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

reply to post by Xcathdra


Your entire post is long, quotes a lot of stuff - but basically it boils down to being full of nonsense.

Its just not worth my time anymore to keep arguing with you.

Your mind is made up.

Oh well ...

Have at it ...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MegaMind

I will agree with you on the War on Drugs... it is nothing more than a focused law enforcement policy with an emotional name.

I will agree with you on the War on Terrorism to a point. So far as Domestic Terrorism goes, it is not a war but a specific focus by law enforcement. There is, however, an actual war going on as well, and the enemy is a consortium of terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas) and countries which support them (Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria). These enemies want to destroy the United States. Period. They do not care about your human rights. They want you to be dead. They want me to be dead. Understand that.

Guantanemo Bay is being used to house these enemy combatants. If they are released, they will do everything in their power to kill more Americans. They want to kill Americans, even if they die in the process. Because of this, they cannot be released until the war is over. So we have two options: keep them locked up, or kill them in cold blood. Which option would you prefer we use?

This bill makes it illegal to kill them in cold blood, or to release them outside of released for trial or incarceration elsewhere. Period. it is necessary in large part because some people cannot grasp the concept of war and think they are just ordinary criminals and deserve trial in common law courts. It specifically does not make it illegal to release citizens... understand that: citizens are exempt from the requirement to keep them locked up indefinitely... otherwise it would be an end run around the 6th Amendment.

TheRedneck

Red,

Your a smart guy. I respect your ideas and opinions. I can see the logic of your assertions and agree with much of what you just wrote.

I understand that there is a terrorist threat. I understand it is real. We both do.

I will leave you with one question.

Do you think that the threat of tyranny in this country is real?

And if so, which do you think is a greater threat? Tyranny or Terrorism?

edit: ok so depending on your answer there is more than one question

reply to post by MegaMind

Tyranny is always a concern. Anything that leads to a lack of individual freedom is a concern. But you still don't really get the point Xcathdra and I are trying to make.

Tyranny is the removal of law by the ruling bodies. But terrorism is also the removal of law, just by an outside force. The existence of law is dependent on the existence of a societal structure, which in turn depends on the existence of a legal framework. When this legal framework fails, there are no rights, there is no law. That happened on September 11, 2001 in New York. For a time, there was no law... there was only chaos and self-survival.

Yes, law and order was restored. But only after thousands of people died.

I have seen nothing in this bill that supports tyranny. All I have seen is that it establishes a method of dealing with enemy combatants, wherever and whoever those enemy combatants are. The definitions of 'enemy combatant' or 'terrorist' are not nearly as broad as in the Patriot Act, and this bill actually differentiates between foreign agents and American citizens.

I'll tell you what I have seen: I have seen quotes from politicians, claims of tyranny, cries of war-mongering, and refusal to examine the actual text of the bill. The only thing that matters in this discussion is the text of the bill and how it relates to existing law. The next time you find yourself in a courtroom, try using arguments based on what a politician said. You'll learn fast enough that the only thing that matters is the text of the law.

But, I doubt you will believe me. Go ahead and claim this is tyranny; I tire of this unproductive debate. You have given me an idea for the future, though. The next time the Patriot Act is up for renewal, I think I will claim it outlaws beer and sex. Maybe that will get it defeated, and it has as much basis in reality as this claim does.

Here's hoping.

TheRedneck

reply to post by bekod


So when a person doesn't understand the bill, they resort to fear-mongering in order to support their claims?

It does NOT apply to US Citizen. The damn bill states it.

Originally posted by OrphenFire
This argument between Xcathdra and MegaMind is going nowhere, because one of them is listening to absolutely nothing. One of you just keeps offering up the exact same, already debunked argument, without even listening to the other. I'll let everyone else figure out which one I'm talking about. It doesn't take more than a couple of paragraphs up there to see...

(cough) Xcathdra (cough)

Ive made my argument and supported it with facts, where as you and the others just constantly spew the same crap when you dont understand something while offering NOTHING to support your claims.

