Terrorist Congress Declares War on American People

[eye95]

OK, so we are all scared that the law says that the military is not required to detain American citizens???

I'd kinda be worried about laws that say that the military IS required to detain American citizens, not those that outlaw such a requirement!

 

[beebobby]

I understand that Pres. Obama has said he will veto it due to vague language.

 

[Gunslinger]

Given the context of the OP, quite the opposite of what?

I'm agreeing with your statement: "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." It is 'quite the opposite' of the fear mongers' interpretation.

 

[hammer6]

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.



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.



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

haha this is funny

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

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.



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.



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

The Federal Government are the Authority to exercise Power. If we as a citizenry prefer a Federal Government that does not function as it was established to function, then we must hold a Constitutional Convention, or as an alternative, belly-ache day in and out about the overreaching of the so-called Federal Government. This is just a hunch, but even if the former did occur, if there is a centralized government established, then you will have a Federal Government that functions in this way. Not that the States would handle themselves any better. The Founding Fathers were looking for a cohesive Union, and one where the tyranny of the States (the Founding Fathers believed was more likely that a tyranny of the Federal Government), or the potential of the tyranny of the States would have a Supreme Authority to Power to answer to. It appears that the "general government" as some term it, was a lesser of two evils.

Don't misunderstand me when I am appealing to the 'authority' of the Founding Fathers. They are dead. They left a document, the Constitution, a living breathing document, that is subject to change based on interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the current state of affairs in the U.S. I despise appealing to authority, but figured I can do it from time to time without making a habit of it. The only purpose the Constitution has is the purpose that we give it, and the derivations over the generations that have encompassed interaction with the Constitution. No document, no matter who it was designed by, no matter what their best intentions were, should subject any future generation to a rigid set of rules - THAT, my friends, is a tyranny over The People!

 

[230therapy]

Based upon the language in the law: Can a US citizen residing inside the United States and territories, who engages in terrorist acts (or plans them), be held indefinitely in military custody without access to legal representation and the criminal court system?

I don't want smart-assed answers either. If you don't know how to read law, then don't answer.

 

[eye95]

Based upon the language in the law: Can a US citizen residing inside the United States and territories, who engages in terrorist acts (or plans them), be held indefinitely in military custody without access to legal representation and the criminal court system?

I don't want smart-assed answers either. If you don't know how to read law, then don't answer.

As I read it, only if he took part in 9/11 or is a part of al Qaeda AND such detention was already permitted by the authorization to use force. In such a case, I say, "Have at him militarily and, once that is over, do it again using the civilian criminal process, assuming he is still alive."

 

[MilProGuy]

As I read it, only if he took part in 9/11 or is a part of al Qaeda AND such detention was already permitted by the authorization to use force. In such a case, I say, "Have at him militarily and, once that is over, do it again using the civilian criminal process, assuming he is still alive."

I'm certainly in agreement with you on this.

 

[hammer6]

The Federal Government are the Authority to exercise Power. If we as a citizenry prefer a Federal Government that does not function as it was established to function, then we must hold a Constitutional Convention, or as an alternative, belly-ache day in and out about the overreaching of the so-called Federal Government. This is just a hunch, but even if the former did occur, if there is a centralized government established, then you will have a Federal Government that functions in this way. Not that the States would handle themselves any better. The Founding Fathers were looking for a cohesive Union, and one where the tyranny of the States (the Founding Fathers believed was more likely that a tyranny of the Federal Government), or the potential of the tyranny of the States would have a Supreme Authority to Power to answer to. It appears that the "general government" as some term it, was a lesser of two evils.

Don't misunderstand me when I am appealing to the 'authority' of the Founding Fathers. They are dead. They left a document, the Constitution, a living breathing document, that is subject to change based on interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the current state of affairs in the U.S. I despise appealing to authority, but figured I can do it from time to time without making a habit of it. The only purpose the Constitution has is the purpose that we give it, and the derivations over the generations that have encompassed interaction with the Constitution. No document, no matter who it was designed by, no matter what their best intentions were, should subject any future generation to a rigid set of rules - THAT, my friends, is a tyranny over The People!

you're wrong. the Constitution is dead. it doesn't change. that's why it's on paper- it lists the limits of the GOVERNMENT, not the people. how can it be tyranny, if it does nothing to limit the people?

