Good Lord, who introduced that legislation? It's like the Patriot Act on meth I can hear it now, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
Whose website is that? They definitely throw the boogie man scare out there and leave out a lot of details. Black helicopters!!!!
There is alot of stuff in there that has nothing to do with the detention of civilians. I tried reading/searching for the language that "dooms us all", but have failed to locate it. Maybe someone here can find something I missed. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf
Interesting video where this proposed legislation is being discussed by Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuL8xgzokwQ
This is the same bill that we were discussing in another thread a few days ago. (I'm not going to look it up) http://spanishjournal.com/us-senate-bill-s-is-police-state-law-p3585-1.htm
This has to do with it... although perhaps not to the extent many were "hoping"... but perhaps I am missing something in the "this section" part... 8 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 9 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— 10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require- 11 ment to detain a person in military custody under 12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United 13 States. 14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- 15 ment to detain a person in military custody under 16 this section does not extend to a lawful resident 17 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct 18 taking place within the United States, except to the 19 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United 20 States.
it authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain people suspected of terrorism, and also calls for al-Qaeda fighters who plot or carry out attacks against the U.S. to be held in military custody. It also allows the president to decide which detainees fit that definition and permits the government to hold suspected al-Qaeda members in military custody if it is determined to be in the interest of U.S. national security. However, it specifically states in sec. 1031(b) that military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens or legal residents, but only American al-Qaeda, Taliban, and their affiliate terrorist groups. It bullshit the way its worded. It could and probably would be used in a sinister way.Basically what it says is, it doesnt apply to US citizens or legal residents, unless you are deemed to be a terrorist, then all bets are off. Whisked away to a secret military prison with zero recourse. Your family might not even know where you have gone, just disappeared of the face of the planet. Im all for holding military tribunals for anyone caught plotting against the country, but no way will i approve of government having the legal authority to snatch up citizens of this country and make them disappear.
Shrouded in FEMA camp secrecy.http://forums.13x.com/showthread.php?p=3722184#post3722184 Well, I do hope that this is getting some attention. Rand Paul was one of only 7 senators who voted against it, though. Any word on the House version?
Don't you guys think that if they wanted to snatch somebody up and make them disappear they'd do it, regardless of whether it was legal or not? If they really wanted to, they could just declare martial law anyway and suspend all of our rights, then what?
How about we stop bitching about the inconsequential things and instead bitch about shit that matters, like why are they even bothering with this when they've been doing it all along anyway.
I personally don't know anyone that has been snatched, so I can't claim that they've been doing it. You could be right that the passage of this bill may mean nothing in the full scope of things, however, shit like this matters to me. At least without this bill, body snatching by the gov. would still be illegal. I wouldn't put it past somebody like Nixon to use crap like this to get rid of some political enemies and that is the real danger here. If it is illegal, then maybe somebody will eventually get tried for it. If it is not illegal, then there is no need for somebody to talk. Wouldn't it be strangely poetic for a new potus to exercise this provision on Le-Vin and McCan't?
Some retired Marine Corps 4-stars don't like it either. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html?ref=contributors What's wrong with the bill? Not much, it is needed in order for the military to operate. It basically the military's budget. Glenn Greenwald goes into a little more detail about what's wrong with the bill. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/