• 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.

Terrorist Congress Declares War on American People

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
2A protects 4A... or so we thought...

Just in case any of you have been under a rock recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQExMBvJB2M&feature=player_embedded

Call your senator and tell them that "High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's government" and laws outlawing our 4th amendment fit into that category. Conspiracy to violate the 4th amendment is a CRIME. I am freaking PISSED and McCaskill and Blunt belong in JAIL, and I am calling them here in a bit to tell them so.

McCaskill 202-224-6154
Blunt 202-224-5721

(insert your senator in this thread or on your state thread and get the word out please)

(on speed dial)

Please take time to let them know. I am risking it and I have 9 children. Can you do less?

Thanks!!
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Shall we react to the report of the bill? Or to the actual text of it?

The text was posted in another thread an was a big yawner. Care to post the actual bill that you feel so threatens our rights?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

9026543

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You remind me of the lawyer who responds to a subpoena with a truckload of paper with the relevant 3 pages hidden in plain sight within the mass of deforestation.

I am afraid I'll have to be painfully explicit: Can you cite the specific portion of the bill that you feel threatens your rights. Someone posted the offending paragraphs in another thread and they were a real (and grossly misrepresented) yawner.

It seems more and more that getting folks fired up is more important than there being something to really be fired up about. Does not make us look too rational here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Shall we react to the report of the bill? Or to the actual text of it?

The text was posted in another thread an was a big yawner. Care to post the actual bill that you feel so threatens our rights?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Not the original poster but here it is for your reading pleasure all 926 pages of it in PDF form.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

You remind me of the lawyer who responds to a subpoena with a truckload of paper with the relevant 3 pages hidden in plain sight within the mass of deforestation.

Hmmmmm...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Anyone who fears the bill should not have to look up the part they fear. They ought to be able to cite chapter and verse. I see a lot of reaction to the fear-mongering and zero reaction to the bill.

Again, it should not be too hard to find. Someone posted the "offending" part in another thread. It is a yawner. It does not say what the fear-mongers are mongering.

Folks, stop following the crowd. Read for yourselves. Think for yourselves. Be outraged when you KNOW about a real danger, not when someone says there is one, but won't back up their assertions with quotes and facts!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Once again, I ask for specifics from the bill.

For all the hand-wringing, you'd think that one person could cite a specific threat from the bill.

It seems not.

Bandwagon fretting.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q50h7u2L5Y

Senator Rand Paul seems to be one of the fear mongers. Senator McCain's response is interesting. I do not know if the video was edited to add McCain for affect.

I see it completely opposite of you ... Rand Paul is asking pertinent questions about just what criteria is going to be used to determine if an American Citizen is a terrorist threat ... criteria that have been publicly announced, such as returning war vets, someone with more than 7 days of food in the house, protecting ammo by 'weather proofing' (mil surp ammo cannisters?), having more than one gun in the house?

And McCain's response is ... if they are terrorists by a vague and yet-to-be-determined list of criteria, then they need to be removed from being a terrorist WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?????

If this is representative of the posts that you delete, then I can certainly see why.

BTW - according to just the short list I used for example here, I qualify under 3 of the 4 criteria ... well, for the next 3 weeks, anyway :p
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q50h7u2L5Y

Senator Rand Paul seems to be one of the fear mongers. Senator McCain's response is interesting. I do not know if the video was edited to add McCain for affect.

I heard it completely opposite from you. Senator Rand Paul is arguing for a amendment to the legislation to completely remove the 'detainment' provisions.

So, now you are reversing your assertion that Rand Paul seems to be one of the fear mongers?
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
BTW - according to just the short list I used for example here, I qualify under 3 of the 4 criteria ... well, for the next 3 weeks, anyway :p

You smash your finger in the door and they will see it as a sign that you're going 4 for 4 and take you on down the cuba.

(I sure hope you're not missing a finger, cause then that joke won't make sense.)
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Rand described possibilities as to why the legislation should be amended to remove the 'detainment' provisions. He did not cite past cases of US citizens being detained in this country, though not all of his remarks were shown in the video, to support his assertion that US citizens will be detained because this 'law' will be abused.

First, there is no requirement of citation of past cases when discussing legislation and it's POSSIBLE AFFECT on the future. Second, he also didn't need to cite any of the MANY past misuses of abuses of laws to support the possible abusive application of this law.

His descriptions were in fact used to monger fear. I'll read his remarks from the record and get back to you. If he cited even one case, then I'll retract the appropriate comments.

Defense of the Bill of Rights and it's protections is fear mongering? Don't bother reading his remarks, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the proposed legislation VIOLATES our Bill of Rights which is the point he was making.

Pretzel logic to conclude that what is being claimed will happen, will in fact happen. There is no guarantee that this legislation will be signed into law (veto) and then a potential veto be overridden.

So you do not think the federal government will NOT abuse the proposed legislation to violate US Citizen's civil rights? Ruby Ridge, Waco, radiation experiments in the 1950s on orphans, eminent domain, IRS, Obamacare, CIA, Homeland Security, BATFE, Patriot Act, TSA searches at airports, just to name a few programs the Feds and States have violated individual and collective civil rights of US Citizens.

Quack quack
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Past illegal government action against US citizens have occurred. However, many cases have resulted in criminal and civil trials where the government and or its agents were adjudicated to have violated the law, with appropriate penalties applied (matter of perspective), or settlements between the affected parties agreed upon.

I do not read where a US citizen, or lawful resident alien can be legally detained and their constitutional rights be legally violated within the US.

Quite the opposite.
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
I believe you're referring to this section of the bill:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated 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) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.


Which, on its face, makes it seem that U.S. Citizens and resident aliens are exempt. They're not. This section says that the REQUIREMENT for military custody does not apply to U.S. citizens. It does not say that you are exempt from being held at the discretion of the military. It only says that the military is not required to hold you.
 
Last edited:

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
the fact that this is even being discussed goes to show you how far down the toilet we have flushed this country in the name of fighting "terrorism". Anyone with half a brain should have seen things like this coming as congress waved american flags and "debated" the Patriot act.

every law, every tactic, every bullet, every bomb....you must take the time to consider the consequences should these things ever be turned against the citizens. We need to stop with the tunnel vision and face up to the real problems and find real solutions.
 
Top