My friend said that the U.S. Senete voted 91 to 9 to make it legal for the Army to come snatch us out of our houses for being terrorists and taking us to a concentration camp with no legal rights Thursday night. Some Homeland Defense Act. Does anyone know about this?
-
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.
-
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.
Is this going to effect us.......
- Thread starter jsanchez
- Start date
amlevin
Regular Member
Read the legislation, don't fall for the scare BS put out by some.
Freedom First
Regular Member
I suppose the real question is, "Do I trust the federal government to treat me fairly?" Well, do ya punk?...
aktion
Regular Member
That's putting it mildly.
OP - Did you pay attention to what happened during Hurricane Katrina? Whether it's legal or not, if you find the Army is kicking your door in........wouldn't your response be the same, regardless?
Tawnos
Regular Member
Maybe he meant "will it bring us about" (not really, but couldn't resist a chance to post this):
Freedom First
Regular Member
I'm a mild guy. Suffice to say, I have read the legislation in question and having read a couple of old dusty histories of the Weimar Republic, things like this make me very nervous.
44Brent
Regular Member
Misreading the Fight Over Military Detention: Obama Regime Has No Constitutional Scru
Paul Craig Roberts
December 5, 2011
During an interview with RT on December 1, I said that the US Constitution had been shredded by the failure of the US Senate to protect American citizens from the detainee amendment sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment permits indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. I also gave my opinion that the fact that all but two Republican members of the Senate had voted to strip American citizens of their constitutional protections and of the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act indicated that the Republican Party had degenerated into a Gestapo Party.
These conclusions are self-evident, and I stand by them.
However, I jumped to conclusions when I implied that the Obama regime opposes military detention on constitutional grounds. Ray McGovern and Glenn Greenwaldmight have jumped to the same conclusions.
An article by Dahlia Lithwickin Slate reported that the entire Obama regime opposed the military detention provision in the McCain/Levin amendment. Lithwick wrote: “The secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI, the CIA director, and the head of the Justice Department’s national security division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the bill are a bad idea. And the White House continues to say that the president will veto the bill if the detainee provisions are not removed.”
I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples.
However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war . As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”
The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.
By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.
A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detentionsupports this conclusion. The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”
In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.
Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
Paul Craig Roberts
December 5, 2011
During an interview with RT on December 1, I said that the US Constitution had been shredded by the failure of the US Senate to protect American citizens from the detainee amendment sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment permits indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. I also gave my opinion that the fact that all but two Republican members of the Senate had voted to strip American citizens of their constitutional protections and of the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act indicated that the Republican Party had degenerated into a Gestapo Party.
These conclusions are self-evident, and I stand by them.
However, I jumped to conclusions when I implied that the Obama regime opposes military detention on constitutional grounds. Ray McGovern and Glenn Greenwaldmight have jumped to the same conclusions.
An article by Dahlia Lithwickin Slate reported that the entire Obama regime opposed the military detention provision in the McCain/Levin amendment. Lithwick wrote: “The secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI, the CIA director, and the head of the Justice Department’s national security division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the bill are a bad idea. And the White House continues to say that the president will veto the bill if the detainee provisions are not removed.”
I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples.
However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war . As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”
The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.
By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.
A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detentionsupports this conclusion. The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”
In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.
Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
Freedom First
Regular Member
Interesting read. This bill is just another link in the chains they have been busy forging for the last 100 years.
"...Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging..."
There's nothing new under the sun.
amlevin
Regular Member
Freedom First
Regular Member
Gosh, wonder what this is about?...
New MOS for MPs. Internment/Resettlement Specialist (31E)
"Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel."
Please note the distinction between "military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment" sites. One is a prison for military convicts, the other is an internment camp for people THEY DEFINE AS TERRORISTS. The key is the definition and WHO MAKES IT.
And I need a tin foil hat? You need to wake up. Tyrannical governments DO put people in camps. Always have, always will. Concentration camps, gulags, internment centers? The difference? The name brand. Nazi, Soviet, American (Japanese Americans in WW2 and Germans in WW1)... How about the "war on terror"? GITMO already exists and there are the ships kept at sea just to keep what would otherwise be illegal prisoners safely in custody.
"I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging." Thomas Paine
The above quote easily applies to our nation today if you have eyes to see it.
New MOS for MPs. Internment/Resettlement Specialist (31E)
"Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel."
Please note the distinction between "military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment" sites. One is a prison for military convicts, the other is an internment camp for people THEY DEFINE AS TERRORISTS. The key is the definition and WHO MAKES IT.
And I need a tin foil hat? You need to wake up. Tyrannical governments DO put people in camps. Always have, always will. Concentration camps, gulags, internment centers? The difference? The name brand. Nazi, Soviet, American (Japanese Americans in WW2 and Germans in WW1)... How about the "war on terror"? GITMO already exists and there are the ships kept at sea just to keep what would otherwise be illegal prisoners safely in custody.
