional freedoms. Rights that did not say it only applied under specific circumstances, but ones that were inalienable.

    S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out.

    S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.”

    McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts" supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts" are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However, U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. It is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

    FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081, the McCain bill could bring America to the same place crushing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government in Section (1) and (4), similar to U.S. S.3081, suspend personal liberty— shutdown Free Speech to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:

    See Section 1
    “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

    Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights, ordered the arrest of Citizens for any ACT that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S.3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written any person or group attending a protest could be arrested without provable cause and detained if government charged a protest-supported hostilities.

    See Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6
    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.



    Don






  2. #2
    Regular Member Cobra469's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Allis, WI, , USA
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    Yes soon anything opposing our government views will be considered terroristic or a matter of national security. Sounds like they may even use that against any state militias if they are deemed to be some sort of threat regardless if they are or not.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    soon, local police depts will be nationalized &issued these new snappy Black uniforms. Looks like Obama, America's National Socialist Fuhrer, is slowly striping away our rights & freedoms, just like Hitler did when he came to power in the 30's.......Can any of you see the similarities ??? or am I the only closet WW2 historian here ....History repeating it's self in America..

    We are now living in very scary times people....as the sheeple continue to sleep:X
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    ...and Gauleiter Schäferhund continues to herd his sheeple, too stupid to know.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Post imported post

    Glock34, I too dabble in the history of the world and yes, I have seen the federal government follow in the Nazi foot steps. When I point these facts out to people I know they ridicule me and of course think I am paranoid. I hope it is just paranoia but I don't think so.

    The clincher for me was when Obama during his campaign stated that we need a police force as powerful as our military and as well funded (close enough to what he said). Dig into this statement and ask yourself what does he mean? Does Obama want a federal police force more powerful than our own military so he can order them to subdue Americans who protest? Didn't Hitler do the exact same thing? Yes.

    It isn't just Obama either, it is our entire federal government. How can any intelligent and patriotic American come up with these bills to become law? How can they even imagine such laws as good for the People? Only answer that I can think of is control of us, the People. Make everything illegal to keep us in line and take over as much of the private sector as possible and before long every one of us will need "government assistance" to pay our bills.

    Wake up America!


    The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams

    Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

    John F. Kennedy

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I believe the law would only pertain to those who are not priveledged to have rights under the U.S. Constitution.

    Such as Al Queda for example or any other non U.S. citizen.

    Which is as it should be. Our constitution should only apply to Americans.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    I believe the law would only pertain to those who are not priveledged to have rights under the U.S. Constitution.

    Such as Al Queda for example or any other non U.S. citizen.

    Which is as it should be. Our constitution should only apply to Americans.
    Ah...but the problem is as soon as they charge you they also can remove your citizenship by declaring you a domestic terrorist or anything similar. Then you are fair game for the jack booted thugs.
    The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams

    Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

    John F. Kennedy

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Our constitution should only apply to Americans.
    Yes, that is correct, but what of the rights only enumerated by the Bill of Rights and not granted by our creator, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

    Are certain rights inalienable from humans?

  9. #9
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    this stinks, it smells so bad, i can smell it all the way over here! Laws of this nature are usually perverted to control a population. history has shown this.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    And the NRA is where exactly on this???

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    And the NRA is where exactly on this???
    Oh they are probably bargaining their position on this in order to get what they want on another issue.

    By the way what ever happened to Jordan Austin the Wisconsin liaison?
    So much for his work on the Castle doctrine and any form of a CCW/OCW bill.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Our constitution should only apply to Americans.
    Yes, that is correct, but what of the rights only enumerated by the Bill of Rights and not granted by our creator, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

    Are certain rights inalienable from humans?
    That depends on the person we are talking about. For example Bin Laden doesn't deserve anything, no trial, no lawyer, no rights period. It almost seems like using a bullet on him is to generous. I would rather see him drug behind a pick up with a dog chain until his remains are scattered from one side of the country to the other.

    But back to the topic, I believe, and this is just my opinion, that people who are not citizens of the U.S. do not have any rights under our constitution. Does this mean that say an illegal immigrant should be beaten and mistreated while being processed through our legal system, NO.

