Treasonous Bill Passed by Senate Today

[enjr4]

lol since I didnt grab my gun and storm DC I am one of the blissfully unaware? At least I know they are pissing on me even though they say its just a little rain.

We all know how this will end. Boiled in the pot, or blood in the streets. I thank God each and every day that I am an old fart and will not live to see the end of this great country.
Todays citizen is just too willing to take what the Government will give them. I think the mind set is, "Give me a beer and a TV and I will follow you anywhere!"

 

[enjr4]

Nothing to see here. Read the bolded red part and then reevaluate the bill! [/COLOR][/b]

Your part in red is not the part anyone here is talking to. There is an additional part that speaks to detaining US citizens rounded up in the US.

 

[Trlsmn]

Your part in red is not the part anyone here is talking to. There is an additional part that speaks to detaining US citizens rounded up in the US.

Then post the wording of the actual bill that address this.

 

[SonicBlue03]

lol since I didnt grab my gun and storm DC I am one of the blissfully unaware? At least I know they are pissing on me even though they say its just a little rain.

Yet you assume everyone else is blissfully unaware? That's Hillyard logic, dude.

At the end of the day, as frustrating as the de-evolution of the management of the U.S. is, it is still a country that is preferable to live in than others.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

I have a problem with the weasel wording - "requirement" infers to me that it would be optional...

 

[slimmer13]

Yet you assume everyone else is blissfully unaware

Not at all but the vast majority is, specificly the people who see nothing wrong with this bill and the Patriot act. And your right it is currently the best country but I fear that it wont be for my kids and future grandkids.

And Hillyard isnt all that bad (wont go there unless I have to though)

 

[enjr4]

Then post the wording of the actual bill that address this.

Don't have the actual bill available to to me; but, the second paragraph of this (in red) is what is being discussed. Your post refers to the first paragraph.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of Al Qaeda or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

The legislation also would give the government the authority to have the military hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens. Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.


Read more: Senate Approves $662 Billion Defense Bill | Fox News

 

[Trlsmn]

Don't have the actual bill available to to me; but, the second paragraph of this (in red) is what is being discussed. Your post refers to the first paragraph.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of Al Qaeda or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

The legislation also would give the government the authority to have the military hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens. Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.


Read more: Senate Approves $662 Billion Defense Bill | Fox News

So you are basing your opinion on internet hype and not provable fact? Nothing matters outside of what is written in the bill all else baseless propaganda. If there is something prove it, I am happy to have ignorance corrected even if it is my own.

 

[slimmer13]

Its like trying to read greek as far as I am concerned but I think the Pauls (Rand and Ron) are pretty smart guys compared to the rest of them and they have some deep concerns that I doubt are just made up or internet hype.

 

[RB87]

Rand Paul vs McCain:
Freedom Watch - Sen Rand Paul 11-29-11 - YouTube!

 

[Both Eyes Open]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

There you are. All 926 pages of the bill. The sections in question (1031-1037) starts on page 426 about 2/3 down the page. Not particularly a fun read but get your advil and enjoy.

 

[Brown Trout]

So you are basing your opinion on internet hype and not provable fact? Nothing matters outside of what is written in the bill all else baseless propaganda. If there is something prove it, I am happy to have ignorance corrected even if it is my own.

Section 1031 subsection b (2) is what has my panties in a wad.

Also, I am not very fond of the ambiguity in the wording of section 1031 and 1032. If there is this much buzz about it around America, then the wording is too ambiguous, and that is the kind of thing that causes problems.

 

[DeltaBravo]

Lots of discussion on this... That is a great thing because it means that people give a hoot and that they are at least aware. We will all form our own views, and I will respect yours because I spent 12 years of my life dedicated to the promise that I would defend your freedoms and rights to have your own opinion. My personal belief on issues such as this, is that it is better to be aware and cautious, than to be unaware, or aware and negligent.

 

[MikeE]

Former FBI Agent Corleen Rowley on the new Defense Authorization Act:

<broken link removed>

 

[Trlsmn]

Guys instead of saying this section or that section, post the actual words, even better bold color highlight the parts of concern.

 

[Buddhalux]

They gave you the sections so you can copy and paste them as you deem necessary.

 

[Trlsmn]

They gave you the sections so you can copy and paste them as you deem necessary.

Easier said than done when working from a 1.5" x 2.5" smartphone screen. Trying to read a PDF of any size is hopeless.

 

[rpatton]

Section 1031 subsection b (2) is what has my panties in a wad.

Ok, what about this part just a couple of paragraphs down:

(e) AUTHORITIES.&#8212;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.

Or this part of 1032:

(4) (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.&#8212;
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.&#8212;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.&#8212;The require15
ment 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.

Or is "selective reading" the same kind of thing as "selective hearing"?

 

[fd15k]

Ok, what about this part just a couple of paragraphs down:

(e) AUTHORITIES.&#8212;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.

Or this part of 1032:

(4) (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.&#8212;
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.&#8212;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.&#8212;The require15
ment 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.

Or is "selective reading" the same kind of thing as "selective hearing"?

I have read that too, and I also fail to see where the bill expands government authority
to detain US citizens and legal aliens without constitutional protections. Somebody is
using fear tactic again to raise political credit ?

 

[slimmer13]

So how come Mcain, when asked if it would extend to American citizens, didnt say no?