40 Members of Congress Protest 'Indefinite Detention' Bill

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


You said it man, you said it.

reply to post by ceoqmue


Thank you for taking the time to post the list

2nd.

reply to post by DROKKR


So what do they know that we don't?

Any ideas?

S&F& btw

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I don't think it has gone unnoticed that the man behind the most powerful ink pen in the world at the moment, just happens to be an expert on constitutional law......

Obama--- 1 American people---0

One frightening promise that he has fulfilled, is that he would fundamentally change America as we know it.

Yep, he has EXECUTED the Presidency and Constitution faithfully... guess he didn't mis-speak at his swearing in ceremony...

p.s. when do we get the peace prize back....

The actual reality is, these aren't legal they're crimes against humanity. The authorities need to go in and arrest every signature on the form including Obama.

reply to post by pianopraze




I hope those who voted for Obama,understand his version of Hope and Change.........

Originally posted by Unity_99
The actual reality is, these aren't legal they're crimes against humanity. The authorities need to go in and arrest every signature on the form including Obama.

according to my interpretation this is a crime against humanity in my country as well,

New Zealand is strongly committed to the protection and promotion of international human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and in the seven core human rights treaties.

New Zealand seeks to defend and advance international human rights in multilateral human rights fora, focussing on the meetings of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in New York and negotiations of new international human rights instruments.

New Zealand also focuses on the promotion of human rights in our region and in countries with which we have bilateral relationships, through exchanging views about human rights and providing practical assistance.

human rights nz .gov site

signatories of the human rights convention,

Afghanistan
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Burma
Canada
Chile
Republic of China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Denmark
the Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Egypt
Ethiopia
France
Guatemala
Haiti
India
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Liberia
Pakistan
Greece
Iceland
Luxembourg
Mexico
the Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
the Philippines
Sweden
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
the United Kingdom
the United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

wiki source

USA signed as well


there are two parts to this violation,
one is on the american people in direct violation of the constitution,
and the other is international human rights conventions.

this has the potential to effect all nations on that list^^^^^

International humanitarian law is also sometimes described as the “law of armed conflict” or the “laws of war”. It is a framework of rules that restricts the means and methods of warfare and protects people who are not participating in the fighting, in order to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. International humanitarian law does not regulate when or why a State may use force, or determine whether an armed conflict is legal or illegal, and the rules of international humanitarian law apply equally to all sides regardless of who started the conflict.

International humanitarian law is made up of a body of treaties. Many of the rules set down in these treaties have become so widely accepted that they are now regarded as customary international law and binding on all States.

The core international humanitarian law treaties are the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, concluded after World War II, which cover:
1. wounded soldiers on the battlefield;
2. wounded and shipwrecked at sea;
3. prisoners of war;
4. civilians under enemy control.

please NOTE america is now definded as a battle field by the new legilation,

this debate shows that the passage of this bill is in direct contradiction to the treaties and pacs the USA signed with other countries.

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

GRAVE BREACHES

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[12]

wiki link

xploder

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by DROKKR

 

So what do they know that we don't?

Any ideas?

S&F&

btw

They know that the collapse of the € is months, if not weeks, away. And that this collapse will send the global markets into an unprecedented crash that even massive market manipulation cannot control.
It would mean major banks collapsing overnight, corporations sinking without trace as their CEO's jump ship, and it will likely mean social unrest on a scale we have never seen in recorded history, all over the world, simultaneously.

People are consistently underestimating what the collapse of the € will actually mean, and how the ramifications of it will ripple throughout the world. But governments all know very well what it would mean, and they are preparing for it however they can. It's no coincidence that Cameron made a personal trip to sell "crowd control" weaponry to several nations earlier this year.

In London, at the recent Union protests, the MET erected a metal wall, never before seen and not mentioned on any of the UK news stations.



This is something new, never seen before in London as far as we are aware. There are some who believe that the relaxed attitude to dealing with the London riots was intentional, to allow it to escalate to the level it did and therefore justify a future crackdown and enforce greater fear against genuine protest. When you see the response to that compared to planned peaceful protests where people are kettled and beaten, the fact they allowed the riots to reach such a dangerous level is indeed suspicious to me.

The PTB know what's going on in Europe, and they know that this is all a stage show to get the last £, €, $ out of people over Christmas before reality kicks in and the € implodes.

