S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act - Some Clarifictions - Does NOT allow US Citizen detenti

reply to post by Xcathdra

What we are witnessing now is truly historic, the American government is trying to explicitly codify the ability to detain Americans without trial or charge in a military facility under military rule with military tribunals.

which in my civil society and in our decition to uphold that all humans have rights not just the ones you exclude from your military interpretation. but all and to write laws to empower yourself to remove those rights in itself is a crime to our civil socitity and to all civil societites in the world.

this is the war crime,
to open my country and others to acts from a military withoout consideration of that countries laws braches those laws and violates the constitution of that country.

you turn your war machine on us for things we already have a stable functioning system to deliver,
law for all justice for all and the right to redress for all,

you seek to impose the removal of the rights that bind our society togther as a civil society.
and to exclude citizens so that this law is not prima facia illegal and un constitutional.

we are human and we agree to obey the human rights conventions and geneva convention.

how can you force your military on our civil societies?

we are friends,
we are humans?

xploder

reply to post by Xcathdra


you keep refering to one little cluase to defend your positoin,
they changed the definition of "battle field"

what would stop them from changing the definition of citizen,

you rest the due process of your people and mine on one clause that this will not be used to abuse?

do i have gullable written on my forehead?

xpolder

reply to post by Xcathdra


this bill and any like it seek to empower the military to take the human rights of others,
and you say because american citizens are excluded that this is ok?

you are misleading people X

this bill seeks to expand the war onto the world and of the people of the world,

this is the war crime,

you cannot designate my country as a battle field then empower your military to break the conventions of my civil society on the war on terror, as in doing so you are the one taking my human rights.

and what makes you think if this power to destroy my country wont be used?
and when time is right why would they not just change the one clause and do away with citizenship?
who at that point could?

do you seek to enslave the human race?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

You, sir, are seriously confusing me. Is New Zealand a sovereign country or not?

If it is not, and is apparently a part of the US, would you please point me to when and where this happened? If we acquired a new territory or a 51st state, I would like to know about it...

If it is a sovereign country, then how in the blue Hades can the US pass a law for you? It isn't possible for a US law to affect NZ society if NZ is sovereign... that's the definition of sovereign!

Might I suggest a little critical thinking?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


designating the world as a battle field, infringes on my human rights,
as it would be if americans we not specifically exempted,
and on their constitution.

xploder

reply to post by TheRedneck


you are deflecting,
why is it NOW nessacery to exempt CITIZENS ?
is it because the definition of a BATTLEFIELD has now been extended world wide?
and that AMERICA would also be considered a battle field and the only way to pass a bill that makes AMERCIA a BATTLE FIELD is to exempt CITIZENS.

your double speak and deflections will not work,

you seek to empower your govenment war crimes powers and to try to legitamise the process with procedual law

this is very simple,
my country is not a battle field,
i am a human with defined human rights,
we have an international convention called the human rights convention,

we are a civil society, and you are trying to legalize what we concider a war crime,
to enact legislation that seeks to empower your military power over us with force,

instead of the law and courts and rights we have.

to try to do the same here makes you a criminal in our civil society.

we have laws and rights, to seek to remove them under the context of a WAR under the designation as a BATTLE FIELD,or any other designation of a human as anything less than human is a war crime.

IN OUR CIVIL SOCIETY

xploder

reply to post by TheRedneck

Senator Paul argued against the amendment to S. 1867 that McCain co-sponsored by saying, “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won. [D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”

sen rand paul

and the war on terror is an excuse to remove your civil rights,
but in this cased they acually threaten my human rights by being overly broad,

you do not get to choose to use military force on a pieceful nation,
this is a war crime in my society in our law by our govenment.

any one passing this bill or any like it will be endorcing human rights violations,

and that is the definition of an out of control state by the standards of my civil society

xploder

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by XPLodER

You, sir, are seriously confusing me. Is New Zealand a sovereign country or not?

If it is not, and is apparently a part of the US, would you please point me to when and where this happened? If we acquired a new territory or a 51st state, I would like to know about it...

If it is a sovereign country, then how in the blue Hades can the US pass a law for you? It isn't possible for a US law to affect NZ society if NZ is sovereign... that's the definition of sovereign!

Might I suggest a little critical thinking?

TheRedneck

critical thinking,
why do the US CITIZENS require exemption?
WHY

xploder

reply to post by TheRedneck


is it because this bill designates the usa and indeed the world a battlefield where their military may operate?
and this contriviens the constitution?
so that if they didnt exempt the US CITIZENS the law would be in direct contradiction to the constitution?

critiacl thinking?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

OK, now I have two questions...

