Thread: Treasonous Bill Passed by Senate Today

Has anyone else seen this? I wonder what's next from this administration? BTW...the first link is from a liberal media outlet, and the second from the Oath Keepers. This is one of the only things I have seen the left and the right agree on in a very long time, which makes me wonder why this passed.

60 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus (UPDATED)

Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Stewart Rhodes Interview – Citizen Detention Act – Senate Has Declared War on American People

I can't believe our government has voted to intact a police state, and nobody seems to be screaming about it. Let's just throw out the constitution and your rights, your going to be held forever. What's next? They come for your guns, and then your neighbors?

Originally Posted by Warthog

I can't believe our government has voted to intact a police state, and nobody seems to be screaming about it. Let's just throw out the constitution and your rights, your going to be held forever. What's next? They come for your guns, and then your neighbors?

Why does noone know anything? I'd say a combination of MSM media blackout, and good old fashioned bread and circuses taking it's toll in our culture. Why doesn't anyone seem to care? Well how many times have we heard the sky is falling just in the past five years? Even well respected people like Gerald Celente have predicted we'd be eating each other by now, that's not counting the professional doomsayers like Alex Jones and Steve Quayle who predict every month that guys will be kicking in our doors to take us to Fema camps.

First, OP, you had best read the constitution for a definition of treason in the country. It's quite specific.

This law is evil and unconstitutional I agree in full. Treasonous? Not so much.

FWIW Obama has vowed to veto this bill. If he follows through, it will be one of the few things he's done with which I am in full agreement. (Also, this has not a chance in **** of passing the House.)

Originally Posted by Misterbill

First, OP, you had best read the constitution for a definition of treason in the country. It's quite specific.

This law is evil and unconstitutional I agree in full. Treasonous? Not so much.

FWIW Obama has vowed to veto this bill. If he follows through, it will be one of the few things he's done with which I am in full agreement. (Also, this has not a chance in **** of passing the House.)

I hope your right. I'd like to have at least one good thing to say about Obama when he leaves office.

I used to teach Army soldiers combatives for the battlefield. If this slop actually DOES hit our soil.
... it looks like I'll be "schooling" them again, but from the other end.

I wished I could make more sense of this bill. The writ of Habeas Corpus may be temporarily suspended due to a national emergency. W/O an obvious, imminent one at hand, this is totally unjustified. Compared to this bill Gitmo seems like nothing.

Ironically, to an Afghan or an Iraqi, this will sound like poetic justice. To a US naturalized Afghan or Iraqi, it'd be a nightmare that never ends.

Never much liked the ACLU. But, I can not wait to see them get all over this one.
A national emergency has to be declared. Without one this will not fly. My bet is the president (small p) will not veto.

Originally Posted by Misterbill

First, OP, you had best read the constitution for a definition of treason in the country. It's quite specific.

This law is evil and unconstitutional I agree in full. Treasonous? Not so much.

FWIW Obama has vowed to veto this bill. If he follows through, it will be one of the few things he's done with which I am in full agreement. (Also, this has not a chance in **** of passing the House.)

trea·son

[ trz'n ]trea·sons Plural

NOUN
1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
See also high treason
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty
[ 12th century. Via Anglo-Norman treisoun "treacherous handing over, betrayal" < Latin tradition- (see tradition) ]

I would say that the dictionary's version of treason seems to fit pretty well here. Especially looking at definitions number 2 or 3. This was the definition that I was using. I also know very well what Article III of the U.S. Constitution says since I carry a pocket constitution with me everywhere I go. Specifically:

Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I was not intending to use the legal definition. Please, the next time you are having a "teachable moment" make sure that you know what context the OP intended to use the word.

As to Obama vetoing this bill, it would be the first thing that he has done since holding any office that I could actually agree with. It does however, make me wonder why he would do it when he has been so he11 bent on destroying this country thus far.

Thanks,
-D

You do know this ONLY applys to Enemy Combatants that are US Citizens and has only been used 4 times since first enacted 10 years ago right?

Andy McCarthy On National Defense Authorization Act by TheLarsLarsonShow on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

Can Congress Steal Your Constitutional Freedoms?
by Andrew P. Napolitano

Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? In the Senate's dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.

