• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus

SIGguy229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
349
Location
Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
********

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.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Why is Congressional approval at 9% again?

9%

:banghead:

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:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

FTG-05

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
441
Location
TN
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/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112hZKE6K: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.
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
"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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
"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?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 
Top