U.S senate declares war on US
- Thread starter Grayfox
- 90 comments
- 7,176 views
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
Do you recommend another type of government that works in a free market? Let me rephrase that, is there a government that works?
Last edited:
- 1,105
- Bakewell UK
- dunkrez
- spunwicked
Martial law ladies and gentlemen. Just like the Wild West.
- 11,968
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
You damaged my ride *pulls out .45* you die now.
- 180
- hambone8611
- 180
- hambone8611
I understand
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Um I'm pretty sure I just showed you the info, what more do you want? It's one thing to say "oh you're too lazy to look up facts" when some one has not shown you them, but a totally (insane and irrational) different thing when the facts are given to you. I'm not fear mongering, the gov't has done many things over half the U.S. lifetime alone to get them hated by the world, to ignore that and defend it is a lot of rhetoric and head bashing for the person that chooses to do that. I mean really you don't even string together a coherent reason to dismiss the examples I give for the examples you use, sarcasm or not.
Do you need a case docket number for the Drake vs. NSA case? That only helps further prove that you using those examples shows how much you don't understand...Also you say the media outlets are the main issue. Which is ironic and funny cause it's those same media outlets that are owned by big companies, who in return get president's elected in to the oval office. The same outlets that seem to work more in the favor of the Gov't and not the people.
- 1,105
- Bakewell UK
- dunkrez
- spunwicked
Think about it all like this, for many years there have been "Wars on..."
War on drugs, War on Iraq, War on Terror to name a few. Seems only logical that the US government would eventually declare war on itself.
War on drugs, War on Iraq, War on Terror to name a few. Seems only logical that the US government would eventually declare war on itself.
- 1,230
- New Jersey
- Skatenj
slashfan7964
I think if the goverment keeps going the way it is US citizens would probably revolt. Then we can start the same goverment over as it does work and do everything we can do from going bad. Like not being able to pass laws that violate any of the ammendments or bill of rights etc.
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
- 1,105
- Bakewell UK
- dunkrez
- spunwicked
Who are these guys?
Isn't Fresno one of the Meth capitals of the world? (Louis Theroux)
Isn't Fresno one of the Meth capitals of the world? (Louis Theroux)
RTSolvalou
(Banned)
- 1,188
It's political actions like this that makes me take delight in that Iran is sticking it to them and not rolling over, like what usually happens in this scenario.
How bad would the world be if America was the only country.
Like, I like plenty of things about America, but damn, your government has got to go.
Amazingly though I think you'll find Obama is more popular outside the U.S. than in.
How bad would the world be if America was the only country.
Like, I like plenty of things about America, but damn, your government has got to go.
Amazingly though I think you'll find Obama is more popular outside the U.S. than in.
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
- 4,792
- Canada
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/
I heard that President Obama won't veto this bill.Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”.
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
- 9,054
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Americans have too many luxuries to revolt.
Poverty is the main reason why many choose to rise up and challenge the power.
But it's not gonna happen when almost every Occupy Wallstreet person has an apple product.
What happens in Africa and Middle East is way different than over here. Over there its more conservative and deep rooted in tradition, and dare I say, more passionate for their cause than over here.
Poverty is the main reason why many choose to rise up and challenge the power.
But it's not gonna happen when almost every Occupy Wallstreet person has an apple product.
What happens in Africa and Middle East is way different than over here. Over there its more conservative and deep rooted in tradition, and dare I say, more passionate for their cause than over here.
Where I live this is all too true. Too many rich hippies are 'against the man and his methods of financial oppression'. (Not that those things aren't occurring...). But still, yeah. "Occupy!! ...Just after I check my cybermails on the interwebs wit my personal GPS/Kindle/phone/road atlas/music library/video camera/iPad device to see if I still gots enough iCash in my avatar piggy bank so we don't run out of weed for country cruises in the brand new Audi wagon once we start to get bored..."
Similar threads
