Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being R

reply to post by Frira

So, if Martial Law was declared in the US, then nothing is different. And if an American Citizen is working for an enemy, nothing has changed except the "You can't shoot THAT enemy, because he is an American Citizen!" argument goes away.

I'm not sure you have "got it" yourself. This is dealing with designating a "battlefield" to be anywhere, including the us or allied countries, and being able to designate targets there as "enemy combatants" and we all know what that means thanks to bush.

This bill would essentially allow the Military to operate within the United states without declaring a national emergency, and without declaring "martial law". As well, anyone arrested under "martial law" would still have rights, severely restricted, but they'd still have them.

An "enemy combatant" has no rights, at all.

scarey times when your elected officials are demanding powers like this, considering they've already labeled all of us terrorists, and are actively spying on our communications.

Apparently they started considering the bill at 1PM...

Monday, Nov 28, 2011

1:00 p.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Watch it live here :
CSPAN senate
Not much happening now.

They just said they will have final vote on Wednesday.

Originally posted by TheMatrixusesYou
reply to post by daddio

 

I'm going to have to come back to this later as I'm currently busy with daily tasks.

If what you are saying is correct and that the Strawman is a real deal, and I do have my doubts, then revoking US citizenship could ultimately be disastrous if this new bill gets passed. The only exception to indefinite incarceration without trial is toward US citizens. You would actually be put on a list as a potential terrorist and hauled away since you have revoked US citizenship to claim other citizenship. You'd be considered a terrorist because your knowledge could spread to others which could eventually violate national security. Right?

The strawman IS real, it is a fact of Law, actual case law.

1906: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
Defined the distinction between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 5th Amendment protections within the U.S. Constitution. "...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges. "

You are not allowed to argue ANY court case decided before 1938 in court, they won't hear it. It was the bankruptcy of the nation in 1933, HJR-192, that was signed by FDR as part of the new deal, problem was, the governors of the 48 states could not sell us out, so they made us corporations or legal fictions, your NAME in ALL capital letters. You did not learn to write it in school that way, did you? So why is it on EVERY document you sign your real name too. YOU are the agent for the strawman. Many people will claim this is not so but it IS SO and it is a fact.

Your birth certificate IS your MSO, manufacturers certificate of origin. The "government", by putting your name in THEIR register in all CAPITAL letters, created YOU. That is a fact. Unregister yourself, take "control" of the strawman and set the record straight.

And no, they can not arrest Sovereign people. They can by force only, but if you have regaiend sovereignty, then you have the legal RIGHT to defend yourself and your proerty, and it would be a crime for the government to take you or your property by force.

reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou


And what national security would you be violating? The U.S. is in fact a corporation.

Thomas Jefferson said: A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

no law can never govern the conduct of people on the land, only those who work in a capacity of government officials and agents and employees in their lawful duty to protect the life, liberty and property, and;

the lawful functions of any government cannot infringe upon the freedom and rights granted to men and women by their creator, and;

A society is defined as a number of persons joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and;

A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law only within that society, and:

A by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and;

the United States of America is a federation of fifty artificial nation states, the government of each state bound by the Constitution for The United States of America, and;

The Constitution for The United States of America, and the public acts of all states and the federal government, established corporate legal entities called governments on the land known as the United States and the several States, and;

The Constitution of The United States of America is a document to which all public acts must abide, and;

the current acting federal government on the land commonly known of as the United States of America is a power de facto, is referred to as the United States, and has no authority over people, and;

The United States is a corporation as per public policy 29 USC 3002.

And also we have, and this was posted on ATS years ago but seems no one bothers to follow up or read and investigate anything, just post crap responses and claim the truth is not what you are reading...

corporations are artificial legal entities that can contract with only with other legal entities by the hand of living agents, and only with full disclosure between the agents thereof, full disclosure of the definition of all words, the assumption that those definitions rest upon, and the implications that extend therefrom of all clauses of such contracts in order to claim authority, power or control over those contracting parties, and;

The Constitutions and public acts for The United States of America and the respective States do not bind nor extend to people on the land, only to artificial persons, and;

the Law Societies and Bar Associations of the United States and the respective states are the societies whose members create the statutes of the United States, therefore these statutes apply only to citizens of those societies, the artificial persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or those artificial persons whose trustee acts in his personal capacity as an employee of those societies, and;

