Treasonous Bill Passed by Senate Today

[CommandoJoe]

Oregon's senators voted against it and Obama has vowed to veto it. If you think it doesn't apply to US citizens, think again. Lindsey Graham is a sponsor of the bill:


And BTW, the House already passed their version of it. Obama is all that stands between you and the FEMA camps.

As I said in another thread here - If everyone votes the same way, they have more than enough ( >2/3 ) to override a Presidential Veto... Veto override - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pauly]

 

[CharonPDX]

Wow. That is very disturbing, assuming Sen. Levin isn't full of crap with that statement.

Yeah, sent a letter to the White House. Hopefully it will matter.

 

[MikeE]

Jon Stewart blasts indefinite detention bill (BTW, post my gun pic here):

Jon Stewart on Indefinite Detention of Americans | ZeroHedge

 

[Pauly]

Well, looks like that one already disappeared...
Good thing it's been posted one or two times because people have figured out how youtube censorship tends to work......
Here's one that still works;

When it disappears, there's more out there;
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...5687l9464l0l11226l5l5l0l4l0l0l266l266l2-1l1l0

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

Wow. That is very disturbing, assuming Sen. Levin isn't full of crap with that statement.

Yeah, sent a letter to the White House. Hopefully it will matter.

If yer name aint John Corzine, Jamie Dimon, or George Soros, Rockefeller or Rothschild - it won't matter even a little. Keep on pushin' - but I assure you - they ain't listenin. It's a representative government alright - they just don't represent you.

<broken link removed>

Dear Mr. Citizen:



Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding military detention. It is good to hear from you.



As you know, in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration devised a new detention system outside of established legal structures of the U.S. criminal justice system and military courts-martial. Through legislation and a series of high-profile Supreme Court rulings, both Congress and the federal judiciary took action to clarify and limit parts of the Bush administration's detention programs.



Although President Obama has taken some important steps toward the fair and humane treatment of detainees, I believe much more work has yet to be done. I continue to support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the ability of the Administration to try terror suspects in the U.S. federal court system. The federal courts are well-equipped to handle these complex and difficult cases&#8212;since 2006, federal courts have successfully tried over 300 terrorism suspects while military commissions have tried only three.



I strongly support giving our military and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our nation and our servicemembers. I understand some evidence against detainees may be too sensitive to national security to be presented in civilian court or may be tainted due to harsh interrogation techniques. Right now, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General can decide whether to use a military tribunal or a federal court. I believe the Obama administration should continue to have the flexibility to decide on a case-by-case basis, and I opposed Republican amendments during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act that would strip the President of this authority.



Please be assured that I will keep your views on this important topic in mind during the 112th Congress. If you would like to know more about my work in the United States Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at <broken link removed>. Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator


Same blow-off i always get anytime I write one of our so called representatives. I hear you, but here's why I'm doing the exact opposite....

 

[JimmyS1985]

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus - YouTube

 

[Kevatc]

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus - YouTube

Is it just me or did the youtube show that our former AG didn't understand the writ of HC? At any rate, I am totally confused by some (most) of the posts in this thread that think the POTUS can just "willy nilly" suspend the HC and do as he pleases. We do have a SCOTUS that would rule the suspension of HC without the specific expressed rules in the Constitution as un-Constitutional ... right?

 

[Bigfoot]

Yep Obama says he will sign it, looks like he threatened the veto in order to get more Executive power.

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial | World news | The Guardian

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

---snip-----------------

The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.

But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.

Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.

Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law - Salon.com

Obama's veto threat was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he's a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

Obama's objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House's complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.

 

[JimmyS1985]

The suspension of HC has been done 4x in US history. The civil war, reconstruction, in S. Carolina when the government was fighting the Ku Klux Klan, WWII, and the War on Terror.

I forget how the quote goes but its something like "Any society that sacrifices freedom for security, deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

I think the whole congress and POTUS is to blame for this infringement, no one person. Because I heard an overzealous John McCain acting like Rand Paul think its ok for terrorists to kill Americans, because he opposed the provision suspending HC.