 

[okboomer]

The Federal Government are the Authority to exercise Power. If we as a citizenry prefer a Federal Government that does not function as it was established to function, then we must hold a Constitutional Convention, or as an alternative, belly-ache day in and out about the overreaching of the so-called Federal Government. This is just a hunch, but even if the former did occur, if there is a centralized government established, then you will have a Federal Government that functions in this way. Not that the States would handle themselves any better. The Founding Fathers were looking for a cohesive Union, and one where the tyranny of the States (the Founding Fathers believed was more likely that a tyranny of the Federal Government), or the potential of the tyranny of the States would have a Supreme Authority to Power to answer to. It appears that the "general government" as some term it, was a lesser of two evils.

Don't misunderstand me when I am appealing to the 'authority' of the Founding Fathers. They are dead. They left a document, the Constitution, a living breathing document, that is subject to change based on interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the current state of affairs in the U.S. I despise appealing to authority, but figured I can do it from time to time without making a habit of it. The only purpose the Constitution has is the purpose that we give it, and the derivations over the generations that have encompassed interaction with the Constitution. No document, no matter who it was designed by, no matter what their best intentions were, should subject any future generation to a rigid set of rules - THAT, my friends, is a tyranny over The People!

To exercise power over the states and to mediate between a state and it's citizenry in matters of infringement of civil rights?

As the Fed Gov operates now, they are taking more invasive stances on "policing" the citizenry and infringing upon not only the citizen's rights, but also the state's rights.

If you really want to see how invasive the Feds have tried to be, look at the relationship between the Native American tribes, their 'reservations' and how the FBI's authority to act there has been reduced ... look into the root causes of Wounded Knee. And there are other confrontations between the Native Americans and the BLM.

Vigilence is the duty of every American when it comes to the operation of our Federal Government and the laws passed/enacted by Congress. The problem is that our educational system has not been geared towards teaching critical thinking but rather towards herd mentality spoon fed a party line of "the Feds are your Friend and are Never Wrong."

If we don't take an active, pessimistic review of legislation, then, I agree, we are as culpable in misapplication of legislation and civil rights violations (Patriot Act) as the Feds and those who passed the legislation. Relying upon the Supreme Courts to provide remedies is still placing responsibility in the hands of others.

I am basically an optimistic person, but when it comes to the Feds, I am pessimistic, especially in light of it's past record ... and that doesn't mean that I think all the Fed is bad, just the parts that partake in social engineering ... Education, SS, USDA, FDA, BATFE, etc. A smaller, limited Fed is (and has been in the past) the least intrusive and leaves the most earnings in the pockets of the citizenry, yet, as it operates today, the Fed is all about the money ... how much it can take from the public before they object strenously.

When I saw 400Mil donated after 9/11, I told the ex that was a problem because now someone in DC was going to look at that and say "we aren't taxing them enough if they can give that much away." Here we are 10 years later, and look where we are at ... trillions of dollars in the hole. IMHO, several someones looked at that and used the Feds to take more of our money and redistribute the wealth.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

As I read it, only if he took part in 9/11 or is a part of al Qaeda AND such detention was already permitted by the authorization to use force. In such a case, I say, "Have at him militarily and, once that is over, do it again using the civilian criminal process, assuming he is still alive."

In order to be hung for treason, the only crime directly mentioned in the Constitution, one must still be indicted by a grand jury, tried in a civilian court of law where you are allowed a lawyer, convicted by a jury, and given the chance to appeal. Explain to me how, as someone who claims to support freedom, you can find no fault with a law that allows the military to detain a citizen regardless of the circumstances or what they may have done without any of the rights even a traitor is guaranteed?