"I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging." Thomas Paine
The above quote easily applies to our nation today if you have eyes to see it.
aktion
Regular Member
I've spent enough time visiting Concentration Camps in the Fatherland to find your pithy, internet meme response to be.....ineffectual at actually addressing anything posted here. I have a healthy, twisted gallows sense of humor, too. Perhaps from all that time staring at meat hooks and blood stained marble examination tables at Sachsenhausen.
Suit yourself, this is all a conspiracy theory. Take it to the bank
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
I've spent enough time visiting Concentration Camps in the Fatherland to find your pithy, internet meme response to be.....ineffectual at actually addressing anything posted here. I have a healthy, twisted gallows sense of humor, too. Perhaps from all that time staring at meat hooks and blood stained marble examination tables at Sachsenhausen.
Suit yourself, this is all a conspiracy theory. Take it to the bank
WWII saw America get a black eye on Civil Rights issues too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#United_States
We unlawfully locked up American citizens, and confiscated their property without due process. That was not too long ago.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
U.S. has a history of camps, after victory over the south, our country put many "free" black folks in camps were 1/2 the population were dying. And our government didn't care. In my opinion reservations were nothing but camps for natives, waiting for them to die off or integrate into U.S. society. My great aunt wrote a book on the subject of U.S. policy toward natives. "Forgotten Genocide" Pauline Hillaire.
jt59
Regular Member
SVG is right....and just like that, it felt like a police state.
A friend of mine was at Mt. Rainier in the middle of all that mess. He was the third car in the parking lot at Paradise that morning, and likely was in line with the shooter in Longmire waiting on the gate to open, once in Paradise, he donned his snow shoes and proceeded up to Muir. Not too far up the trail he heard the noise, but didn't connect the dots as gunfire until later.
Hours later, he got back down and was greeted by a LEO with a rifle pointed at him ordering him to put his hands in the air and come forward. He had one sniper with a gun pointed at him that he could see, he dropped to a knee to take off sno-shoes so he could comply and the officer got very agitated and had his weapon on him. He was ushered into the visitor center, face checked and put with the rest of the detainee's while he observed another SWAT officer parading around on the group of men, women and (crying) children, with a double clip for his weapon and his finger ON the trigger at all times, moving about in the group "guarding" them for their own protection.....as an aside, some of the SWAT members he said were from the Department of Agriculture....children of the corn I suppose.
This was a tragedy to be sure, but the way the women and children were traumatized is as sad.
I don't believe for a minute that some things couldn't turn south in a hurry and would in any number of different scenarios. I carry up in the park all the time now when I go....I'm glad I wasn't hiking this day with my Kimber...open or concealed and then ushered at demand into the federal building....."Officer, I can't take my side arm into a federal building...can I go put it into my car please?"....The shooter would have been hard put to get from barn flats to the upper parking lot in chest deep snow and tennis shoes, and indeed didn't. I believe his intent was Mayhem not a survivalist escape but....this lockdown in many ways was much an effectively executed show of excessive force and an example of what could be.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/06/beware-us-education-department-swat-team
A friend of mine was at Mt. Rainier in the middle of all that mess. He was the third car in the parking lot at Paradise that morning, and likely was in line with the shooter in Longmire waiting on the gate to open, once in Paradise, he donned his snow shoes and proceeded up to Muir. Not too far up the trail he heard the noise, but didn't connect the dots as gunfire until later.
Hours later, he got back down and was greeted by a LEO with a rifle pointed at him ordering him to put his hands in the air and come forward. He had one sniper with a gun pointed at him that he could see, he dropped to a knee to take off sno-shoes so he could comply and the officer got very agitated and had his weapon on him. He was ushered into the visitor center, face checked and put with the rest of the detainee's while he observed another SWAT officer parading around on the group of men, women and (crying) children, with a double clip for his weapon and his finger ON the trigger at all times, moving about in the group "guarding" them for their own protection.....as an aside, some of the SWAT members he said were from the Department of Agriculture....children of the corn I suppose.
This was a tragedy to be sure, but the way the women and children were traumatized is as sad.
I don't believe for a minute that some things couldn't turn south in a hurry and would in any number of different scenarios. I carry up in the park all the time now when I go....I'm glad I wasn't hiking this day with my Kimber...open or concealed and then ushered at demand into the federal building....."Officer, I can't take my side arm into a federal building...can I go put it into my car please?"....The shooter would have been hard put to get from barn flats to the upper parking lot in chest deep snow and tennis shoes, and indeed didn't. I believe his intent was Mayhem not a survivalist escape but....this lockdown in many ways was much an effectively executed show of excessive force and an example of what could be.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/06/beware-us-education-department-swat-team
Last edited: