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



## MikeH (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

Hmm... 

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


----------



## GATA4 (Dec 2, 2011)

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


----------



## murakami (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

GATA4 said:


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





murakami said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

GATA4 said:


> 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 fuck load of NRA members.


----------



## groph (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(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 (Dec 2, 2011)

groph said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

groph said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> 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 fucking china, man.


----------



## groph (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

murakami said:


> 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 fucking 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

groph said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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 (Dec 2, 2011)

TheJokker said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2011)

pink freud said:


> That violates Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
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 (Dec 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2011)

I knew before going to the effort that a search on this would only give link after link to the original "story," with no verification from a legitimate new source.

My belief has worth. I don't just spend it on rumor, and I don't get worked up about something unlikely until I find reason to believe it. 

Is your belief really so cheaply and freely given? Oh, well... it's not me getting scammed, so if you don't have your own best interests at heart, and aren't willing to use your intelligence to take care of yourselves, I guess no one else is going to either....

----

Actually, now that I think about it, this story is entirely true! Those of you who are so ready to flee and panic, run for the border! 

Because that will definitely make things better for at least some of us.

*laugh*


----------



## pink freud (Dec 2, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> 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.



The thing is that in the previous clause, "Citizen of the United States" is specified, while in the clause in question it is not, merely stating "Person." Under literal interpretation that means that clause is not exclusive to citizens, but applicable to all people within the boundaries of the US, and arguably anybody within the custody of the US as well.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 2, 2011)

Seemed to me like the first was defining what type of person they were talking about in the following clauses, but I'm willing to accept that that's not the case if it isn't. I suppose it's things like that that leave the Constitution up to so much interpretation and cause so many problems.


----------



## MrGignac (Dec 20, 2011)

/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0wpAcovRFk&feature=share

Even congress cant believe it. if this is just what they are trying to write into law, imagine whats going on illegally. between this and SOPA, freedom of speach will be dead and buried in this country


----------



## synrgy (Dec 20, 2011)

See, that's exactly what pisses me off the most about the current jerks inhabiting Congress. THEY WROTE THIS LEGISLATION, but now they're all up in arms about it, most of them even trying to blame The President for it. (shocker..) "It's his fault we wrote and passed this legislation!" 

If it scares them so much, why did they A) write it, and B) pass it? Bunch of useless assholes..


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 20, 2011)

Bc they have a scapegoat...  

I mean if a wide receiver sucks it's easier for him to blame the QB for not personally putting it in his hands, no?


----------



## synrgy (Dec 20, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Bc they have a scapegoat...
> 
> I mean if a wide receiver sucks it's easier for him to blame the QB for not personally putting it in his hands, no?





Funny, but I don't see how the analogy applies. A more direct analogy would be: The QB calls a play, the play fails, then the QB blames the WR for calling a bad play.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it does not make syense!!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 20, 2011)

Ahh fair enough. Your analogy does make a bit more sense in retrospect.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 20, 2011)

93 (NINETY-#@$*ING-THREE) Senators voted in support of it. 

Only 7 Senators voted against it: Coburn (R-OK), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Sanders (I-VT), and Wyden (D-OR).

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

I sincerely hope that any of the 93 Senators who supported this get called on their voting record the next time they try to play the blame game.


----------



## Sicarius (Dec 20, 2011)

synrgy said:


> 93 (NINETY-#@$*ING-THREE) Senators voted in support of it.
> 
> Only 7 Senators voted against it: Coburn (R-OK), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Sanders (I-VT), and Wyden (D-OR).
> 
> ...



As has been pointed out before, this bill isn't talking about US citizens. The majority of those that believe it is, are being led down a road of crazy, the likes of Glen Beck. 

Please, read the problem section with a little common sense, it isn't worded in such a way that a citizen can't understand it. It plainly says who it talks about, who it does and does not effect. 

Cmon guys, don't fall for this "American Revolution pt 2" bullshit.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 20, 2011)

I think you're misinterpreting my ire.

It's all the misdirection - mostly coming from people who wrote and/or voted to pass it - that has me upset. The "Well yeah I wrote it, and yeah I voted for it, but it's Obama's fault!" attitude I'm seeing throughout the press statements is what's pissing me off. Well, that, and the fact that there's anyone under the age of 20 in this country who can't see past the bull shit.


----------



## Sicarius (Dec 20, 2011)

So stop reading the news. 

I'm perfectly happy in life after having stopped. Once 9/11 hit and the fear mongering began I let it all go and have been apathetic to the whole ordeal.

I'm able to see things with eyes free and clear of shit and other fecal remnants.

Also, life's so much more fun without the news.


----------



## Blind Theory (Dec 20, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> 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 fuck load of NRA members.



I disagree with the Tea Party and any "extreme" left or right movements. I am very much what you would call "in the middle." That being said, I have a lot of right wing tendencies when it comes to guns. I own 1 handgun, 2 rifles and a shotgun. So I don't think you have to worry about it being a one sided battle if it came to that. On that note, I don't think it will come to that. The government would repeal ALL of these bills once enough of the population started seriously talking about revolt. This day in age with all the civil uprising in the middle East I doubt we would refrain from following in their footsteps. I sure as hell know I would.

I'll just leave you all with a quote from a guy you might have heard about: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
--Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Sicarius (Dec 22, 2011)

As an "in the middle" myself. I'm not worried about the guys who have a shotgun and rifle maybe a hand gun or 3. I'm the same way. 

I'm more worried abut the guy with 15 "hunting" rifle AR-15s that loves Rush Limbaugh, and thinks the President is a Foreign born Muslim who's in office illegally.


----------



## rectifryer (Dec 22, 2011)

Well one guy can't shoot 15 ar15s at once so there you go. 

This all comes down to whats right versus what the majority thinks. Its normally mutually exclusive yet is it really ever right to deny the majority?

Principle versus reality, its a mother fucker.


----------



## Sicarius (Dec 22, 2011)

rectifryer said:


> Well one guy can't shoot 15 ar15s at once so there you go.
> 
> This all comes down to whats right versus what the majority thinks. Its normally mutually exclusive yet is it really ever right to deny the majority?
> 
> Principle versus reality, its a mother fucker.


-_- It's not a point of whether or not you can shoot 15 guns at one time, it's a matter of having an arsenal of weapons at ones disposal.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 23, 2011)

I dont have a link on hand so take this with a grain of salt, (google it though, and Im sure you'll find it since that was what I did) but I recall reading another article where the original authors of the bill (including none other than John McCain. Christ he reminds me of Lucius Malfoy.  ) had actually gone on record saying they INTENDED for the bill to include detaining US citizens. In fact many of the senators that voted for the bill were originally ok with the original language that allowed the indefinite detention of US citizens. It was senator Diane Feinstein that said, "Woah, we cant just round up Americans....." She proposed a LOT of changes to the bill, leading to that clause deliberately excluding US citizens. Not all of her ideas were accepted, hence why you still have that vague clause about naturalized citizens. Im still pissed that she voted yes on the bill at all, but it was an eye opener for who REALLY has the citizen's interests in mind. Id say that 90 or so senators need to be impeached over this legislation. ESPECIALLY John McCain. It scares me to think he could have been president....


----------



## Explorer (Dec 23, 2011)

Wait a minute.

Are people still getting excited about the false assertions about this bill?

I thought that had been cleared up, but it's funny to open this thread and see people having knee-jerk reactions to the fear-mongering... and apparently skipping the relevant points brought up in this topic. 

I've got other stuff I do with my time, so I don't invest it in getting worked up over false rumor.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 23, 2011)

What the fuck is going on?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 23, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> So stop reading the news.
> 
> I'm perfectly happy in life after having stopped. Once 9/11 hit and the fear mongering began I let it all go and have been apathetic to the whole ordeal.
> 
> ...


 
If the news weren't damn near a reality TV show it might not be so bad.


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text
EDIT: I've included a pair of links to the bill itself where you can draw your on conclusions.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 1, 2012)

Did you even try to find more on this story or did you just take the word of some guy on a damn health site logged with ads? That has to be the most sensationalist crap I've ever read and if you read articles from real news sources, and do a little research, you'd see how ridiculous it is


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

This again, huh?


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Did you even try to find more on this story or did you just take the word of some guy on a damn health site logged with ads? That has to be the most sensationalist crap I've ever read and if you read articles from real news sources, and do a little research, you'd see how ridiculous it is



It's only one of many, if you would like more There are certainly more out the from sources that just aren't "Health sites" I'm not even trying to be hostile about this (which is why I stay out of this subforum) but I'll be damned if there isn't a small bit of truth in this article.


EDIT: I've been following the developments of this bill since I first heard about the provision for making the US a "battleground" I just chose to make light of this since the writer brings up how this is pissing all over the Bill of Rights which is what has set this country apart from the other nations of the world for the last 222 years. I'm not saying that we're gonna to wake up tomorrow in a military prison being detained indefinitely, all I'm saying is this is laying the groundwork for someone to come along (Obama, or any other future president) and make the US look exactly like Nazi Germany circa 1936 and it will be completely legal thanks to this provision.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 1, 2012)

Ibanez_Freak732 said:


> It's only one of many, if you would like more There are certainly more out the from sources that just aren't "Health sites" I'm not even trying to be hostile about this (which is why I stay out of this subforum) but I'll be damned if there isn't a small bit of truth in this article.


Small bit and left field tinfoil hat ramblings are two different things. This article compared to all the others is extremely biased. I certainly wouldn't go by that..nor would I have made a thread using that guy as a source. If you make a politics thread, it helps to not use a source that comes off the way he does


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

No need to post more articles, really. This isn't the first thread here about this. The most helpful thing anyone can do is post a link to the original Bill as it was passed and signed, and let everyone read for themselves what all the hubub is about, sans the sensationalism.


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> This article compared to all the others is extremely biased.



Fair enough it is biased, I have not been able to find a neutral view. Where do you go for news when you want an unbiased report on things?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 1, 2012)

Ibanez_Freak732 said:


> Fair enough it is biased, I have not been able to find a neutral view. Where do you go for news when you want an unbiased report on things?



That's the problem..everything is biased. I listen to everything and do my own personal research if I want a better understanding. I don't think anyone would say there's such thing as truthful media these days


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

Here's the offending subsection of the bill in all its controversial glory:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> That's the problem..everything is biased. I listen to everything and do my own personal research if I want a better understanding. I don't think anyone would say there's such thing as truthful media these days





Which I agree with, I wasn't claiming my original link was unbiased, I just agreed with a few of the points, it's very sensationalist without a doubt. At the same time it's still a frightening proposition, being jailed by your own government without evidence of any incriminating actions. If this would have come up even 15 years ago it would have been considered treasonous. Yet our own Congress wrote the bill and our President signed it.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

Ibanez_Freak732 said:


> it's still a frightening proposition, being jailed by your own government without evidence of any incriminating actions.


 
Just out of curiosity, did you come to that conclusion by reading the bill?


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

(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.


The last time I read the bill I didn't recall seeing that. Seems there's no point for that original article (or this thread).


----------



## renzoip (Jan 1, 2012)

Ibanez_Freak732 said:


> (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.
> 
> 
> The last time I read the bill I didn't recall seeing that. Seems there's no point for that original article (or this thread).




I would just like to add that even then the bill is problematic IMO, I'm against detention and torture (enhanced interrogation) of people who have not being tried or charged with crimes, specially in US soil. The rights of non-citizens should be worth any less, people's rights should come before nationalities, if we claim to be so democratic and a leading nation in the respect of human rights.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

I know that line was in the previous two versions, and the newest version (the one that passed the senate) even went so far as to add ANOTHER line to make sure that point was driven home: 

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


I think they added that because the original wording of the part you quoted sounded a bit too ambiguous, or was being overlooked by many of the people who were so angered by it. That said, _alot_ of people were really angry about it, so the original wording must've been very poor indeed.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

renzoip said:


> I would just like to add that even then the bill is problematic IMO, I'm against detention and torture (enhanced interrogation) of people who have not being tried or charged with crimes, specially in US soil. The rights of non-citizens should be worth any less, people's rights should come before nationalities.


 
Yeah, I touched on that in the first thread on this subject. While I _am_ glad that it isn't giving anyone the right to arrest and detain US citizens, it seems to allow for some potential shady dealings regarding the detention of non-US citizens.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 1, 2012)

I heard about this, but assumed it had been publicised as something it wasn't Couldn't be bothered to read the actual bill so I'm glad you have cleared that up for me. While the US government are corrupt and I wouldn't put this sort of thing past them, it seemed a little too bold. It's still dodgy, but not as dodgy as people are saying.


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I know that line was in the previous two versions, and the newest version (the one that passed the senate) even went so far as to add ANOTHER line to make sure that point was driven home:
> 
> (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
> 
> ...




The thing that confuses me the most is that if the language was made to be so blatantly obvious that the detention of US citizens won't be allowed, what has gotten everyone so up in arms about this?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 1, 2012)

Ibanez_Freak732 said:


> The thing that confuses me the most is that if the language was made to be so blatantly obvious that the detention of US citizens won't be allowed, what has gotten everyone so up in arms about this?


 
I think it started with a few people misreading the original draft, writing angry blogs and articles about what they THOUGHT it said, then people who read the blogs/articles but not the actual bill themselves just carried from there.


----------



## Sunlit Omega (Jan 1, 2012)

Well I'm glad I got some real clarification, Man some days I swear I should just stay in bed .


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 1, 2012)

Obama just signed it into law yesterday. 

I honestly don't care how much or how little it was watered down in order to get his approval, the entire idea is complete and total bill of rights nullifying bullshit.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law | American Civil Liberties Union

I'm so disappointed. It's like "Happy New Year from the white house! I don't know about all of you primitive citizens, but OUR new years resolution is to take away as many rights as possible and hope that by the time you start giving a shit, we'll already be living in High Chancellor Sutler's perfect world of Fascism in the form of anti-fascism!"

Good job Obama. You just lost my vote.

*RON PAUL 2012!*


----------



## Explorer (Jan 1, 2012)

I'd like some clarification myself.



vampiregenocide said:


> *While the US government are corrupt* and I wouldn't put this sort of thing past them, it seemed a little too bold.



I always think that "monolithic block" conspiracy theories are too unlikely. 

The idea that some people are corrupt doesn't strike me as unlikely. To say that they all are would be unlikely.

I'm sure you don't follow American politics that closely, but there have been some fairly big news stories over the past month where politicians couldn't forge a compromise. The idea that they are all unable to because they are all corrupt and beholden to different interests, and that they would all agree on this because (again) they are all corrupt and beholden to the same interests, just seems like a meaningless statement without evidence. 

How exactly is the US government corrupt, and how would that lead to all members of that government attempting to do this sort of thing?

Also, does it hurt your premise that the actual story shows they didn't do that sort of thing at all? Or is it just an unfalsifiable premise (they're corrupt if they do either A *or* B!)?

----

Any time I read a topic title where sheer hysteria reigns, I always know that a debunking is right around the corner. 

That makes me wonder... if I can see the debunking coming, why can't the hysterical?


----------



## SpaceDock (Jan 1, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Title X: General Provisions
> 
> Subtitle D: Detainee Matters
> 
> ...



I think a lot of people skipped over this part. 

This bill only legalizes what we have already been doing for decades in places like gitmo and other military prisons. Not saying that it's right either. Legislators want to lock up terror suspects without the need for solid evidence or trials. Prior to this the UN could intervien if we were breaking our own laws. 

Nothing has or will change due to this bill, just the continuation of questionable detainment for "terrorists"


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 2, 2012)

If you think we're corrupt and that bad check out some of those other countries. Compare and contrast. While our country has gone to shit, the rest of the world doesn't look all that grand either.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 2, 2012)

Haha I'm not taking your bait Explorer. I will admit my comment was perhaps worded incorrectly and that I don't think _all_ U.S politicians are corrupt, but I'm not getting involved in another one of your little battles. I've seen to many of those on here and I don't have the patience. 

And djinn314, you're completely correct, but superior evils elsewhere don't excuse evils closer to home.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 2, 2012)

Not looking for a battle, just wanted clarification of that point. Thanks for that!


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 2, 2012)

Apologies if that came off as hostile man, I just didn't want to get drawn into one of the debates that last several pages as I often see happen.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 2, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I think it started with a few people misreading the original draft, writing angry blogs and articles about what they THOUGHT it said, then people who read the blogs/articles but not the actual bill themselves just carried from there.



hence why no one should start a thread based on a blogger. find an actual story from a newswire at least. seriously, in school i would get a failing grade for something like this. 



Treeunit212 said:


> Obama just signed it into law yesterday.
> 
> I honestly don't care how much or how little it was watered down in order to get his approval, the entire idea is complete and total bill of rights nullifying bullshit.
> 
> ...



you didn't lose any rights. read the bill. also the ACLU is not a good source to follow for future reference


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 3, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> hence why no one should start a thread based on a blogger. find an actual story from a newswire at least. seriously, in school i would get a failing grade for something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't lose any rights. read the bill. also the ACLU is not a good source to follow for future reference



ACLU is a credible source. I've had college professors use it as an example. 

Taking away a non-citizens human rights on the grounds of "enemy combatant" status is one thing, but to give the military the right to interfere in domestic law enforcement is unconstitutional. 

This just shows that the war on "terror" has only just begun. Now we're setting our sights on Iran (whom we put an oil sanction on), raising global oil prices by 10%.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 3, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Taking away a non-citizens human rights on the grounds of "enemy combatant" status is one thing, but to give the military the right to interfere in domestic law enforcement is unconstitutional.


 
Yeah, so it's a good thing this bill doesn't do that _at all_.



Treeunit212 said:


> Now we're setting our sights on Iran (whom we put an oil sanction on), raising global oil prices by 10%.


 
I may be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure it's the UK, France and Germany that are _calling for_ sanctions on Iranian oil. If any have actually started yet, be it the US or anyone else, I'm not aware of them. 

We also haven't been "setting our sights on them" so much as they've been spewing angry rhetoric at us. The whole spiel in the news right now is Iran ranting about the US having the audacity to send ships through the Straits of Hormuz, something they've been doing for *decades* now. Iran just thinks their military maneuvres in the area preclude other countries' rights to use the Straits, which is absurd, and anything they do to impede anyone's access to it is acting outside of the international community. 

I say if they want to try to do something to keep the US Navy from using the Straits or having a presence in the Gulf, more power to them. The results will be _hilarious_, because the USN is so much more powerful than the Iranian Navy that it's just... not even fair.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 3, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> If you think we're corrupt and that bad check out some of those other countries. Compare and contrast. While our country has gone to shit, the rest of the world doesn't look all that grand either.


 
^ This... 

Thought I'd drop this here...

World Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International

http://www.transparency.org/content/download/64426/1030807 [report]

Corruption Perceptions Index: Transparency International [website]


----------



## synrgy (Jan 3, 2012)

USMarine75 said:


> http://www.transparency.org/content/download/64426/1030807 [report]



Translation: Don't like it? Move to New Zealand.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 3, 2012)

^ Yeah, if I see one more person on here from Myanmar shiting on the US I swear I'll lose my mind...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 3, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> ACLU is a credible source. I've had college professors use it as an example.
> 
> Taking away a non-citizens human rights on the grounds of "enemy combatant" status is one thing, but to give the military the right to interfere in domestic law enforcement is unconstitutional.



Out of curiosity, since the bill is available, is it possible to point to where the US military is now empowered to be active in the United States itself, as opposed to outside? I'd be interested in reading the words in the most credible source of all, the actual law, as opposed to someone's misinterpretation.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 3, 2012)

Myanmar seems nice around this time of year  although I would seriously move to Iceland or Sweden. I hear the women are more uh...pleasant? rofl


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 3, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> ACLU is a credible source. I've had college professors use it as an example.
> 
> Taking away a non-citizens human rights on the grounds of "enemy combatant" status is one thing, but to give the military the right to interfere in domestic law enforcement is unconstitutional.



yeah, and the ACLU is a 501(c)(4). meaning they actively participate in lobbying and other forms of political participation. which is exactly what you DONT want from a credible news source. if you want to use someone else's opinion to back up your own opinion (i.e. an essay) fine and dandy. however, if you are using this to get the bare facts (more journalistic approach) this is the last place you want to go.. unless you're getting a statement. basically follow Grand Moff's link and read the bill itself and not someone's analysis of it.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 4, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> yeah, and the ACLU is a 501(c)(4). meaning they actively participate in lobbying and other forms of political participation. which is exactly what you DONT want from a credible news source. if you want to use someone else's opinion to back up your own opinion (i.e. an essay) fine and dandy. however, if you are using this to get the bare facts (more journalistic approach) this is the last place you want to go.. unless you're getting a statement. basically follow Grand Moff's link and read the bill itself and not someone's analysis of it.



You're right. I was simply using it as a link to a story about the signing of the bill.

FORGIVE ME.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 4, 2012)

I finally read the link you provided, and it didn't have anything approaching what you asserted in that same post. I can see why people read this...



Treeunit212 said:


> Obama just signed it into law yesterday.
> 
> I honestly don't care how much or how little it was watered down in order to get his approval, the entire idea is complete and total bill of rights nullifying bullshit.
> 
> ...



...and thought you were reiterating what was in the story, as opposed to off-the-cuff allegations which were untrue. 

Incidentally... after your comments about how nullifying the Bill of Rights is bullshit, it's odd (and a little scary) to read your rallying cry for a politician who doesn't believe we should have a separation between the US government and religion. (I believe there are even such comments on his website, and he's definitely stated them more than once.) 

The idea that you'd embrace someone who thinks we should be a Christian nation, not just in private practice but in government, seems to negate your stated concern for the Constitution. 

What's up with that?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 4, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Taking away a non-citizens human rights on the grounds of "enemy combatant" status is one thing, but to give the military the right to interfere in domestic law enforcement is unconstitutional.





> unconstitutional



That word. I do not think it means what you think it means. There's nothing in the Constitution expressly preventing military action or interference within the United States.

In fact, under _Youngstown_, (a rather important Supreme Court case discussing executive power), Congress can authorize the President to act unilaterally. If they do so, then his actions essentially have a presumption of constitutionality.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit, but I highly recommend everyone take a Constitutional Law course. You'd be surprised what is and isn't in the Constitution, and what the Supreme Court has found to be constitutional or unconstitutional.

----

Also, on an unrelated note, Ron Paul is very pro-personal and state liberties, but he takes it to a completely absurd level. Given the choice, he would repeal the Civil Rights Act because it unnecessarily intrudes upon states' ability to pass laws as they see fit, and intrudes on "personal freedoms."


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 4, 2012)

By the way, this phenomenon is what we like to call the "Fox News Effect." Except in this case it went the opposite direction, ideologically. Remember the whole "Death Panels" scare when the health care bill was being debated? Total bullshit. But a lot of people believed it.

Please, double check your sources people. Look for bias, an ideology, or a message, and make sure you take that into account when deciding what you actually believe.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 4, 2012)

djinn314 said:


> Myanmar seems nice around this time of year  although I would seriously move to Iceland or Sweden. I hear the women are more uh...pleasant? rofl


 
You're from Maine... anything on two legs is an upgrade 

And I'd like to take this moment to seriously apologize to the one person on here from Myanmar that I must have offended by my post. I'm sorry it's probably a lovely place. Although, before I read that piece I thought Myanmar was one of those fake countries in movies... like Coxotopia or Greater Berzerkistan. [And I apologize ahead of time for saying your country is fake.]


----------



## Explorer (Jan 4, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Also, on an unrelated note, Ron Paul is very pro-personal and state liberties, but he takes it to a completely absurd level. Given the choice, he would repeal the Civil Rights Act because it unnecessarily intrudes upon states' ability to pass laws as they see fit, and intrudes on "personal freedoms."



To clarify that just a little, Ron Paul's position is that it was wrong for the Federal government to interfere with the state-passed laws against miscegenation (states and religious groups imposing their viewpoints on marriage between two consenting adults because of their race) and is now wrong for interfering with states which don't want to recognize gay marriage (states and religious groups imposing their viewpoints on marriage between two consenting adults because of their orientation). 

Ron Paul's voting record reveals he's not an advocate for personal freedoms, but for states' rights, which is an entirely different thing.


----------



## ghostred7 (Jan 4, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> -_- It's not a point of whether or not you can shoot 15 guns at one time, it's a matter of having an arsenal of weapons at ones disposal.


First.... +1 for Sith code in your signature line 

There are several of people on here, myself included, that permits to own, carry, etc firearms that do so for no other reason that to protect ourselves or loved ones. Don't like firearms? Perfectly fine as that's your right....just like its our RIGHT to own them. It doesn't matter if I have one or an entire armory. It's perfectly legal and in no way different than a car collector or someone that collects rubber-band-balls. No one's legal collection is different than the other. I can easily kill more people with 1 car than I can 1 bullet...should car collections be outlawed too? The only difference is....I'm not going to accidentally fire my weapon(s) at a family trying to go shopping.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 4, 2012)

Here's hoping we can avoid this thread derailing into an argument over the 2nd amendment.. 

:canofworms:


----------



## ghostred7 (Jan 4, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Here's hoping we can avoid this thread derailing into an argument over the 2nd amendment..
> 
> :canofworms:


I don't want it to either and I'll speak no more on the matter. Multiple anti-2A comments in-thread kinna triggered me and have no problems continuing via PM.

Back on topic, though. I don't see us breaking into a civil war, at least not in the historical sense as it was "North v. South." I don't think the military will just go "look...dude's a terrorist...get him." Based on what's been posted, there are statements w/in the bill (if reading right) that state no US Citizens or Legally Registered Aliens would be detained under this provisioning.

Also, like others have stated. If the Senate members that are complaining are amongst the ones that voted FOR it....then their voting records should absolutely be brought up to them. I'm sure one of our "loud" media outlets (Bill O'Reilly for example) would be glad to confront them on it. 

I do get the sense of some serious puppetry happening, although I don't have an idea where the actual puppet master(s) is/are. As much as I think Obama is a fucktard, my gut (known to be wrong several times) is telling me that this bill (and many others) are being spoon-fed to him to sign by someone/people that are able to manipulate the shit out of him.....and he's dumb enough to eat everything fed to him.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sorry I was hammered last night and tried to quote that Marine, my b


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 5, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I finally read the link you provided, and it didn't have anything approaching what you asserted in that same post. I can see why people read this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You misunderstand. It would be impossible for him to make this a "Christian nation". The only thing I like about him is that he's the only one that seems to care about corruption and ACTUAL big government (as in the overprinting of money, imperialist foreign policy and the bloated defense budget) problems.

His religious views of government are absolutely ridiculous. There's no way he could actually put any of it into law. Then again, if this bill could pass, it's not far to say that the conjoining of church and state could happen...


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 5, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> That word. I do not think it means what you think it means. There's nothing in the Constitution expressly preventing military action or interference within the United States.
> 
> In fact, under _Youngstown_, (a rather important Supreme Court case discussing executive power), Congress can authorize the President to act unilaterally. If they do so, then his actions essentially have a presumption of constitutionality.



When was the last time congress has voted an OK on a war we've started? Iraq? Afghanistan? To my knowledge the senate never authorized the president to get involved in Lybia. In my interpretation of Checks and Balances, that's unconstitutional. The same concept applies.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 5, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> *You misunderstand.* It would be impossible for him to make this a "Christian nation". The only thing I like about him is that he's the only one that seems to care about corruption and ACTUAL big government (as in the overprinting of money, imperialist foreign policy and the bloated defense budget) problems.
> 
> *His religious views of government are absolutely ridiculous. There's no way he could actually put any of it into law.* Then again, if this bill could pass, it's not far to say that the conjoining of church and state could happen...



I don't misunderstand. 