So because of your inability to support your argument, you resort to the childish antics above by suggesting one of us is arguing something debunked?

classic.

Ive supported my position with facts, where as others have not. The only reason this is a hot topic is because it gives people who refuse to learn how their government works, who see conspiracy in anything and everything the government does, the ability to bitch about something else.

Please by all means point out where my argument has been debunked, and please use FACTS and not sound bites from politicians you guys slam every other day of the week.

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Your entire post is long, quotes a lot of stuff - but basically it boils down to being full of nonsense.

Its just not worth my time anymore to keep arguing with you.

Your mind is made up.

Oh well ...

Have at it ...

edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

If your to lazy to read it in its entirety thats your problem not mine. Apparently you have an aversion to facts, which in arguments like this is a common tactics used by people who dont understand what they are talking about, which is your case.

When you decide to learn, go back and read the post in its entirety and look up the info i've submitted. Or are you refusing to do that because you are scared you are wrong?

I understand knowledge can be a scary thing for some, especially those who see conspiracies in everything.

This bill does NOT apply to US Citizens.
1032 references 1031 for people who are targeted.
1032 part 4 specifically references 1031 for those targeted, and 1032 exempts US citizens.

Its not a hard concept to understand. All you need to do is apply common sense, open your mind and quit seeing only what you want.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by PapaKrok

 

Wouldn't have been my first choice, but it's a deal.

I really hope that YOU are right and our first clinking of glasses will be in a great pub somewhere in a free homeland. Cross our fingers, aye?

reply to post by Xcathdra
one last time you seem to miss this one and I think your in self denial here is the part that say US citizens are subject

(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.

here is again

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

no where does it US citizens are exempt, the key is the US has been deemed a Battlefield,
This changes the game unlike the civil war there is no war front nor battle lines... no flag to stand by but one, and then it is not a flag per say , but they way I see it,
Your for the destruction of the Constitution and for the "P"act and s1867 or
Your for freedom and the rights granted by the founding fathers and even then using this term is not correct Constitution, for it is the Bill of rights www.archives.gov... and the www.archives.gov... one can not be with out the other so I thought.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

one last time you seem to miss this one and I think your in self denial here is the part that say US citizens are subject

(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.

here is again

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

no where does it US citizens are exempt, the key is the US has been deemed a Battlefield,
This changes the game unlike the civil war there is no war front nor battle lines... no flag to stand by but one, and then it is not a flag per say , but they way I see it,
Your for the destruction of the Constitution and for the "P"act and s1867 or
Your for freedom and the rights granted by the founding fathers and even then using this term is not correct Constitution, for it is the Bill of rights www.archives.gov... and the www.archives.gov... one can not be with out the other so I thought.

BINGO! The term "belligerent" has a very specific military connotation. The use of this term alone suggests that the bill is speaking in terms of MILITARY LAW.

There has been a great deal of debate as to whether section 1031 and 1032 actually include / exclude American citizens from this trap. Pay VERY close attention to this next paragraph...


(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.


A belligerent act? What the fetch does that mean? Must be important, as it supercedes the whole American Citizen provision.

What does Wikipedia say, I wonder?

A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "to wage war". Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent country is an aggressor.

In times of war, belligerent countries can be contrasted with neutral countries and non-belligerents. However, the application of the laws of war to neutral countries and the responsibilities of belligerents are not affected by any distinction between neutral countries, neutral powers or non-belligerents. A non-belligerent may nevertheless risk being considered a belligerent if it aids or supports a belligerent in a way proscribed by neutral countries.

An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[1][2][3]

[edit] BelligerencyBelligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war. Wars are often fought with one or both parties to a conflict invoking the right to self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter,[4] (as did the United Kingdom in 1982 before the start of the Falklands War[5]) or under the auspices of a United Nations Security Council resolution (such as the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which gave legal authorization for the Gulf War).

