HR 1955

[hwt 0]

http://www.dailypaul.com/188197/new-law-by-obama-to-jail-500000-americans-or-more-for-the-crime-of-opposing-their-government


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

http://www.dailypaul.com/188197/new-law-by-obama-to-jail-500000-americans-or-more-for-the-crime-of-opposing-their-government


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

From your link:

"Text of H.R. 1955 [110th]: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"

Trying to pin a 2007 bill on Obama is a bit of a stretch.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Did he ever say that Obama was responsible for this? Possibly he was concerned about the bill itself?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Did he ever say that Obama was responsible for this? Possibly he was concerned about the bill itself?

Obviously you didn't bother to read the link before spouting off:

"New Law by Obama to Jail 500,000 Americans or More for The Crime of Opposing Their Government"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Incorrect I read both links, and I knew with his pro republican past posts you were inferring that he was trying to put that out there as another Obama slam

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Incorrect I read both links, and I knew with his pro republican past posts you were inferring that he was trying to put that out there as another Obama slam

Because that's exactly what it is. We can read, we can think, and we can understand. Please stop talking to us like we're idiots. Haven't you learned yet that that just doesn't work in here?

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Incorrect I read both links, and I knew with his pro republican past posts you were inferring that he was trying to put that out there as another Obama slam

Not past posts, and no inferring neccesary. He linked to an article blaming Obama and used it as his entire post.

Bed, make, sleep, etc.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Uh.. DUUUUDE... who gives a FUCK about what the Russkies think???

From your link
***New Law by Obama to Jail 500,000 Americans or More for The Crime of Opposing Their Government

Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.




WTF

The LAME meter just exploded.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.dailypaul.com/188197/new-law-by-obama-to-jail-500000-americans-or-more-for-the-crime-of-opposing-their-government


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

From your link:

"Text of H.R. 1955 [110th]: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"

Trying to pin a 2007 bill on Obama is a bit of a stretch.

You didn't follow the link to the full article did you? It should have died, but they are trying to bring it back. hopefully, it gets killed off for good.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1390/918/NL/New_Law_By_Obama_To_Jail_500,000_American_Citizens_Or_More_For_The_Crime_Of_Opposing_Their_Government..html

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,434]

>Incorrect I read both links

Ah - then you hoped no one else would read them.

[kallend 1,648]

You should take a look at S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill.

The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

Third time today I've heard this....after painfully re-reading it...I still don't see it. In fact I see it specifically excluding US Citizens in the unlawful military detentions.

S. 1867

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Third time today I've heard this....after painfully re-reading it...I still don't see it. In fact I see it specifically excluding US Citizens in the unlawful military detentions.

S. 1867

You must be talking about...

"According to Section 1032 on “Requirement for Military Custody,” for instance, “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not apply to citizens of the United States.”

However, if you keep reading, you'll come to...

"And Section 1031, which relates to the use of the armed forces to detain covered people “pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” has a very narrow purpose of describing detention “under the law of war” of people who either participated in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or is a member or “substantial supporter” of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

This DOES apply to U.S. citizens, and it also implies a simple suspicion.
-Being a "member of" does not mean actual participation, nor guilt, nor even agreement with the actions of the group.
-What "associated forces"? Undefined and wide open to abuse for persecuting innocent people, American or not.

So, military law is a lot different than civilian law. If you were the accused, would you rather be tried under military law or civilian law?

Note: My paragraphs were copy and pasted from this link:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/editorials/article_7323c450-2155-11e1-8154-001871e3ce6c.html


Put me down as strongly opposing this bill.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[BoogeyMan 0]

[Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.]

I say piss and schidt on Russian diplomats. Especially, that "Dobby" looking KGB rat Putin. Since when do Russian commies care about the welfare of the US? Wake up, folks.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Third time today I've heard this....after painfully re-reading it...I still don't see it. In fact I see it specifically excluding US Citizens in the unlawful military detentions.

S. 1867

You must be talking about...

"According to Section 1032 on “Requirement for Military Custody,” for instance, “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not apply to citizens of the United States.”

However, if you keep reading, you'll come to...

"And Section 1031, which relates to the use of the armed forces to detain covered people “pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” has a very narrow purpose of describing detention “under the law of war” of people who either participated in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or is a member or “substantial supporter” of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

This DOES apply to U.S. citizens, and it also implies a simple suspicion.
-Being a "member of" does not mean actual participation, nor guilt, nor even agreement with the actions of the group.