    It means they shouldn't even have the tax payers dollars spent to put them through the legal system. Turn them over to their own government and hold that government accountable for the prosecution. Think of the millions spent on a daily basis because our courts are prosecuting people who should not even be here.

    Granted if an illegal immigrant or other wise illegal person who commits the crime of murder here in the U.S. should be prosecuted here in the U.S. so the victims family knows that justice will be served. That doesn't mean that criminal has rights under our constitution. He is still not a U.S. citizen.

    The bleeding heart liberal socialists of this country that insist that anyone presently in the U.S. has rights under the constitution are the ones who are creating the illegal immigration problem.

    As far as inalienable human rights, feed them bread and water.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    We'll cut to the quick. Does an illegal immigrant have a right to a gun?

    If he doesn't then we all, you and I, can be properly disarmed.

  14. #14
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    And the NRA is where exactly on this???
    Exactly why I'm not an NRA member. I think the funds are better put to use in our own home state with WCI. In fact, I haven't seen the NRA doing anything related to any of the cases or issues that are pending in the state. Correct me if I'm wrong...

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Like other organizations in the state, the NRA keeps its cards close to its chest, showing them only to some members and only when it benefits the image of the NRA. The NRA has a number of agents and proxies in Wisconsin and imitators too.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    We'll cut to the quick. Does an illegal immigrant have a right to a gun?

    If he doesn't then we all, you and I, can be properly disarmed.
    Why? Are you here illegally?

    There is a difference in our ancestors coming to America and going through the legal channels to become citizens of the United States granting their descendants Rights under the U.S. Constitution and Illegal immigrants sneaking into this country and trying to imply that they also should be granted those rights.

    IMHO, illegals coming here and birthing a child does not make that child a citizen of the U.S. and does not mean that the parents should automatically be granted citizenship.

    If my wife and I go on vacation to Germany and she goes into labor and has a child there in Germany does that automatically make him a German citizen or does that automatically mean that my wife and I can be granted citizenship in Germany? No it does not.

    Therefore, I respectfully disagree and I do not believe that an illegal immigrants inablilty to legally purchase a firearm in the U.S. means that you or I could "properly" be disarmed.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    So the right to a gun is a privilege granted by the state to its citizens?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So the right to a gun is a privilege granted by the state to its citizens?
    the right to own a gun, is a right..that American Citizens have. The right to keep & bear arms is an American right...not a world wide right...our Bill of rights is strictly meant for Americans, not the entire world.




    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So the right to a gun is a privilege granted by the state to its citizens?
    No the right to keep and bear arms is a right granted by the U.S. Constitution to the citizens of the United States.

    The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and it applies to American citizens here in America. It does not apply in any other country and therefore should not apply to any non citizen in this country. But that is just my opinion.

    Look at Mexico for example, if a person here, even a legal citizen commits murder and runs to Mexico, the Mexican government will not even extradite the individual unless the U.S. Government promises that the individual will not face the death penalty.

    Now, if that is the case then the Mexican Government should take full responsibility for that individual from that point on. That individual should lose all citizenship in the U.S.

    Not having individual Constitutions and allowing every person in this world Rights and privileges under the U.S. constitution amounts to nothing more than a One World Government period.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    So then the Bill of Rights enumerating God given rights is a convenient fiction? Worse, the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence is a lie,
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    Also among these unalienable Rights are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    So then the Bill of Rights enumerating God given rights is a convenient fiction? Worse, the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence is a lie,
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    Also among these unalienable Rights are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
    Nope, not saying that at all. What I am saying is that there are laws created to restrict our own rights as citizens such as CCW laws and the likes. With that in mind there are also laws on the books that determine who is and isn't a legal citizen of the U.S. We must abide by those laws until they are repealed or amended.

    The U.S. Constitution is not recognized as law by any other country. Therefore the citizens of those countries do not enjoy the rights granted under the U.S. Constitution.

    Otherwise there would be no gun ban in England and citizens there would not have to be in fear of crazy cab drivers driving through town and shooting innocent people. They would actually have a right to carry a firearm for self defense.

    Would it be fair to bring Bin Laden to the U.S. and as soon as he arrives say that he has a right to a fair trial and he is innocent until proven guilty? Even after he has stated to the whole world on video that he is responsible for 9/11?