The Constitution of The United States of America and it's public acts, the Constitutions and public acts of each of the respective states, and all de facto counterparts, apply only to citizens, residents, persons and the like - artificial persons representing the government officials, agents and employees of each level of governments, and;

a "person" "resident" or "citizen" of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights and all statutes, code, ordinances and by-laws of the United States and of all States and Municipalities refers to an artificial entity, and;

all law of the United States and respective States applies only to artificial persons, and those sworn to uphold these laws, and;

The United States and all governments and courts on the land commonly known of as United States of America are corporations, and have no authority over sovereign men and women on the land, and;

The US Code and State Codes, are commercial law governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and;

for something to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States it must be an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction pursuant to the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America, and;

that the term 'citizen' as defined in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is the term used to denote the political status of the artificial entity of government employee, and;

A citizen is an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as per the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution for the United States, and is also subject to those corporate state entities which have contracted with the United States,

PLEASE !!!!! STOP AND THINK !!!!!!!!!!!

I have two pieces of advice for anyone thinking about any of the following:

Strawman defense
Name in all caps
Sovereign citizen
US as a corporation
SSN meaning the government owns you
US under maritime law
Statutes aren't valid law
or anything else mentioned in daddio's posts or any freeman or sovereign citizen publication:

1.) Begin by assuming the conclusion is false (I've never seen one true, yet) and doing the basic research yourself. By that I mean, read the statute, looking especially at the definitions section. Then look at the court cases dealing with statute, starting with the newest Supreme Court case, but don't forget the District Courts.

2.) If you're thinking about making any decision that might affect your money, property, family, or freedom based on the doctrines of the sovereign citizen (and I suggest you don't), get a free half-hour consultation from an attorney. Use the phone book or the state bar association. You're looking for someone in your state that has done casework or research in this particular field.

Guys, think. Please. If someone tells you that filing a paper means you never have to pay taxes, or get a driver's license, do you really think it's legitimate?

Preparing for the Final Takedown?

There is a shocking piece of legislation working its way through Congress. A Defense Authorization bill for 2012 allows for military detentions of American citizens on American soil. These can be indefinite detentions, with no trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union statement (more of an alert) on November 28, 2011 deserves special attention:

“The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge.”

“The Defense Authorization bill — a “must-pass” piece of legislation — is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President — and all future presidents — the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.”

“If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.”

“The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the nation’s oldest organization of its kind, emerging from the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed the US entry into World War I in 1917.

Without endorsing everything the ACLU has done, it is possible to recognize this organization as careful. It is not prone to wild exaggeration.

Fortunately, there is some resistance to the NDAA for 2012 bill, to this Department of Defense power grab, including by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

In fact, Sen. Feinstein appeared quite alarmed:

“I will stop reading here, but again, I want to emphasize this point. We are talking about the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial. We have not done this at least since World War II when we incarcerated Japanese Americans. This is a very serious thing we are doing. People should understand its impact.”

The White House is not enthusiastic about the present wording of the two controversial sections of the bill.

In a Statement of Administration Policy (November 17, 2011), the administration objected to two main items:

1) that the bill mandates the military detention of covered persons (restraining the Justice Department’s hand) and

2) that the detention provisions can cover American citizens within the United States.

Obviously, if the President is put in the position of having to sign a bill with such a provision (indefinite detention for Americans), it would spark bottomless outrage from from both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.

Even mainstream, apolitical Americans would be concerned about such a provision that, on its face, is unconstitutional. Ordinary Americans are already waking up to the specter of tyranny, and the NDAA for 2012 would accelerate that process.

So the administration released this statement in an effort to trim the most offensive sections from the bill:

“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.”

Senators Levin’s response to the administration is troubling on two counts.

First, Sen. Levin’s response suggests that the administration changed its position midway through this process or, possibly, that there is a split between the White House on the one hand and the Pentagon or CIA on the other:

Sen. Levin’s states that it was the administration all along that assisted with the wording:

“Section 1031 was written by Administration officials for the purpose of codifying existing authority.”

Then Sen. Levin complains that:

“The Administration itself asked that we delete language in section 1031 that would have excluded the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens based on conduct taking place within the United States.”

Senator Levin insists that there is nothing in those sections that breaks with established law, and that the committee accepted the administration’s proposed changes to retain the civilian – rather than the military – option for detainment.