From the section in question (1031):

Quote

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Pretty obvious they're talking about something a bit more involved than shouting "America sucks", wouldn't you say?

Also from your link:
"This DOES apply to U.S. citizens, but it has already been established in plentiful detail that traitors who join forces with the enemy are subject to military law, including detention and worse.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Pretty obvious they're talking about something a bit more involved than shouting "America sucks", wouldn't you say?

Yep. Just like the Patriot Act would never apply to someone who got drunk and belligerent on an airplane.

My concern is that this bill is, by its very nature, contrary to Posse Comitatus. This bill will repeal Posse Comitatus in its effect.

And note the language used: “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not apply to citizens of the United States.” Note: it is not a “requirement.” That means that the military has discretion whether or not to detain a citizen.

So you’ve got the regular Army performing police actions in the US with the discretion to take US Citizens and hold them without trial until the end of hostilities with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other associated forces. And under what? The allegation of having provided substantial support.

What is substantial support? I’d venture to bet that “substantial support” will be viewed as anything that can be subjectively viewed as seditious. So a person providing comfort to the enemy, vocalizing support, etc., could be held without trial. The “held without trial” is extremely important because the courts are where the opportunities lie to challenge your detention.

How about habeas corpus? I haven’t read the act entirely, but I’d suspect that it will be lifted for these detainees.

My problem is in dealing with statutes for a living. The sections that are being pointed out by those defending the statute solidify my belief that Americans can be taken by active military forces on American soil and held as prisoners indefinitely without the right to trial or writ of habeas corpus.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Agreed.... This bill also ignores the "Flag wrapping around" individuals who are legally within the borders of the US. Constitutional protections, and the Bill of Rights are at odds with this bill.

[Bertt 0]

Umm, check this out, from the May 31, 2010 edition of the European Union Times
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/new-obama-law-warned-will-jail-500000-americans/

Now do a little research and see who runs eutimes.net

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[lawrocket 3]

So, then, you take no position on the bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

All true yet does not negate the probability of innocent American citizens being detained under the provisions of the bill.

Nor does it negate the differences in military vs civilian law.

Again, which would you prefer?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Since when do Russian commies care about the welfare of the US? Wake up, folks.

Since we have given them good opportunity to point fingers at us and say, "Yeah! Look at them bozos and how they are treating their own citizens."

I agree to your "wake up" statement. U.S. citizens should wake up and smell the coffee. Ahhhh, but having so little faith in American citizens in the face of their apathy and propensity to be herded, I don't see it happening to any meaningful extent.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lawrocket 3]

And note: This is not a GOP versus Democrat issue. It was 88-12 in the Senate. two Democrats (Merkley and Widen - both of Oregon) voted Nay on this bill. Only ten Republicans voted Nay.

So any attempt to put party politics into this is just silly.

Not directed at you, pops...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Apathy and propensity to be herded. Indeed! It’s not a country of individuals anymore. It’s a collective of people who look to the government to protect them.

“Give me liberty or give me death.” Ha. Right. No more.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Since when do Russian commies care about the welfare of the US? Wake up, folks.

Since we have given them good opportunity to point fingers at us and say, "Yeah! Look at them bozos and how they are treating their own citizens."

I agree to your "wake up" statement. U.S. citizens should wake up and smell the coffee. Ahhhh, but having so little faith in American citizens in the face of their apathy and propensity to be herded, I don't see it happening to any meaningful extent.

Thomas Jefferson said pretty much the same thing. TJ also said that the People will correct the error. (I paraphrase.)

[Bertt 0]

I object to the characterization that this is an Obama idea, but on to the bills:
The one introduced in 2007 was defeated in the Senate. Rightly so, I think.
The recent addition to the defense authorization bill is even more egregious. For example, it allows detention until cessation of hostilities - since there's no declared war, how do we know when that happens?

The fact is, U.S. citizens have certain rights (sixth amendment, habeas corpus, etc.) which most of people in the world envy and most of the dictators in the world fear. Weakening these protections will not weaken an enemy, it will only weaken America.

The issues raised here are not just theoretical.
Even without passage of either of these two measures, Jose Padilla was detained as an enemy combatant, but eventually tried and sentenced in (civilian) Federal court.

You don't have to outrun the bear.