I pointed out that you're talking about how awful a violation of the Constitution would be, and that you'd never support it... and then you proclaim support for a candidate who, in spite of his other views, is all about making the US a Christian nation, violating what you are claiming to hold dear.

Maybe you didn't mean all that hyperbole earlier. Otherwise, I can't figure out how you square those two points.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 6, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I don't misunderstand.
> 
> I pointed out that you're talking about how awful a violation of the Constitution would be, and that you'd never support it... and then you proclaim support for a candidate who, in spite of his other views, is all about making the US a Christian nation, violating what you are claiming to hold dear.
> 
> Maybe you didn't mean all that hyperbole earlier. Otherwise, I can't figure out how you square those two points.



Oh well that was nice of you. You highlighted the only parts that you read and/or wanted to rebuke. 

Correction: You don't mis-understand, you just don't bother to try to understand.

Let me break it down for you: Ron Paul might be bat shit crazy, *but at least he recognizes some of the serious flaws that exist in American Government.* Way more than any other Republican that is running. In my eyes, that makes him the best possible opponent to Mr. Yes we could have Obama, which is just downright sad and depressing.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 6, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> When was the last time congress has voted an OK on a war we've started? Iraq? Afghanistan? To my knowledge the senate never authorized the president to get involved in Lybia. In my interpretation of Checks and Balances, that's unconstitutional. The same concept applies.



The thing is, Congress has repeatedly passed bills in the last decade to grant the President more power to act unilaterally in military situations, for extended periods of time. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and many others granting the President wide authority for the use of military have been passed. Each time the Supreme Court sought to limit this expansion of executive power (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Boumediene v. Bush, etc.) Congress went and passed another law that overrode their decision; an ability that Congress does in fact have as part of the "checks and balances" to limit the power of the Court.

Under _Youngstown_, which is the primary test for determining whether the President's unilateral executive actions without Congressional approval are in fact Constitutional, the AUMF and other legislation acts as "express or implied Congressional authorization" for the President's use of military force, which gives it a presumption of Constitutionality.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong; I'm merely providing the background that the Constitution and Constitutional Law in general is far less clear than you'd like it to be :-/


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 6, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> The thing is, Congress has repeatedly passed bills *in the last decade* to grant the President more power to act unilaterally in military situations, for extended periods of time. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and many others granting the President wide authority for the use of military have been passed. Each time the Supreme Court sought to limit this expansion of executive power (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Boumediene v. Bush, etc.) Congress went and passed another law that overrode their decision; an ability that Congress does in fact have as part of the "checks and balances" to limit the power of the Court.
> 
> Under _Youngstown_, which is the primary test for determining whether the President's unilateral executive actions without Congressional approval are in fact Constitutional, the AUMF and other legislation acts as "express or implied Congressional authorization" for the President's use of military force, which gives it a presumption of Constitutionality.
> 
> I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong; I'm merely providing the background that the Constitution and Constitutional Law in general is far less clear than you'd like it to be :-/





This is exactly what i'm talking about. We are now doing what the Terrorists wanted us to do. Every time we increase Airport security or add to this Patriot Act-esque pile of liberty infringements out of fear and in the name of "security", they win more and more.

For a country that left the British Monarchy in the name of liberty and freedom, we sure have succeeded in out-doing them in self-destructive Imperialistic foreign policy.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 6, 2012)

Sorry, but  @ "The Terrorists".

I've tried, but keep deleting my feeble attempts at trying to explain why I find that descriptor amusing. I can't seem to adequately describe what I'm feeling, but basically, to say "The Terrorists" seems to imply that there's one single, central group, who holds annual meetings and has a public charter. 

Total non-sequitur, I know.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Sorry, but  @ "The Terrorists".
> 
> I've tried, but keep deleting my feeble attempts at trying to explain why I find that descriptor amusing. I can't seem to adequately describe what I'm feeling, but basically, to say "The Terrorists" seems to imply that there's one single, central group, who holds annual meetings and has a public charter.
> 
> Total non-sequitur, I know.



We're all potential terrorists now, according to this bill.


----------