Congress is supposed to work in public. That requirement is in the Constitution. It is there because the folks who wrote the Constitution had suffered long and hard under the British Privy Council, a secret group that advised the king and ran his government. We know from the now-defunct supercommittee, and other times when Congress has locked its doors, that government loves secrecy and hates transparency. Transparency forces the government to answer to us. Secrecy lets it steal our liberty and our property behind our backs.
Last week, while our minds were on family and turkey and football, the Senate Armed Services Committee decided to meet in secret. So, behind closed doors, it drafted an amendment to a bill appropriating money for the Pentagon. The amendment would permit the president to use the military for law enforcement purposes in the United States. This, of course, would present a radical departure from any use to which the military has been put in the memory of any Americans now living.
The last time the federal government regularly used the military for domestic law enforcement was at the end of Reconstruction in the South, in 1876. In fact, the deal to end Reconstruction resulted in the enactment of federal laws forbidding the domestic use of American military for law enforcement purposes. This has been our law, our custom and our set of values to which every president has adhered for 135 years.
It is not for directing traffic that this legislation would authorize the president to use the military. Essentially, this legislation would enable the president to divert from the criminal justice system, and thus to divert from the protections of the Constitution, any person he pleases. And that person, under this terrifying bill, would have no recourse to a judge to require the president either to file charges against him or to set him free.
Can you imagine an America in which you could lose all liberty – from the presumption of innocence to the right to counsel to fairness from the government to a jury trial – simply because the president says you are dangerous?
Nothing terrified or animated the Founders more than that. The Founders, who wrote the Constitution, had just won a war against a king who had less power than this legislation will give to the president. But to protect their freedoms, they wrote in the Constitution the now iconic guarantee of due process. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Note, the Founders used the word "person." Thus, the requirement of due process must be accorded to all human beings held by the government – not just Americans, not just nice people, but all persons. When Lincoln tried to deny this during the Civil War, the Supreme Court rejected him and held that the Constitution guarantees its protections to everyone that the government restrains, no matter the crime, no matter the charge, no matter the evidence, no matter the danger.
If this legislation becomes law, it will be dangerous for anyone to be right when the government is wrong. It will be dangerous for all of us. Just consider what any president could get away with. Who would he make disappear first? Might it be his political opponents? Might it be you?
December 2, 2011
Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, and the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. His latest book is It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.
Copyright © 2011 Creators Syndicate

This is straight out of Stalin's Handbook
THIS IS A COUP AGAINST THE AMERICAN PPL
PREPARE FOR THE AMERCAN HOLOCAUST

I'm confused. I read the article and clicked on some of the links to get up to speed. Are you mad because the senate voted 93-7 on one bill or 100-0 to up the sanctions on Iran? I must have missed the suspension of habeus corpus stuff. All I know is that blogs are opinions of stuff the bloggers have read. Often they are opinions of opinions of other bloggers blogscat. Based on the OP's links I am at a loss as to what in the heck he is talking about.

Also the post by Kenno (#11) the last few lines is nothing more than the sky is falling, fear mongering, psuedo-info baloney. Good grief, if that's the way you feel go hunker down in your 1950's era fallout shelter and weather the "storm". Oh, and don't forget your tinfoil supply.

Outrage from the left too:

Deranged Senate Votes for Military Detention of All Terror Suspects and a Permanent Guantánamo | Common Dreams

Originally Posted by Kevatc

I'm confused.

Do you wear rose colored glasses by chance?

ENEMY COMBATANTS AGAIN This BILL ONLY COVERS ENEMY COMBATANTS NOT EVEN ALL TERRORISTS. Unless you are an enemy combatant go back to the barkolounger and have a Beer. You will be fine.

Originally Posted by Brown Trout

Do you wear rose colored glasses by chance?

No. I just have critical thinking skills that tell me that just because a few say the sky is falling doesn't mean its true. Obviously YMMV.

Originally Posted by Mark W.

ENEMY COMBATANTS AGAIN This BILL ONLY COVERS ENEMY COMBATANTS NOT EVEN ALL TERRORISTS. Unless you are an enemy combatant go back to the barkolounger and have a Beer. You will be fine.

This.

So we now need to define ENEMY COMBATANT. More than a few in this admin would like to put returning vets in this group.

Originally Posted by Mark W.

ENEMY COMBATANTS AGAIN This BILL ONLY COVERS ENEMY COMBATANTS NOT EVEN ALL TERRORISTS. Unless you are an enemy combatant go back to the barkolounger and have a Beer. You will be fine.

Yeah, and just who defines an enemy combatant? There is no provision in the Constitution to strip away someone's rights in such a manner. The government is still required to drag their sorry butts into a court of law and make them answer for their actions.
There is no provision however that stipulates that they cannot be killed in combat.

The traitors who voted for this bill are the real enemy combatants.

Originally Posted by BrentN

So we now need to define ENEMY COMBATANT. More than a few in this admin would like to put returning vets in this group.

If Obama gets re-elected and bans firearms, Will anyone who owns a firearm be an Enemy Combatant? Another good reason to get out and vote!!