Treasonous Bill Passed by Senate Today

[Brown Trout]

No need to pick on anybody. This is what we're doing here - trying to figure out what's going on.

Really?!?

My point of view has been called hype and propoganda, internet panic, and apparantly since I don't send my bonus check to John McCain, I am an "internet poser".

Wow

 

[Brown Trout]

I don't think you read my post #77.

"Well there is still the rest of the bill which sucks, but I don't think it will pass the House. The Senate and House will begin committee negotiations on what's left, and it should get trimmed some more. I hope."

You are right, I didn't. I was responding to post #65 and #67. As for #77, congratulations, you have now caught up to the rest of us.

 

[Gunner3456]

You are right, I didn't. I was responding to post #65 and #67. As for #77, congratulations, you have now caught up to the rest of us.

Your data says your location is earth. I doubt that too.

Unsubscribed from the thread, from people who don't want the truth. :huh:

 

[Trlsmn]

Guys, if you debate the bill instead of wielding it as a club at each other you may find some we can make progress at understanding the bill. Just a thought.

 

[Brown Trout]

Your data says your location is earth. I doubt that too.

Unsubscribed from the thread, from people who don't want the truth. :huh:

Ad Hominem.......

If you care about the truth, get over yourself and spend 2 minutes watching the floor debate on cspan. I will link it for you. I suggest watching the whole thing of course, but I am realistic, so the most important part is between 7:18 and 7:22. That is three minutes of your life to listen from Lindsey Graham's mouth the difference between section 1031 and section 1032. That is what was being discussed through the first 3 pages of this thread.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951

 

[fd15k]

Ad Hominem.......

If you care about the truth, get over yourself and spend 2 minutes watching the floor debate on cspan. I will link it for you. I suggest watching the whole thing of course, but I am realistic, so the most important part is between 7:18 and 7:22. That is three minutes of your life to listen from Lindsey Graham's mouth the difference between section 1031 and section 1032. That is what was being discussed through the first 3 pages of this thread.

Senate Session - C-SPAN Video Library

I have watched the mentioned segment, but unfortunately got no time to watch the entire thing. What they're talking about in that segment does not match the text of the bill that has been passed. Perhaps not seeing the whole thing, the context is not revealed - they briefly mentioned amendments, so likely the "difference between 1031 and 1032" the Senator has mentioned was in the text of the proposed (and turned down) amendment. It is also interesting how his position is "supported" by the case law from the 4th Circuit. Not sure what country is he from, but in my country a Circuit Court decision is not binding on other circuits, and does not make the Law of the Land.

 

[Brown Trout]

a short law review about the confusion between sections 1031 and 1032. Of course it is not as short as gunner3456's review, but it is more insightful.

Lawfare › Does the NDAA Authorize Detention of US Citizens?

 

[fd15k]

a short law review about the confusion between sections 1031 and 1032. Of course it is not as short as gunner3456's review, but it is more insightful.

Lawfare › Does the NDAA Authorize Detention of US Citizens?

First, section 1031 is the explicit grant of detention authority. It no longer says anything about US citizenship, one way or the other.

(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.

Here is the subsection in the passed version of the bill Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Brown Trout]

You are right, the debate was just that, debate. It took place at the end of November. What I wanted to point out, besides their intentions from out of their own mouths, is the inclusion of the padillia case so as to set forth the precedent for detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. It does make the law of the land by way of precedent. It is called positivism. Introduced by Christopher Columbus Langdell, a Harvard Law professor, it is basically evolutionistic jurisprudence. Law is interpreted based on precedent set forth by previous cases.

 

[Brown Trout]

A quote from Sen. Feinstein on the amendmant that you posted.

"So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side's view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side's interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide."

Again, it goes back to judicial precedent.

 

[fd15k]

A quote from Sen. Feinstein on the amendmant that you posted.

"So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side's view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side's interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide."

Again, it goes back to judicial precedent.

That's right, original bill did not have the mentioned text. Senator Feinstein introduced it as an amendment :

SA 1456. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On p. 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(e) 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 would say it goes to current law, rather than judicial precedent.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

About that Veto threat...

poorrichards blog: Obama Wants to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill Because It Would Hold the U.S. to the Geneva Convention

Activist Post: Misreading the Fight Over Military Detention: Obama Regime Has No Constitutional Scruples

 

[fd15k]

About that Veto threat...

poorrichards blog: Obama Wants to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill Because It Would Hold the U.S. to the Geneva Convention

Activist Post: Misreading the Fight Over Military Detention: Obama Regime Has No Constitutional Scruples

I have read the second piece only, and the linked letter from the Administration. Here is a little quote in the letter :

Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the
United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise
serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American
principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

 

[SonicBlue03]

You say that now, but you'll be wishing for military patrols in our streets with the zombies come next year.

 

[fd15k]

You say that now, but you'll be wishing for military patrols in our streets with the zombies come next year.

Only unprepared liberals will be calling for those. Most forum members will be welcoming an opportunity to practice with moving targets

 

[SonicBlue03]

Only unprepared liberals will be calling for those. Most forum members will be welcoming an opportunity to practice with moving targets

That'd be kind of a sight, wouldn't it? I wonder how many people on this forum would get eaten within the first week.

 

[Grunwald]

That'd be kind of a sight, wouldn't it? I wonder how many people on this forum would get eaten within the first week.

If zombies come out I am carrying a sword and not a gun. We know that the only was to kill a zombie is to shoot it in the head or decapitate it. The sword will do the second and never runs out of ammo. Plus I can run around yelling "there can be only one".

 

[SonicBlue03]

I looked at Excalibur and Ten Point crossbows the other night. The downside is that whole 'slow reloading' bit. A sword makes a lot of sense, plus it's pretty high on the Cool Scale.

 

[Stomper]

That'd be kind of a sight, wouldn't it? I wonder how many people on this forum would get eaten within the first week.

It's a good thing MOST zombies don't eat junk food, so most of you should be safe enough.

 

[DeltaBravo]

You say that now, but you'll be wishing for military patrols in our streets with the zombies come next year.

Rules for the Zombie Apocolypse. Those of you who have seen the movie 'Zombieland' can appreciate this.

1. Cardio
2. The Double Tap
3. Beware of Bathrooms
4. Wear Seat Belts
5. No Attachments
6. The "Skillet"
7. Travel Light
8. Get a Kick *** Partner
9. With your Bare Hands
10. Don't Swing Low
11. Use Your Foot
12. Bounty Paper Towels
13. Shake it Off
14. Always carry a change of underwear
15. Bowling Ball
16. Opportunity Knocks
17. Don't be a hero (later crossed out to be a hero)
18. Limber Up
19. Break it Up
20. It's a marathon, not a sprint, unless it's a sprint, then sprint
21. Avoid Strip Clubs
22. When in doubt Know your way out
23. Zipplock
24. Use your thumbs
25. Shoot First
26. A little sun screen never hurt anybody
27. Incoming!
28. Double-Knot your Shoes
29. The Buddy System
30. Pack your stain stick
31. Check the back seat
32. Enjoy the little things
33. Swiss army Knife