This is how Sen. Levin tried to put at ease the concerns:

“Nothing is automatic. The administration would have the discretion to waive military detention and hold a detainee in civilian custody if it decided to do so.”

Sen. Levin then proceeds to misinterpret the Supreme Court case that he himself cited: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). As Sen. Levin claims:

“The Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that existing law authorizes the detention of American citizens under the law of war in the limited circumstances spelled out here, so this is nothing new.”

But the circumstances in Sen. Levin’s bill are not “limited” at all, since they involve indefinite detention without trial.

Besides, the Supreme Court actually decided – in the Hamdi case in fact – that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. This precludes indefinite detention without a trial.

(Hamdi v. Rumsfeld had addressed the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an “illegal enemy combatant.”)

As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the opinion:

“… it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.”

Eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the government does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

Clearly, this upcoming defense bill – especially Sections 1031 and 1032 – is plagued by confusion. Some of this confusion appears to be deliberate.

The ACLU is supporting the Udall Amendment advanced by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.). The ACLU claims that it will delete the harmful provisions and “make sure that the bill matches up with American values.”

It is time, however, to raise a more fundamental question about the NDAA for 2012 and Sections 1031 and 1032.

What sinister forces are behind the crafting of this legislation, behind closed doors? Most likely, officials in the defense and intelligence communities penned the legislation, then used Senators Carl Levin and John McCain to advance it.

Sen. Carl Levin makes periodic sense, but he has spent much of his 32 years in the Senate helping to bloat the military-industrial and police-state apparatus. Meatime, across his tenure, the economy of his home state Michigan has imploded.

And Se. Levin appears to take seriously the latest absurd accusation: that there was an Iranian-Zeta plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a restaurant. This plot bears all the hallmarks of previous unlawful entrapment cases. For more details on recent unlawful entrapment: multipolarfuture.com...

Sen. John McCain also makes periodic sense, but he has become a knee-jerk neo-con, unable to find a war (or a long-term occupation) that he cannot support.

Sen. John McCain would do well to remove his name from such a draconian bill, lest he add more fuel to the rumor that, as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, he was transformed into some kind of Manchurian candidate with a time-release program to destroy American democracy from within.

As many Americans know, for over a decade there have been dozens of pieces of legislation and executive orders that have chipped away at the US Constitution, specifically at its Bill of Rights.

The “war on terror” was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.

This was the design all along.

The intention was always to immobilize the American public with a police-state control grid, now backed by the regular military, so that the process of economic extraction and political subjection could be completed.

The NDAA for 2012 represents a significant step, on the part of the government, towards a “final takedown.”

The bill’s provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charge or trial, represents nothing short of an declaration of war by the federal government on the American people.

Hopefully, more sensible Senators and Representatives will squash this diabolical legislation.


The Nazi and they SS police-state are back my fellow friends.

lol. what do you think those fema camps are for? A U.S citizen is not an American. No man (gender neutral) in congress is a U.S citizen. There is many 14th amendment persons, guaranteed if you use a birthcertificate. And the war powers act declared U.S citizens enemies.

Originally posted by charles1952
PLEASE !!!!! STOP AND THINK !!!!!!!!!!!

I have two pieces of advice for anyone thinking about any of the following:

Strawman defense
Name in all caps
Sovereign citizen
US as a corporation
SSN meaning the government owns you
US under maritime law
Statutes aren't valid law
or anything else mentioned in daddio's posts or any freeman or sovereign citizen publication:

1.) Begin by assuming the conclusion is false (I've never seen one true, yet) and doing the basic research yourself. By that I mean, read the statute, looking especially at the definitions section. Then look at the court cases dealing with statute, starting with the newest Supreme Court case, but don't forget the District Courts.

2.) If you're thinking about making any decision that might affect your money, property, family, or freedom based on the doctrines of the sovereign citizen (and I suggest you don't), get a free half-hour consultation from an attorney. Use the phone book or the state bar association. You're looking for someone in your state that has done casework or research in this particular field.

Guys, think. Please. If someone tells you that filing a paper means you never have to pay taxes, or get a driver's license, do you really think it's legitimate?

Well, this has nothing to do with opinion, there are no opinions in the law.
Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron, and anyone who upholds the supreme law of the land knows this.
The 'U.S' as in defined in the United States Code Title 28 Section 3002 'United States' means federal
corporation.