A state of belligerency may also exist between one or more sovereign states on one side, and rebel forces, if such rebel forces are recognised as belligerents. If there is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example an authority recognised as such by the United Nations) and those taking part in the rebellion are not recognised as belligerents then the rebellion is an insurgency.[6]

This dovetails with the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 introduced by McCain in 2010.
en.wikipedia.org...

It hasn't been passed, but it is rather telling. There should be no question as to their intention here.

reply to post by Xcathdra

1032 references 1031 for people who are targeted.
1032 part 4 specifically references 1031 for those targeted, and 1032 exempts US citizens.

Can you not see the flaw in your logic? "1031 for people who are targeted" If US citizens were exempt it would be in 1031 NOT 1032 which is only about the REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN.

1032 - Q: what is exempt? A: THE REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN.

Accusing me of being lazy when I simply do not read it the same as you

also you are being condescending. Grow up.

whatever.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MegaMind

Tyranny is always a concern. Anything that leads to a lack of individual freedom is a concern. But you still don't really get the point Xcathdra and I are trying to make.

Tyranny is the removal of law by the ruling bodies. But terrorism is also the removal of law, just by an outside force. The existence of law is dependent on the existence of a societal structure, which in turn depends on the existence of a legal framework. When this legal framework fails, there are no rights, there is no law. That happened on September 11, 2001 in New York. For a time, there was no law... there was only chaos and self-survival.

Yes, law and order was restored. But only after thousands of people died.

I have seen nothing in this bill that supports tyranny. All I have seen is that it establishes a method of dealing with enemy combatants, wherever and whoever those enemy combatants are. The definitions of 'enemy combatant' or 'terrorist' are not nearly as broad as in the Patriot Act, and this bill actually differentiates between foreign agents and American citizens.

I'll tell you what I have seen: I have seen quotes from politicians, claims of tyranny, cries of war-mongering, and refusal to examine the actual text of the bill. The only thing that matters in this discussion is the text of the bill and how it relates to existing law. The next time you find yourself in a courtroom, try using arguments based on what a politician said. You'll learn fast enough that the only thing that matters is the text of the law.

But, I doubt you will believe me. Go ahead and claim this is tyranny; I tire of this unproductive debate. You have given me an idea for the future, though. The next time the Patriot Act is up for renewal, I think I will claim it outlaws beer and sex. Maybe that will get it defeated, and it has as much basis in reality as this claim does.

Here's hoping.

TheRedneck

So when someone steals laws against theft go poof?

Laws don't cease to exist because someone violates them. They cease to exist when they are not enforced.

I'm tired of being accused of not reading it when I've argued the language of the bill. I'm tired of being called that tired old term "fear monger" whenever civil liberties are being threatened.

I am also tired of this debate ...

I'm out ...

reply to post by MegaMind


I agree. Playing with semantics and the expressing the incessent need to argue are counterproductive in times like these. Time to stop yappin and start wiping off the cosmoline...

reply to post by PapaKrok


I looked up Cosmoline, which I have never heard of before, and I'm not quite sure what you mean.

another term for shinola? Sh!t?

Could you please elaborate?

Maybe I'm just being a little thick - not above that happening from time to time.

Originally posted by PapaKrok

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

one last time you seem to miss this one and I think your in self denial here is the part that say US citizens are subject

(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.

here is again

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

no where does it US citizens are exempt, the key is the US has been deemed a Battlefield,
This changes the game unlike the civil war there is no war front nor battle lines... no flag to stand by but one, and then it is not a flag per say , but they way I see it,
Your for the destruction of the Constitution and for the "P"act and s1867 or
Your for freedom and the rights granted by the founding fathers and even then using this term is not correct Constitution, for it is the Bill of rights www.archives.gov... and the www.archives.gov... one can not be with out the other so I thought.

BINGO! The term "belligerent" has a very specific military connotation. The use of this term alone suggests that the bill is speaking in terms of MILITARY LAW.

There has been a great deal of debate as to whether section 1031 and 1032 actually include / exclude American citizens from this trap. Pay VERY close attention to this next paragraph...