1. Is New Zealand a sovereign country?
   
   
2. Did the United States declare war on New Zealand?

This will go a lot faster if you'll just answer those two questions. I've never been there, so I'd like to hear your answers.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


you deflect again,
how can the definition of BATTLE FIELD ecompass the world?
and if military are in charge of the "BATTLEFIELD"
then i am what?

colateral damge?

we are a civil society
extending your military powers over us by claiming the world is the new battlefield,
is aginst our human rights
LOOK IT UP

your saying by the might of your military that you will over ride our civil society rules (unless your an american citizen) because the military only takes actions in forign lands.?

what lands and what are there constitutions and laws and do you consider their human rights?

if not you are an opressor of human rights.

in our civil society

xploder

reply to post by PapaKrok

John McCain can claim there are purple rhinoceros hiding behind a maple tree... don't make that true either.

What someone said has absolutely nothing to do with the law. The law is written, not spoken. Try arguing a case in court sometime based on what someone said... you'll lose before you can finish speaking. Nothing any politician says is in any way binding upon what is written down in this bill.

So sorry.... I'll review texts, but I'm not gonna waste my time listening to the raving idiot who made me vote for Obama on Youtube.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by XPLodER

OK, now I have two questions...

1. Is New Zealand a sovereign country?

not sure

Did the United States declare war on New Zealand?
This will go a lot faster if you'll just answer those two questions. I've never been there, so I'd like to hear your answers.

TheRedneck

THE UNITED STATES HAS EFFECTIVLY DESIGNATED THE WORLD AS A BATTLE FIELD

what the military does from that point on is decided by the milatary and there is no recouse.

why empower the military to engage threats worldwide?
when we have working trade economic and crimainal relationships?

this only servers to empower the military in sense that it can now quasi "legally" operate aginst anyone any where.

its a massive power grab.

and against the human rights convention we are signatory to.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

And you have not answered either question. Here they are again; give me an answer and we can continue.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by XPLodER

OK, now I have two questions...

1. Is New Zealand a sovereign country?
   
   
2. Did the United States declare war on New Zealand?

This will go a lot faster if you'll just answer those two questions. I've never been there, so I'd like to hear your answers.

Come on... they're not hard questions...

TheRedneck

reply to post by XPLodER

OK, you did answer. Thank you!

not sure

OK, then let me ask it this way: as a New Zealander, do you pay United States taxes? Do you vote in United States elections? Do you fly the United States flag?

THE UNITED STATES HAS EFFECTIVLY DESIGNATED THE WORLD AS A BATTLE FIELD

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I do not support that if it is true. Can you show me the wording in this bill that says that?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

[section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland,” Graham said.

sen graham

NOTE,

DESIGNATES THE WORLD AS A BATTLEFIELD

definintion of battlefield,

An area where a battle is fought.

battle,

Generally, a battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, or combatants. In a battle, each combatant will seek to defeat the others, with defeat determined by the conditions of a military campaign. Battles generally are well defined in duration, area and force commitment.[1]

why is the definition of battle field now encompass the entire world?

acording to this BILL?

for what reason do you attempt to ligitamise human rights violations?

or the opertunity to create further violations under the guise of law?

xploder

reply to post by TheRedneck

As you can tell, the 28th was by far the busiest day so far in the life of S. 1867 with over 100 amendments considered in that single day, although this very well might be beat in coming days when our so-called representatives continue to debate turning the United States into a giant battlefield.

UPDATE: If the ridiculous assault on our inalienable rights embodied by S. 1867 wasn’t enough, the Senate is also considering repealing the anti-torture measures currently in place (lax though they may be).

This flies in the face of the fact that torture does not provide actionable intelligence or anything even remotely reliable unless you’re looking for a false confession to anything from terrorism to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

so torture and indefinate detention come up at the same time time and i should not think that human rights violations have nothing to do with this bill?

xploder

reply to post by MegaMind

No and BTW what does that have to do with anything?

So you agree then that there is a difference between military operations in wartime and civilian activities. Good.

It has everything to do with this bill. This bill is a clarification of how the military will handle captured enemy combatants. It has nothing to do with how the military interacts with citizens. The military is required to take the specified actions (indefinite detainment until hostilities cease, release to alternative courts or countries, etc.) unless one of two conditions happen: either a request is made to release them due to National Security interests, or they are a citizen/legal resident. If either of these two conditions are met, the requirement to either detain or extradite is not applicable.

If a detainee is found to be a citizen or legal resident, there are other laws that cover their circumstances, including the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution.

There is absolutely no such requirement unless the military is conducting wartime operations (engaged in a battlefield situation) against a member of known terrorist organizations, specifically Al Qaeda and its known associates. That means it does not apply in the least to anything that happens in US civil society, be it protests, free speech, organization, expression of unpopular views, or anything else that happens outside of the military.

You never did answer the question - which is the greater threat Tyranny or Terrorism? And do you think we are at risk of Tyranny in this country?

I thought I did. See this post.

TheRedneck

reply to post by XPLodER

Graham may say that but I can't find it. Can you help me?
Here's the bill. Section 1031 starts on page 359.
www.gpo.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Graham may say that but I can't find it. Can you help me?
Here's the bill. Section 1031 starts on page 359.
www.gpo.gov...

my computer was attacked by something as i tryed to open your link....

what was the context of your question?

xploder