I won't get into the rest of what you posted because I can see that you have not studied. If you had a law dictionary you wouldn't have posted half of that. It appears your sources of information are primarily the ADL, SPLC, and various television news channels.

I'm very very much confused and shocked how John McCain is elected 5 times in Senat

Dear lawlb0t,

Thanks for responding, but I don't understand some of your points and can't bring myself to agree with the rest.

lol. what do you think those fema camps are for? A U.S citizen is not an American. No man (gender neutral) in congress is a U.S citizen. There is many 14th amendment persons, guaranteed if you use a birthcertificate. And the war powers act declared U.S citizens enemies.

I must not understand you, because I don't see the sense in any of those statements. No Congressman is a US citizen? American citizens are enemies of America?

The 'U.S' as in defined in the United States Code Title 28 Section 3002 'United States' means federal
corporation.

As used in this chapter . . .
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

You see, that definition only applies to that Chapter of the Code and is not the standard definition of United States.

There is of course, no way to show credentials over the Internet, but I'd be glad to show you why I believe the items I've posted.

With respect,
Charles1952

I assume that you're expressing honest beliefs, and not just having fun taking extreme positions to see who bites.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Man you Americans must fight this #, how can you stand and let them do this to you. They are putting all the pieces in the puzzle for the NWO. Arrest their citizens, start the war with Iran. Where is the people on the street? If more of humanity doesn't wake up soon we will loose.

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear lawlb0t,

Thanks for responding, but I don't understand some of your points and can't bring myself to agree with the rest.

lol. what do you think those fema camps are for? A U.S citizen is not an American. No man (gender neutral) in congress is a U.S citizen. There is many 14th amendment persons, guaranteed if you use a birthcertificate. And the war powers act declared U.S citizens enemies.

I must not understand you, because I don't see the sense in any of those statements. No Congressman is a US citizen? American citizens are enemies of America?

The 'U.S' as in defined in the United States Code Title 28 Section 3002 'United States' means federal
corporation.

As used in this chapter . . .
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

You see, that definition only applies to that Chapter of the Code and is not the standard definition of United States.

There is of course, no way to show credentials over the Internet, but I'd be glad to show you why I believe the items I've posted.

With respect,
Charles1952

I assume that you're expressing honest beliefs, and not just having fun taking extreme positions to see who bites.

A Peruvian is an American, a Brazilian is an American, a Mexican is an American, a Native is an American. America is the continents. Peru, Mexico, Brazil, etc is the nation of that people. Those people are the aboriginal indigenous people of that land mass.

Now that we see (In your case, I hope) that America is the continent, now you can see why I said U.S citizen is not an American. U.S citizens were declared enemies, not Americans.

You can believe what ever you want, like I said I don't dwell in opinion. What is the 'standard' definition of the United States? This is the United States Code, anyone who took oath who holds a public office is bound to it. Those codes operate 'your' 'courts'.

Do you need credentials or to present credentials when my source is the codes itself, not an opinion? Anyways, I would like to continue in the discussion, but it is filled with opinions when it is factual topic. Law is a science.

reply to post by lawlb0t


What he is trying to tell you is that the particular section of code you speak of defines the U.S. as a corporation solely within the context of that part of the code and not in the broader context of the U.S. code.

This is why varying sections take the time to define what certain words with on this sections mean in respect to those sections; so that people cannot take one word from one section of U.S. code and use it on a broader basis. The law is written to prevent people from doing what the "free men, sovereign cities, tax evaders etc. etc. etc." attempt to do so often, and what you are doing now, to try to distort and confuse/swindle others.

Its like that time old "Proto-loco" got confused and thought the trademark on the logo of the U.S. Census somehow was a trademark of the U.S. in general. That thread contained various postings first ridiculing those of us that pointed out it was merely the trademark of the logo followed by telling us to go get educated. Reason and logic and law were all ignored in the interest of spreading the freeman b.s. and thats what your doing now.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "nah nah i'm not listening" to the truth presented to you all you want. You should not be so obstinate about it though.

oh we can just watch it will happen. what people dont understand the elected people dont run our govt anymore the military controlls everything its why all people need to pull together and stand up for your freedom live or die its what our founding fathers did live or die. the true fact is we are brain washed and spoiled even afraid to die but if it is to stand up for freedom no price is to great so people will either stand up and fight or become slaves to insane lunatics.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Frira

 

So, if Martial Law was declared in the US, then nothing is different. And if an American Citizen is working for an enemy, nothing has changed except the "You can't shoot THAT enemy, because he is an American Citizen!" argument goes away.