This is my opinion, but it's also the opinion of a lot of others, including economists who are now more willing to state on the record that the € is going to collapse.
No surprise that some of those European nations who had signed the deal the UK refused to take part in are now regretting it and already making moves to get out.

For the first time ever, it is now legal to detain an American citizen for an indefinite amount of time, and withhold their rights to due process. Unbelievable, unprecedented & unforgivable.

To enact such such a grotesque law based on any suspicion is wrong, let alone basing it on an ambiguous term like 'terrorist'. I don't recall a law like this being passed in the red scare/McCarthyism era, & that is very troubling.

Canada will soon have a similar law. 72 hours detention without charges or judicial oversight, renewable for up to a year.

The Gestapo had the same power to arrest and hold people indefinitely. The power was called Schutzhaft.

In Nazi Germany, the German equivalent term, 'Schutzhaft', was used as a euphemism for the extra- or para-legal rounding-up of political opponents and especially Jews, sometimes officially defended as being necessary to protect them from the 'righteous' wrath of the German population. Schutzhaft did not provide for a judicial warrant, in fact the detainee would most probably never have seen a judge. The victims were then sent to concentration camps, where many were later exterminated

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by pianopraze

Yep, he has EXECUTED the Presidency and Constitution faithfully... guess he didn't mis-speak at his swearing in ceremony...

p.s. when do we get the peace prize back....

He got the piece prize because;

he broke the Constitution to pieces

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by pianopraze

 

I hope those who voted for Obama,understand his version of Hope and Change.........

and I hope they understand the TSA's version of "Grope and Change" too !!

This is very confusing to me. I thought the House and Congress both voted it in with high votes (not that I agree with it - I don't). But now they are protesting it? Or are they just protesting it because it includes the language that it can't go against an American citizen?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


whats a constitution?

I thought they threw that old thing out a few weeks after 9/11.

Originally posted by angellicview
This is very confusing to me. I thought the House and Congress both voted it in with high votes (not that I agree with it - I don't). But now they are protesting it? Or are they just protesting it because it includes the language that it can't go against an American citizen?

Ya, sounds fishy

I wonder if all the "protesters" voted "NO" ?

The problem is they always throw extra items like this into legislation that's hard to vote down in its' entirety.

Very clever.

It's always a "No Win" for the majority of citizens.

damn i just hope our home states stick up for us. This could be civil war all over again. The states need to grow a spine and tell the fed to # off

Can someone please quote the specific text that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens? I'm looking at the revised bill that passed and I all I see is language that excludes Americans citizens.

From H.R. 1450, section 1032:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
18 LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
19 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
20 to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
21 tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
22 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
23 ment to detain a person in military custody under
24 this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
25 of the United States on the basis of conduct taking 422
† HR 1540 PP
1 place within the United States, except to the extent
2 permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

And this, also from H.R. 1450, found in section 1031:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.

Also there is this provision that, if I am reading correctly, will make sure that a system of checks and balances will be in place, making sure that the executive branch doesn't act unilaterally:

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
25 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress re-420
† HR 1540 PP
1 garding the application of the authority described in this
2 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
3 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of sub-
4 section (b)(2).

This is what I found looking through the bill. Unless someone provides text from the bill that proves this is an evil bill, I think that the only people who should be scared of it are terrorists.

reply to post by Throwback


Apprently there are two sections of the bill that are contradicting each other that would loophole allow them to indefinately detain U.S. citizens despite all the spin that they couldn't by the media. Here is a forbes article that quotes a speciallist, something we or ats radio member are not:

But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

An amendment that would limit military detentions to people captured overseas failed on Thursday afternoon. The Senate soundly defeated a measure to strip out all the detention provisions on Tuesday.

So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.

forbes
I think i trust the Constitutional Law Teacher

Robert M. Chesney
Charles I. Francis Professor in Law
Education

JD Harvard
BS Texas Christian University
Areas of Specialty

Constitutional Law
International Law
National Security Law

This is stunning, incredible legislation.
Not only is it UTTERLY against the US Constitution, but it also appears to defy the Geneva Convention.
I am numb...I was born into a Nation where one was INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty...
I now live in Bizzaro World, 180 degrees from where I thought I was.
Did someone lobotomize me...or the world when I wasn't looking, or what?
Am I living in some hellish parallel universe?