US Senate declares the entire USA to be a "battleground"

[MikeH]

US Senate declares the entire USA to be a "battleground"

Not sure if this is some conspiracy junk, but if this is legitimate, I'll see you guys in Australia.

[Pooluke41]

No come to England, we have bad teeth, you can trust us.




But seriously, This ACTA and all these other bills are disgusting...
Seriously I feel so sorry for America..

[Konfyouzd]

Hmm...

Looks like it's time to become an immigrant. Good thing I don't bitch ab that. I might feel guilty otherwise.

[GATA4]

I honestly feel like we will be in a legitimate civil war within the decade.

[murakami]

oh my god... this is horrible... and i can definitely see this getting so much worse. possibly a civil war. god, i hope not.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by GATA4

I honestly feel like we will be in a legitimate civil war within the decade.

Originally Posted by murakami

oh my god... this is horrible... and i can definitely see this getting so much worse. possibly a civil war. god, i hope not.

That's a quite a stretch...

Civil war? Really? C'mon guys, read through the article yourself and see what it actually says, not interpreted from some European that's looking from the outside in.

[Konfyouzd]

Originally Posted by GATA4

I honestly feel like we will be in a legitimate civil war within the decade.

That I might not have that big a problem with... We have seasons to hunt other animals to keep their numbers under control. I feel like the American people need a little "population control."

The scary part is that the Tea Party has a .... load of NRA members.

[groph]

This might have been what my mom was talking about the other day.

Reading this shit makes me really want to learn how to shoot a rifle. But wait, we're not supposed to have guns because guns are baaad, m'kay? Isn't exactly this situation why the Second Amendment exists? I'm Canadianese, we don't have second amendments in Canadia, so spare me.

EDIT: is currently looking through the act

[Randy]

They've been doing this kinda thing for a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...illa_(prisoner)

and I'm sure there are a lot of unnamed, undocumented cases of Americans being "disappeared". It's just sick that they're trying to put this on the books.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by groph

Isn't exactly this situation why the Second Amendment exists? I'm Canadianese, we don't have second amendments in Canadia, so spare me.

That's open for debate. I believe the less-NRA minded interpretation is that the second amendment was put in place particularly with militias in mind, incase there was another foreign invasion.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by groph

This might have been what my mom was talking about the other day.

Reading this shit makes me really want to learn how to shoot a rifle. But wait, we're not supposed to have guns because guns are baaad, m'kay? Isn't exactly this situation why the Second Amendment exists? I'm Canadianese, we don't have second amendments in Canadia, so spare me.

EDIT: is currently looking through the act

Any concept of the 2nd Amendment being used by citizens as an equalizer in power against the government died when the pace of government military power exceeded that of the civilian population.

Power to dissuade power only applies when there is equality in power. Own all the AR-15 rifles you want, they won't help against the Abrams or F-18s dropping ordinance on you.

[GATA4]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

That's a quite a stretch...

Civil war? Really? C'mon guys, read through the article yourself and see what it actually says, not interpreted from some European that's looking from the outside in.

I understand that people like to take stuff at face value these days, and I'm not making any rash judgments based off this article (which you are correct in saying might not be fully informed) but I always get an ominous feeling. Once people fear for their liberties, shit gets real. Right now, it seems like everyone's fearing for their liberties. But then again, they're all just hippies.....with Ipads?

[groph]

• • Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• • Sec. 1032. Requirement for military custody.
    
    
    
    

[murakami]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

That's a quite a stretch...

Civil war? Really? C'mon guys, read through the article yourself and see what it actually says, not interpreted from some European that's looking from the outside in.

i read the article. what i am thinking that this can cause the people to become even more enraged with how the government is being handled. i mean, come on; look how many people are adding fire to the occupy wallstreet).

do you think this will not cause more problems? the people do not want to be squeezed more than they already are. civil war? ok, maybe not. but people to be detained by their own government? this aint ....ing china, man.

[groph]

Sorry for the double post, but those above points are the "trouble spots" of the Bill.

Can anyone parse that for me, I'm not versed in legalese. It doesn't explicitly say that "The military will be able to kill whoever it wants to" but people are terrified of "indefinite detention" if some high-up suspects you of being affiliated with a terrorist group. In which case, apparently you'll be rounded up, waterboarded, denied your basic human rights, waterboarded some more, and nobody will tell you what's happening to you. Then they'll waterboard you.

[Grand Moff Tim]

Title X: General Provisions

Subtitle D: Detainee Matters

Sec. 1032: Requirement for Military Custody

Subsection 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.

[GATA4]

Originally Posted by murakami

i read the article. what i am thinking that this can cause the people to become even more enraged with how the government is being handled. i mean, come on; look how many people are adding fire to the occupy wallstreet).

do you think this will not cause more problems? the people do not want to be squeezed more than they already are. civil war? ok, maybe not. but people to be detained by their own government? this aint ....ing china, man.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Thank you.