    Would it be fair to try him there in say Afghanistan under U.S. law? or should it be under Afghanistan law?

    ETA: Would it be fair to bring him here to the U.S. and try him under Afghanistan law even though that could mean he could be found innocent or even to be set free because of some religious clause?

    If anyone who is in America right now at this moment has all rights under the U.S. Constitution then haven't we already achieved a one world government order?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    As long as people continue to support and vote for either Democrats or Republicans, you can expect your freedoms to slowly erode way.

    I am done with both those parties. They are two sides of the same coin and together have helped build a tremendous threat against liberty loving Americans.

    I will support Libertarians. Out of these three parties, they are the ones that stand the strongestfor preserving individual freedoms and rights for all of our people.

  23. #23
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Post imported post

    Getting back on track with the as cited ‘‘Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010[/b], I believe that this law gives broad power to the government to determine who is a threat, and the ability to detain and arrest without probable cause any "individual, including a citizen of the United States"[/b] or any group of people whom the Government deems to be a threat to the US as defined under section 5.. We as OCers are a growing group of people organized through out the United States armed daily when ever we leave the house.

    We have a forum that is centralized for all to view, including the government, “and don’t think for a moment that they don’t read what is written in all the states forums” where we all discuss various issues related to government and its enactment of laws. We discuss planed gathering and in an open forum voice our disapproval of any law that we perceive as a violation of our rights as US citizens and what we plane on doing about those violations.

    As an individual OCer or as part of a group of OCers should we ever gather for other then picnic’s, and begin to train together to fire our handguns whether for marksmanship or under combat situations, you have to wonder would we then be considered a Militia by others and our government? And if we do, and discuss on this forum our dissatisfaction in the enactment of laws that we perceive as a violation of our rights and gather to protest, would we then come under scrutiny by the government and would they deem us a threat and use this law to detain and arrest us?.

    The term militia as defined below is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. In other words, and “I’m sure this will be debated” as a militia we are a group of citizens organized to defend this country as ordinary citizens working with the military, and law enforcement, as opposed to being organized to fight against a runaway government who enact laws that take away our freedoms.

    The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

    • Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
    • The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
    · A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.

    · A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

    • A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
    • An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.
    • The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
    • In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.
    • A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.
    This Act is a real eye opener for me, as I exercise my 2nd amendment right to open carry in Wisconsin hoping it isn’t ever taken away. It seems that although we can voice our dissatisfaction both verbally and in writing against a government entity, state or federal about new laws that are proposed and or enacted that takes away our freedoms, including peaceful demonstrations, we have to be carful under this Act, Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,[/b] that our written and oral statement don’t cross the line and become a perceived physical threat against the state and or federal government, as I’m sure common sense would dictate, even without this Act.



    I have and will continue to voice my dissatisfaction, “absent any physical threat”, against any law proposed or enacted by state or federal government that takes away my freedom I fought so hard to keep while serving in the military. As a military man and now as a veteran, I took an oath to defend this country and still honor that oath and would, at the drop of a hat, take up arms and confront any enemy that attacks this country.




    SEC. 3. INTERROGATION AND DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.


    (2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES[/b].—the regulations required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee based on the following:



    (A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.



    (B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.



    (C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.



    (D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.



    (E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.[/b]



    [size=SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.]



    An individual, including a citizen of the United States[/b], determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States [/b]or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.



    Don




  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    So.... DOUG. instead of always playing Devils Advocate, why do you not use your intelligence to draft letters to send to our elected officials so that the few of us who happen to be not as smart as you would be able to get our point across.



    your energy put into a more positive way ( instead of playing D.A.) may prove to beneficial to us.. what do you think? or are you a socialist in disguise? time to pony up as i see this as a serious matter

  25. #25
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    So.... DOUG. instead of always playing Devils Advocate, why do you not use your intelligence to draft letters to send to our elected officials so that the few of us who happen to be not as smart as you would be able to get our point across.



    your energy put into a more positive way ( instead of playing D.A.) may prove to beneficial to us.. what do you think? or are you a socialist in disguise? time to pony up as i see this as a serious matter
    Remember, he IS an elected official...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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