Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    131

    Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus


  2. #2
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Why is Congressional approval at 9% again?

    9%

    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    ********

    Im looking through the bill right now...and cannot find any reference to what the article was talking about. It's fear mongering. It doesn't even point to what section of the bill the alleged changes/additions were made.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    Why is Congressional approval at 9% again?

    9%

    I didn't read the article really and don't know what the bill is about, but I agree with your sentiment.

    Why is Congressional approval rate at 9%? I don't understand why it is so high.

    Nobody in the right mind would approve of Congress.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 11-26-2011 at 04:20 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    I was going to make a sarcastic post subtly mocking certain individuals that believe in the infallibility of our holy government. That post was going to use the word "abuse." But as I was contemplating what to say, something else came to mind.

    Is it really an abuse of law, when the law was designed for that very purpose? Isn't it more along the lines of utilization?

    If we were all deemed potential terrorists using the FBI definitions and then locked up in military prisons under this bill(assuming it went into law). Would that be an abuse of the law, or utilization thereof?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    If we were all deemed potential terrorists using the FBI definitions and then locked up in military prisons under this bill(assuming it went into law). Would that be an abuse of the law, or utilization thereof?
    It would be the utilization thereof. The law itself would be a violation of our Constitution, and an abusive affront to The People who look to our Constitution to help preserve our rights and freedoms guaranteed therein.

    Yet another letter fired off to my Congressman, as well as posted on my FB page in the hopes that the 40% of my 200+ friends who actually agree with me will forward it to their friends and all their Congressmen as well.

    WRITE, PEOPLE!!!

    To your Congressmen, I mean. Spouting off here is a great way to get things off your chest, but it won't accomplish much. Write your Congressmen!!!
    Last edited by since9; 11-27-2011 at 02:29 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Read the bill

    Instead of getting all worked up by an ACLU article, why not get the facts yourself and read the bill. Go to www.thomas.gov, search for bill S.1253...then look at section 1032 and then tell the rest of us what it means .

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Instead of getting all worked up by an ACLU article, why not get the facts yourself and read the bill. Go to www.thomas.gov, search for bill S.1253...then look at section 1032 and then tell the rest of us what it means .
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...ZKE6K:e464501:

    SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

    (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) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.

    (2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be--

    (A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and

    (B) a participant 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) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    (c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on 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 date.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    WRITE, PEOPLE!!

    To your Congressmen, I mean. Spouting off here is a great way to get things off your chest, but it won't accomplish much.
    neither will this - they're not listening ... why do you think their approval rating is single digits?

    ready or not, revolution is coming
    Last edited by RockyMtnScotsman; 11-28-2011 at 09:14 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by RockyMtnScotsman View Post
    neither will this - they're not listening ... why do you think their approval rating is single digits?

    ready or not, revolution is coming
    I sincerely hope that is a revolution at the ballot box and nothing else.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES."



    Our country is a battlefield, and these (Al-Qaeda) combatants should be dealt with as if we are in a declared war.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    "SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES."



    Our country is a battlefield, and these (Al-Qaeda) combatants should be dealt with as if we are in a declared war.
    And how do you keep patriots from being treated as enemy combatants when a corrupt administration sees them as their enemy?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    SNIP Our country is a battlefield, and these (Al-Qaeda) combatants should be dealt with as if we are in a declared war.
    (yawn)

    Yeah. The 3rd Battalion, 14th Mooj is just this minute encircling Wichita.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-29-2011 at 12:23 AM.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (yawn)

    Yeah. The 3rd Battalion, 14th Mooj is just this minute encircling Wichita.
    Better circle the wagons, boys!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    And how do you keep patriots from being treated as enemy combatants when a corrupt administration sees them as their enemy?
    He believes the government is infallible.


    Posted using my HTC Evo

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    He believes the government is infallible.