EDIT - Based on what Grand Moff Tim just posted, I gathered that the author of the article did indeed embellish/sensationalize some of this.

[Grand Moff Tim]

So seriously, people, I know that the bill was huge, but do some sort of research before foaming at the mouth over nothing.

[Grand Moff Tim]

Originally Posted by groph

Sorry for the double post, but those above points are the "trouble spots" of the Bill.

Can anyone parse that for me, I'm not versed in legalese. It doesn't explicitly say that "The military will be able to kill whoever it wants to" but people are terrified of "indefinite detention" if some high-up suspects you of being affiliated with a terrorist group. In which case, apparently you'll be rounded up, waterboarded, denied your basic human rights, waterboarded some more, and nobody will tell you what's happening to you. Then they'll waterboard you.

Basically, that subsection of the bill was saying "Here are the people we can arrest without trial and here are the reasons we can do it. None of that applies to American citizens, i.e. We can't arrest and detain American citizens without trial."

[Blake1970]

Scary stuff indeed. They could basically do what they want if they don't like this group of people protesting and so on. That guy has to many guns in his house so let's lock him up.

[TheJokker]

i trust the military more than i trust the government. do you know when a military officer is sworn in he does not promise to obey the orders of the president but rather to defend the constitution? having served in the military and understanding the culture i believe it is more probable that the military would stand with "the people" than with a government out of control.

[synrgy]

Originally Posted by TheJokker

i trust the military more than i trust the government. do you know when a military officer is sworn in he does not promise to obey the orders of the president but rather to defend the constitution? having served in the military and understanding the culture i believe it is more probable that the military would stand with "the people" than with a government out of control.

On the surface I agree with you, but if I could play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the trouble I can see here is that The Constitution, much like, say, The Bible, is pretty wide open to interpretation thanks to a slew of incredibly vague language and legalese, hence virtually every case the Supreme Court has ever reviewed.

As for Civil War, I'll admit I thought things might head that way after seeing how polarized things got during the last Presidential election. Having calmed down considerably since then (personally, I mean) I'm not so sure any more. I have a feeling that -- speaking in terms of rough averages -- there are likely more apathetic Americans than there are Americans who care enough to fight for their ideals. Voter turnout is a pretty telling representation of this theory.

Finally, is anyone else really sick of misleading article titles and the visceral responses that flood the net in response to them, provided by readers who didn't actually read the article but instead posted tirades in response based purely on the title itself? I am, anyway..

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Grand Moff Tim

Basically, that subsection of the bill was saying "Here are the people we can arrest without trial and here are the reasons we can do it. None of that applies to American citizens, i.e. We can't arrest and detain American citizens without trial."

That violates Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The last clause, specifically. Any person within the jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, is entitled to the protections of US law. To get around that personhood would have to be revoked somehow, or the claim that said persons are not within the jurisdiction of the United States would have to be made, to which one would have to ask how can a person be held by an entity without being in the jurisdiction of said entity.

TL/DR: Post-9/11 politicians and the MIC yet again act unconstitutionally.

[Grand Moff Tim]

Originally Posted by pink freud

That violates Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:



The last clause, specifically. Any person within the jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, is entitled to the protections of US law. To get around that personhood would have to be revoked somehow, or the claim that said persons are not within the jurisdiction of the United States would have to be made, to which one would have to ask how can a person be held by an entity without being in the jurisdiction of said entity.

TL/DR: Post-9/11 politicians and the MIC yet again act unconstitutionally.

Whether or not they should be able to arrest and detain without trial anybody at all is another issue entirely here. What the thread and the page it links to implies is that the US Military is going to have the right to arrest any person they feel like, including US citizens. That is clearly not what the bill says, and anyone who actually took the time to read it would realize that. Unfortunately, it's much easier to read an article online and accept it as fact than to read the actual source material. [EDIT: That wasn't a jab at you, PF, as you were addressing something I said, not the thread or bill themselves. I need to learn to be more clear and less... dickish.]

That aside, I don't think what you quoted is saying what you think it's saying, though I could be wrong. It seems to me like it's saying that people who are born or naturalized US citizens are under US jurisdiction, and people under said jurisdiction shall not have their privileges or immunities abridged. It doesn't say anything about people who aren't citizens but are within US borders. Perhaps it does elsewhere in the Ammendment and proper context would make that clear, but the snippet given doesn't seem to me to be implying what you're saying it is.

I'm not an expert, though. Just a bored person.

[Grand Moff Tim]

I feel like I should add that I am personally not okay with arrest and detention without trial, regardless of the nationality or citizenship status of the people involved. In that regard, I'm not okay with some of what sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill are allowing. However, it still says nothing about it happening to US citizens.