Have you not learned from history that we have to protect the rights of even the most despicable criminals, or else we will surely lose our own?

 

[eye95]

The point, that is lost on many, is that there is a distinction between committing crime and making war. The first is a law enforcement matter. The second is a national defense matter. Treason is a crime. It should be handled by arresting the criminal and trying him--following all the laws (including the Constitution) and affording the defendant his rights. Making war is an act to which the military should respond militarily--without the need for due process, with the combatants having no rights until and unless they are captured, when the are afforded the rights afforded combatants, not the rights afforded defendants.

Some actions can be both criminal and war-making. It is not so much that such miscreants should be treated only as a criminal or only as a combatant, but may be treated as either or both! It will mainly be a factor of circumstances as to which response is most convenient or first or most effective or...

For example, if another 9/11 style attack is attempted, which would be both a crime and an act of war, should we attempt to apprehend and try the terrorists, or should we take military action and shoot the plane down before it can be used as a weapon of mass destruction? For an example from the other perspective, if we catch wind of a terror attack before the attack is fully implemented (again, both a crime and an act of war), should the cops arrest the terrorists or should we send the army in?

When the military is the responder to acts of war (which may also be crimes), there should be a set of rules--incredibly uncomplicated rules, so that the military does not have to consult a lawyer before protecting our collective asses--for them to follow in killing combatants, taking prisoners, and holding enemy combatants and prisoners of war.

When we try to make the reaction to acts of war fall under the same parameters as the reaction to criminal acts, we hamstring the military, making them less effective in defending the nation, as they expend effort trying to dot i's and cross t's instead of killing people and breaking things with a useful level of responsiveness.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

The point, that is lost on many, is that there is a distinction between committing crime and making war.

Then I'm happy to count myself among the many.

The first is a law enforcement matter. The second is a national defense matter. Treason is a crime. It should be handled by arresting the criminal and trying him--following all the laws (including the Constitution) and affording the defendant his rights. Making war is an act to which the military should respond militarily--without the need for due process, with the combatants having no rights until and unless they are captured, when the are afforded the rights afforded combatants, not the rights afforded defendants.

A citizen of the United States should never be denied due process by any branch of our government, including the military, when reasonably possible. Reasonable means using the least amount of force to stop the current threat. If he is charging our soldiers with weapon drawn, by all means neutralize him. If he is "suspected of aiding terrorists", holding him until the War on Emotion is over is preposterous. You seem to forget. Who determines who is a 'combatant'? Who determines what amount of evidence is sufficient? Who sets the objective standard? Who watches over to make sure the standard is followed?

And you forget, even enemy combatants have rights.

Some actions can be both criminal and war-making. It is not so much that such miscreants should be treated only as a criminal or only as a combatant, but may be treated as either or both! It will mainly be a factor of circumstances as to which response is most convenient or first or most effective or...

A citizen making war on the Unites States is TREASON. It should be handled as such, and they should be afforded all rights protected under the Constitution. Don't you think if the founders had meant 'people who make war against us don't get these rights' they would have said so? Most Convenient??? Do you seriously think the government should be allowed to handle thing in the most 'convenient' manner? Why limit it to 'combatants'? Why not throw dissenters in jail indefinitely too? It would be more convenient than giving them a trial, or hell, allowing free speech.

For example, if another 9/11 style attack is attempted, which would be both a crime and an act of war, should we attempt to apprehend and try the terrorists, or should we take military action and shoot the plane down before it can be used as a weapon of mass destruction? For an example from the other perspective, if we catch wind of a terror attack before the attack is fully implemented (again, both a crime and an act of war), should the cops arrest the terrorists or should we send the army in?

If another 9/11 style attack is attempted, it will work. TSA sure as hell won't be able to stop it. The military, last I checked, wasn't supposed to have jurisdiction within our borders. Or is that another step toward tyranny that you welcome with open arms? The only thing that will prevent terrorism is more freedom, not less. More citizens taking responsibility for their own defense, not less. And certainly not the occupation of the United States by it's own military.

When the military is the responder to acts of war (which may also be crimes), there should be a set of rules--incredibly uncomplicated rules, so that the military does not have to consult a lawyer before protecting our collective asses--for them to follow in killing combatants, taking prisoners, and holding enemy combatants and prisoners of war.

A very elegant straw man. Really, well done. There are already Rules of Engagement that our military is expected to follow. I have no problems with the military killing actual enemy combatants on a field of battle. I have little problem with them killing enemy combatants with missiles and drones rather than risk the lives of our soldiers. I have a problem with these same rules and tactics being applied to civilians of either side. I have a problem with labeling a traitor as a 'combatant' just to avoid the hassle of due process.

When we try to make the reaction to acts of war fall under the same parameters as the reaction to criminal acts, we hamstring the military, making them less effective in defending the nation, as they expend effort trying to dot i's and cross t's instead of killing people and breaking things with a useful level of responsiveness.

When we try to make the government abide by the confines of the Constitution, we hamstring the military, making them less effective in subjugating the nation. Why can't you see that? Can you guarantee that this law will never be misused or abused? Then why not stick with what we already have on the books. Like the Patriot Act that is already being misused and abused.

I ragequit this conversation until you either acknowledge that the law is bad for Freedom, or admit that you support a tyrannical government as long as it keeps you 'safe'. In other words, Moving on.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip]
If you really want to see how invasive the Feds have tried to be, look at the relationship between the Native American tribes, their 'reservations' and how the FBI's authority to act there has been reduced ... look into the root causes of Wounded Knee. And there are other confrontations between the Native Americans and the BLM.
[snip]

The nitty-gritty of the issue at hand is above. The Federal Governments relationship with Native American tribes adds to proof, confirmation of what I have been stating over, and over again, against what are many individuals who disagree, that, the Federal Government has the Authority to Power. What the Federal Government says, goes. I should point out that the Federal Government, if It has taken the approach where its Authority is reduced on reservations, it is only because the Federal Government has taken the position - don't mistaken that for some sort of confirmation that the Federal Government does not have the Authority to encroach on reservations.

Pull your head out of the clouds people, the Founding Fathers created a monster that was hoped to be less despotic, and tyrannical than individual States. Were they right in their belief that the States would be more despotic, and tyrannical than the Federal Government (?)...we may never know. What we do know is that the Federal Government has benefited society in many ways, while the States lagged behind, and were forced to move along with society.

 

[SourKraut]

Golly beretta lady, you say that what the Federal government says goes, but what about all the laws passed by Congress that have been struck down by the SCOTUS? You seem to think that the U.S.A. is a democracy. It is not a domocracy, the U.S.A. is a Constitutional Republic.

 

[Openlyaware]

!?!

What...these people say they want martial law basically!?!

 

[Freedom First]

What...these people say they want martial law basically!?!

What tyrant would turn down that power? Welcome to America.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

What...these people say they want martial law basically!?!

'They' are saying that the Federal Government has the Authority to declare Marshal Law, if the Federal Government deems it necessary.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Golly beretta lady, you say that what the Federal government says goes, but what about all the laws passed by Congress that have been struck down by the SCOTUS? You seem to think that the U.S.A. is a democracy. It is not a domocracy, the U.S.A. is a Constitutional Republic.

What about the Laws that have been passed, and that have been struck down by SCOTUS - you seem to think those Laws, through all-time, and eternity are going to be unConstitutional. Hmmm, you don't really believe that do you? Consider the make-up of the Court, and how it changes over time, as well as social 'norms'.

Yes, the United States is a Constitutional Republican - I am not disputing that. We are locally Democratic. Is it possible you misunderstood my post?

 

[230therapy]

As I read it, only if he took part in 9/11 or is a part of al Qaeda AND such detention was already permitted by the authorization to use force. In such a case, I say, "Have at him militarily and, once that is over, do it again using the civilian criminal process, assuming he is still alive."

Thanks eye95!!