    Posted using my HTC Evo
    if "He," you are referring the the President, then yes; we should include all the rest of them, Congress, SCOTUS. They are the Authority, so in that context, they are infallible. Even if a Law is passed, and signed, then SCOTUS finds the Law to be unConstitutional, the two former branches are still infallible. SCOTUS is merely finding the Executive Branch, and Congress, by their interpretation, to be fallible.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    if "He," you are referring the the President, then yes; we should include all the rest of them, Congress, SCOTUS. They are the Authority, so in that context, they are infallible. Even if a Law is passed, and signed, then SCOTUS finds the Law to be unConstitutional, the two former branches are still infallible. SCOTUS is merely finding the Executive Branch, and Congress, by their interpretation, to be fallible.
    in·fal·li·ble
       [in-fal-uh-buhl] Show IPA
    adjective
    1.
    absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
    2.
    unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
    3.
    not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
    4.
    Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.

    Since when has the governement been free of error? been trustworthy?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    SNIP Since when has the governement been free of error? been trustworthy?
    Not arguing; just using your post as a springboard to mention something else.

    Our form of government (democrat constitutional republic) is founded on a criminal premise. Literally. What am I talking about? Lemme explain.

    It is wrong for me to rob you.

    If several of us got together and agreed by a vote to send me to rob you, it is still criminal.

    Regarding government, just because a thousand voters got together and voted--in secret, no less--another citizen to oversee the extortions cannot suddenly render the extortions less criminal. One could say it is "legitimized criminality," but it is still a criminal premise--it operates on exactly the same principle. Some may consider it necessary, a necessary evil, but it still operates on a criminal principle. My point is not that it is not necessary; for all I know it may indeed be a necessary criminality. My point is:

    Government is founded on a criminal premise. And, it only gets worse from there as it expands outward and as the government grows. Thus corruption is common. Personal aggrandizement is common. Pandering is common. Selling the rights of citizens for a few bucks from a lobbyist is common.

    Of course these things are common!! What else can one expect? The whole system is founded on a criminal premise.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    If anyone wants to see how our Government treats US Citizens it doesn't like and sees as "enemies", when it believes it has unlimited unaccountability, they should go ask Vicki Weaver...

    Or maybe they should ask Chanel Andrade, Page Gent, Lisa Martin, Crystal Martinez, Mayanah Schneider, or Rachel Sylvia...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  21. #21
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    if "He," you are referring the the President, then yes; we should include all the rest of them, Congress, SCOTUS. They are the Authority, so in that context, they are infallible. Even if a Law is passed, and signed, then SCOTUS finds the Law to be unConstitutional, the two former branches are still infallible. SCOTUS is merely finding the Executive Branch, and Congress, by their interpretation, to be fallible.
    Two things.

    1. The he I refer to is MilProGuy.
    2. Your post directly contradicts itself.

    In one hand you claim the government is infallible, thus cannot err, intentionally or otherwise. Then you point out that it is in fact possible for them to err.

    Though contradictions are expected from you, so not surprised.



    Posted using my HTC Evo

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Two things.

    1. The he I refer to is MilProGuy.
    2. Your post directly contradicts itself.

    In one hand you claim the government is infallible, thus cannot err, intentionally or otherwise. Then you point out that it is in fact possible for them to err.

    Though contradictions are expected from you, so not surprised.



    Posted using my HTC Evo

    I never stated that the function of our Government was not contradictory. I wasn't sure who you were referring to. I figured it might be the Government.

    My whole point is that the Government has absolute Authority, and when the Government is fallible, the Government has the Authority to render that fallibility whatever it sees fit. Individuals think they can tame a criminal enterprise (Government). You collectively hand over the Authority to an entity, then you get what we have here in the Government we are a slave to.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    And how do you keep patriots from being treated as enemy combatants when a corrupt administration sees them as their enemy?
    I, personally, do not know of any patriots who are / have been treated like enemy combatants.

    Don't think I've seen anything about it in the news, either.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  24. #24
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    He believes the government is infallible.
    Nope.

    Just believe that living a moral, honest, law-abiding life will keep patriots from being treated like scumbag enemy combatants.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  25. #25
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779

    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •