Bipartisan legislation being considered in the U.S. Senate would expand the military’s power to go after any terrorism suspect, including American citizens, anywhere in the world—including within the United States—and confine them indefinitely without being charged or tried.
S. 1867, referred to as the National Defense Authorization Act bill, was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona) and was scheduled for a vote by the full Senate on Tuesday.
Voices on both the right and left have expressed concerns about the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) has introduced an amendment to S. 1867 that would “delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power,” according to the ACLU. “The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.”
The provision has also drawn the ire of high-ranking officials in the executive branch who see it as a usurpation of power by the military. FBI Director Robert Mueller wrote a letter to members of Congress raising his own concerns and stating that “The legislation ... will inhibit our ability to convince covered arrestees to cooperate immediately, and provide critical intelligence.” President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill.
Levin and McCain have defended their measure by saying that it includes a waiver that allows U.S. administrations to “hold these al Qaeda detainees in civilian custody if it determines that would best serve national security.”
-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/Vi...t_Trial_111129
--------------
I see McCain was against torture and water boarding terrorists, but he's ok with stripping Americans of their rights.
if no trial
then whats the point of having a legal system, just pull all them ppl associated with the legal system in professional roles into welfare ques...
i found some old ass legal do ent thing
i dont think anyone reads this anymore lolll
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Why do you love terrorists more than America, greyforest?
Wow, so this is what it's come to.
Hence, the blue text.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/cong...umf/singleton/I haven’t written about this bill until now for one reason: as odious and definitively radical as the powers are which this bill endorses, it doesn’t actually change the status quo all that much. That’s because the Bush and Obama administrations have already successfully claimed most of the powers in the bill, and courts have largely acquiesced. To be sure, there are dangers to having Congress formally codify these powers. But a powerful sign of how degraded our political culture has become is that this bill — which in any other time would be shockingly extremist — actually fits right in with who we are as a nation and what our political ins utions are already doing. To be perfectly honest, I just couldn’t get myself worked up over a bill that, with some exceptions, does little more than formally recognize and codify what our Government is already doing.
The US Senate is discussing it right now:
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
sorry i'm not a 4chan , it appeared to me that he was saying that the dude loves terrorists for opposing this bill. just wow.
They stopped being Americans when they became "terrorists"
But who determines who's a terrorist? Could a Ron Paul supporter be considered a terrorist? Someone who thinks we should do away with the Fed? Someone who thinks our government doesn't always tell the truth? Who determines who's a "terrorist?" Dangerous slope you're starting down there...
On another note, I recorded Team America a couple of weeks ago and began watching it last night. Man, I forgot how stupid we were back in 2004. The jokes in that movie are funny today, but were close to main stream thinking back then.
We are already down the slope. I was being sarcastic. Its absurd that they would pass a bill to support this type of abuse on our civil rights, but then again, as WH posted a few links up, this has been going on for years. They might as well make it an official FU to our civil liberties.
My bad, I really don't know what to think anymore so many people are still asleep to what's going on and would really actually think something like what you joked. It's really scary to think about what things are going to be like in 10 years.
You flatter yourself. You let others do your independent thinking for you.
Smart move.
^hey whiney, its me parker!
You have over 1k posts and still haven't figured out what blue text means? thats sad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