I'm not sure you have "got it" yourself. This is dealing with designating a "battlefield" to be anywhere, including the us or allied countries, and being able to designate targets there as "enemy combatants" and we all know what that means thanks to bush.

This bill would essentially allow the Military to operate within the United states without declaring a national emergency, and without declaring "martial law". As well, anyone arrested under "martial law" would still have rights, severely restricted, but they'd still have them.

An "enemy combatant" has no rights, at all.

scarey times when your elected officials are demanding powers like this, considering they've already labeled all of us terrorists, and are actively spying on our communications.

I do think I was still leaning toward the ACLU version of the bill when I wrote that, but since learned the citizenship of a POW is not an issue in the bill.

In fact, I have found nothing which gives the sort of power you describe.

It says that enemy combatants taken will remain under the jurisdiction of military courts. That is not new-- it codifies existing procedure in the face of recent challenges.

The distinction between being on foreign soil and US soil regards enemy combatants captured here attempting to or carrying out belligerent activity. I do not believe that is new. During WWII, would not a Nazi submariner caught inside Galveston Bay be held as a POW?

And if that Nazi saboteur was American born or born in Berlin, it changes nothing-- not then, and not now.

Same thing-- the bill is actually enforcing status quo in that regard-- preempting legal maneuvers attempting to place certain POWs in the criminal and civil courts.

No war powers are extended in the bill-- the controversy is about court jurisdiction. If I am mistaken-- I will need to see the text of the bill which is being interpreted in the way you suggest.

Nor does the bill make it a crime to provide substantial support of belligerents planning or carrying out attacks on the US a new thing. It is illegal now... of course.

If the bill passes, or fails to pass, the government has no more and no less power to break down my door and take me prisoner as an enemy combatant. No change in the burden of proof would take place.

The fear some are expressing has nothing to do with the language of the bill-- so far as I have seen. I'm open to being shown that; but I do not think it is in the bill.

I agree with this new law. I am a member of the NWO and see this as an expediant way to deal with radical religious zealots who use their scriptures to undermine the governments of the world.

This should serve as notice to those who swear allegiance to ideaologies that are the enemy of the new world order. Frankly I don't understand the anger of those who do not agree as most religions promise their savior will stop the NWO. So perhaps those who disagree should question their own faith. Either way, welcome to reality.

Drip drip drip. That bucket sure is getting full.

PATRIOT Act. Real ID Act (already in force and no one ever complained, because it didn't seem particular inconvenient.) TSA sidestepping the 14th and 4th amendments on roads, rail, and airports by being invited to private property. RFID being the most favored technology for future national IDs should they ever be enforced. And now, the proposed further gutting of Habeas corpus.

Because these are all just drops in the bucket and they fall so gradually, there is not sufficient outrage to stop it.

Drip drip drip...

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Drip drip drip. That bucket sure is getting full.

PATRIOT Act. Real ID Act (already in force and no one ever complained, because it didn't seem particular inconvenient.) TSA sidestepping the 14th and 4th amendments on roads, rail, and airports by being invited to private property. RFID being the most favored technology for future national IDs should they ever be enforced. And now, the proposed further gutting of Habeas corpus.

Because these are all just drops in the bucket and they fall so gradually, there is not sufficient outrage to stop it.

Drip drip drip...

I agree, but what drop falls into the bucket from the bill being discussed here?

Udall is talking about the military lock up of american citizens....

CSPAN

reply to post by Vitchilo
did you see how fast John shot up to bla bla his way in for the Rep side why does he want this bill so bad? He must have some hidden agenda, does he own stock in say Halliburton? lets see if this link works thomas.loc.gov... ok this one does type in s.1867 and then read the amendments

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

did you see how fast John shot up to bla bla his way in for the Rep side why does he want this bill so bad? thomas.loc.gov... He must have some hidden agenda, does he own stock in say Halliburton?

No I just watched it a few minutes while Udall was talking. I missed old crazy john.

Old fart Carl Levin defends this whole BS. And he says since the Supreme Court agrees that Americans can be arrested as enemy combatants it's alright. He says it's alright too because Obama approved it...

So what if these scumbags approved it? It violates the constitution!