We may have a representatitve government, I forget who said it, but unless your last name is Soros, Murdoch, Walton, Gates, Pickens etc. they don't represent you at all.

 

[novamind]

So Now You may be a Red list or a Blue list or worse.

 

[Kevatc]

The suspension of HC has been done 4x in US history. The civil war, reconstruction, in S. Carolina when the government was fighting the Ku Klux Klan, WWII, and the War on Terror.

I forget how the quote goes but its something like "Any society that sacrifices freedom for security, deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

I think the whole congress and POTUS is to blame for this infringement, no one person. Because I heard an overzealous John McCain acting like Rand Paul think its ok for terrorists to kill Americans, because he opposed the provision suspending HC.

We may have a representatitve government, I forget who said it, but unless your last name is Soros, Murdoch, Walton, Gates, Pickens etc. they don't represent you at all.

You forgot the Koch brothers. At any rate all the more reason to find a way to get money out of politics regardless of it's source. First things first, got to get an amendment passed that reverses the horrendous SCOTUS decision that essentially makes a financial/business corporate entity the same as a living breathing human being. If you want true representative government this has to happen first.

 

[Stomper]

You forgot the Koch brothers. At any rate all the more reason to find a way to get money out of politics regardless of it's source. First things first, got to get an amendment passed that reverses the horrendous SCOTUS decision that essentially makes a financial/business corporate entity the same as a living breathing human being. If you want true representative government this has to happen first.

I hear what you are saying about money in politics and to a degree on the "personage" of a corporation, but since corporations are tax paying entities that pay income taxes (well except for GE... LOL) like me and you, shouldn't they (corporations) be represented as a "person" with some sort of right to pursue (and even defend) their interests.... Just like me and you should be able to do?

I'm not disputing the FACT that there is PLENTY of corporate abuses that go on, but then again there are plenty of abuses perpetrated by private individuals too.

 

[JimmyS1985]

If the private corp. CEO's want to make a private donation to a campaign, thats fine, but there is too much inherent corruption in the idea of a corporation, skimming some of its massive profits compared to an average individual, and directly donating it to a politicians campaign, makes for corrupt politicians.

The government is a government for the people, by the people, not for the corporation by the corporation. Currently our government is for the corporation, by the corporation.

Someone pointed out that to run for congress in the 70's, the average campaign fund for a House congressman was around $100k, today its like $2.5 million. We really do need to get the money out of politics, corporations serve their purpose but they don't have the public's interest best in mind. Government is about public service, corporations are about profit. Getting congressmen to do their bidding is about profit, not public service which is the whole point of what a politician, in an ideal world, should be doing. There are numerous examples where corporations have had detrimental effects on local populations (look up the Bhopal India gas leak sometime if you get a chance) all in the name of making more profit, and the CEO's golden parachute's keep them from ever suffering any consequences, while massive amounts of people suffer horrible consequences.

You are completely right KevatC, that SCOTUS ruling was absolutely horrible for our democracy. One of the pundits on MSNBC said that our politicians, instead of being a representative for the people of Wyoming, or Missouri, can now wear a NASCAR style jacket on their back representing the interests of Lowe's, or WalMart, or Koch Industries etc. The money in politics was bad enough prior to that ruling, last I heard was that the 112th congress increased in financial wealth by 25% in this last election over the previous one.

Half of the politicians in congress are millionaires, something which most American's are not. Is it any mystery that they so ardently refuse to raise taxes on millionaires such as themselves? That Job creator line is such BS, its an outright lie because we cut the taxes for the wealthiest American's so they would create jobs, well its 10 years later, where are the jobs? The politicians answer is to double down on cutting the taxes even further for millionaires, such obvious, blatant, corruption in our nations politics.

I am sorry to tell Republicans on this forum this, but I have decided that I will never vote for any politician in 2012, that campaigns on more tax cuts for the top tier tax bracket, or capital gains, or corporations. Most of the Republican candidates tax plans would blow a titanic sized hole in the federal budget if they get enacted. Herman Cain's tax plan would of raised taxes on over 80% of Americans while drastically cutting it for the top 1%, while pulling in a fraction of the revenue of the current tax system. I think its safe to say that Starve the Beast has been a complete failure of a fiscal ideology for reigning in spending through ballooning the federal debt, proven twice by Reagan and George W Bush.