(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.


A belligerent act? What the fetch does that mean? Must be important, as it supercedes the whole American Citizen provision.

What does Wikipedia say, I wonder?

A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "to wage war". Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent country is an aggressor.

In times of war, belligerent countries can be contrasted with neutral countries and non-belligerents. However, the application of the laws of war to neutral countries and the responsibilities of belligerents are not affected by any distinction between neutral countries, neutral powers or non-belligerents. A non-belligerent may nevertheless risk being considered a belligerent if it aids or supports a belligerent in a way proscribed by neutral countries.

An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[1][2][3]

[edit] BelligerencyBelligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war. Wars are often fought with one or both parties to a conflict invoking the right to self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter,[4] (as did the United Kingdom in 1982 before the start of the Falklands War[5]) or under the auspices of a United Nations Security Council resolution (such as the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which gave legal authorization for the Gulf War).

A state of belligerency may also exist between one or more sovereign states on one side, and rebel forces, if such rebel forces are recognised as belligerents. If there is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example an authority recognised as such by the United Nations) and those taking part in the rebellion are not recognised as belligerents then the rebellion is an insurgency.[6]

This dovetails with the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 introduced by McCain in 2010.
en.wikipedia.org...

It hasn't been passed, but it is rather telling. There should be no question as to their intention here.

Wow read about what you posted here. There is no question in my mind where all this is going.

I would give you more stars if I could for that post and research.

Tyranny is a MUCH GREATER threat than terrorism.

This bill is to make us sheep not to say a bad word about the GOV or the FED , take what the DHS TSA does and to let Congress do what they want behind closed doors if they so wish, with a grain of salt.
This Bill has to many amendments giving the Mil power over civil authority, to many lose terms, and worst of all take your freedom of speech and throws it out the window for the terms
The USA is now a Battlefield
Belligerent
combatant
Emergency situation
National Security
Disaster
are all part of making anyone who say's
"BOO down with the GOV" ,
"STOP the WAR"
"NO more TAX"
"WHO'S street our STREET" a person

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

now lets take a look at this 2383 18
www.law.cornell.edu... from the link

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

2385 18
www.law.cornell.edu... the jest of it for it is a long one

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government;or...

2384 18
www.law.cornell.edu...

§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

and then

if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

after you have been detained could be 20 years or as long as the Gov say we are at war , then you get sentience no time served for the time you have already done for doing nothing more that holding a sign "STOP THE MADNESS" on the fed court house steps. once the Bill becomes law. Obama Said He Would Veto it lets hope he does or better yet does not have to

reply to post by MegaMind


They have already demostrated what they will do to "militants" (=belligerents=extremeists). American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are targeted by secret counsel, by the govs own admission... this is just an official smokescreen, in my opinion. They are going to do what they have always done, they are just looking to gain an aire of legitimacy in the eyes of the American people in order to preserve the illusion of law.

They are getting sloppy, making too many mistakes. Being too obvious and joygasmic in their Draconian orgy.

www.reuters.com...

reply to post by PapaKrok
yes this one way to use the term belligerent, the way i was pointing out and what will be used as , "keep the sheep at bay" www.abovetopsecret.com... I hope you do read this, for it is a warning of what is to come, the GOV is no fool 2012 is just around the corner... how would you control the masses????

Well let's think about this, why would they need to pass a bill to give the president power to arrest terrorists? He always had that

reply to post by filosophia
If you fail to see the big picture, this person if you call him that will be considered, a combatant, Jared Lee Loughner subject to Mil law not civil law, IMO for the better for he will or would get death.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by PapaKrok

 

yes this one way to use the term belligerent, the way i was pointing out and what will be used as , "keep the sheep at bay" www.abovetopsecret.com... I hope you do read this, for it is a warning of what is to come, the GOV is no fool 2012 is just around the corner... how would you control the masses????

edit on 1-12-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

Thanks Bekod, good post. Thank you for the link. Scary stuff....