 

[saabin]

There is another angle to consider when it comes to the Obama admin secretly requesting the language to be changed.

Next year is an election year. They could have planned on vetoing it from the very beginning but wanted the bill to get allot of media attention first so they could swoop in and save the day by vetoing it, making Obama look good and giving him something to use to villainize the bills original creators.

 

[Pauly]

Some explanations regarding some myths that the traitors who are attempting to placate us by telling us it doesn't apply to US citizens or that it can't be twisted to include virtually anybody are trying to spread;

<broken link removed>

 

[Pauly]

 

[SonicBlue03]

Reading the Salon.com breakdown, there was really only one thought that kept repeating itself in my head.

"160 rounds of .50 ain't gonna be enough..."

 

[beavertonbuck]

The Real Trouble With the Defense Authorization Bill | Cato @ Liberty

Here is an interesting link regarding the implications of the bill. It doesn't necessarily say that it has to be an enemy combatant in order for the person to be detained indefinitely by the military.

 

[beavertonbuck]

If the private corp. CEO's want to make a private donation to a campaign, thats fine, but there is too much inherent corruption in the idea of a corporation, skimming some of its massive profits compared to an average individual, and directly donating it to a politicians campaign, makes for corrupt politicians.

The government is a government for the people, by the people, not for the corporation by the corporation. Currently our government is for the corporation, by the corporation.

Someone pointed out that to run for congress in the 70's, the average campaign fund for a House congressman was around $100k, today its like $2.5 million. We really do need to get the money out of politics, corporations serve their purpose but they don't have the public's interest best in mind. Government is about public service, corporations are about profit. Getting congressmen to do their bidding is about profit, not public service which is the whole point of what a politician, in an ideal world, should be doing. There are numerous examples where corporations have had detrimental effects on local populations (look up the Bhopal India gas leak sometime if you get a chance) all in the name of making more profit, and the CEO's golden parachute's keep them from ever suffering any consequences, while massive amounts of people suffer horrible consequences.

You are completely right KevatC, that SCOTUS ruling was absolutely horrible for our democracy. One of the pundits on MSNBC said that our politicians, instead of being a representative for the people of Wyoming, or Missouri, can now wear a NASCAR style jacket on their back representing the interests of Lowe's, or WalMart, or Koch Industries etc. The money in politics was bad enough prior to that ruling, last I heard was that the 112th congress increased in financial wealth by 25% in this last election over the previous one.

Half of the politicians in congress are millionaires, something which most American's are not. Is it any mystery that they so ardently refuse to raise taxes on millionaires such as themselves? That Job creator line is such BS, its an outright lie because we cut the taxes for the wealthiest American's so they would create jobs, well its 10 years later, where are the jobs? The politicians answer is to double down on cutting the taxes even further for millionaires, such obvious, blatant, corruption in our nations politics.

I am sorry to tell Republicans on this forum this, but I have decided that I will never vote for any politician in 2012, that campaigns on more tax cuts for the top tier tax bracket, or capital gains, or corporations. Most of the Republican candidates tax plans would blow a titanic sized hole in the federal budget if they get enacted. Herman Cain's tax plan would of raised taxes on over 80% of Americans while drastically cutting it for the top 1%, while pulling in a fraction of the revenue of the current tax system. I think its safe to say that Starve the Beast has been a complete failure of a fiscal ideology for reigning in spending through ballooning the federal debt, proven twice by Reagan and George W Bush.

Typical liberal. Someone has to pay but not me, never mind that the bottom 50% of taxpayers don't pay anything in federal income taxes. Tell me when the last time you managed billions of dollars in profit, was responsible for ten of thousands of employees, worked 60-80 hours a week and then tell us how much you got paid to do the work. Most of the 1% worked hard to get there.

Now I know you want to bring up the banks and wall street, well you need to talk to Obama about that. Seems like if you give enough money to Obama he doesn't hold it against you that you are in the 1%.