Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 12/27/2011 7:25:47 AM PST by VU4G10
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”
“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
And it is against the Constitution to keep a citizen in indefinite detention. Which law should rule the US? All we have to do is let the government declare citizens terrorists, and they lose their Constitutional rights.
Plus, terrorists arent covered by Geneva, as they are not part of a standing army in uniform.
It’s a shame that so many in this world, including here, can’t distinguish between ‘crazy’ and ‘stupid’.
A motorist had a flat tire in front of an insane asylum. He took the wheel off, but when he stood up he tipped over the hubcap containing the bolts, spilling them all down a sewer drain.
A patient, looking through the fence, suggested that the man take one bolt from the remaining three wheels to hold the fourth wheel in place until he could get to a service station.
The motorist thanked him profusely and said, “I don’t know why you are in that place.”
The patient said, “I’m in here for being crazy, not for being stupid.”
The war on (some) drugs, booze and tobacco emboldened them and they expanded the precedents to other things.
I am not at all surprised by this and expect it to accelerate at a tremendous pace.
Sadly enough, there are plenty of FReepers that support the precedents to these things and that troubles me deeply
Second. what part of the clause did you not understand about rebellion and invasion?
Third. I said it was a war crime to put a lawful belligerent on trial in a criminal court, except for certain war crimes. Since this is a brief message, it is not the appropriate forum to launch into the legal treatise required to cover all of the special qualifications and exceptions that can be raised in objection. The applicable law of armed conflict generally requires the detainee to be tried before the same military court as a member of the Detaining power would face for the same charge. This typically means a military court, other than special exceptions. Subjecting a detainee to treatment as a criminal until and unless the belligerent becomes subject to such a court as would the Detaining powers own citizens constitutes a violation of the law of armed conflict, perhaps the Geneva Convention in some instances. The Detaining power retains the option of detaining the belligerent indefinitely during the hostilities and bringing the detainee to trial only after the end of hostilities when doing so may prevent the Detaining power's own prisoners of war and internees from being held hostage for acts of reprisal or revenge.
Most likely, he is. First it was the Patriot act to defend us, now used against us. Now the slide has become a fall.. forced into electronic medical records, swiping your Drivers license for Nyquil and who only knows what else. All for “our own good”. In this Country, The US of A.. we are talking about detaining citizens without trial.. but don’t worry, they mean citizens abroad. Or maybe they just mean other citizens.. Are we truly that delusional? The Founders distrusted government, with strong, enumerated limits.. why shouldn’t we do the same?
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic your looking for...
Read the Constitution where its says the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus may be suspended in the event of rebellion or invasion.
The indefinite detention of a belligerent comes from the law of armed conflict which provides for the indefinite detention of enemy prisoners of war and non-combatant belligerents during the war. The general idea is that you don't want the enemy running loose around the country trying to blow things up and kill people while the war is going on, you don't want to kill unarmed prisoners to keep them from causing the forgoing mischief, and you cannot afford to set them free to come back and try killing you again. So, you detain them indefinitely, because you don't know how long the war is gong to last. Duh! What is so hard to understand such a simple matter of commonsense that you don't want to let people run loose who are trying to kill you and destroy your nation?
This legislation is very specific about it applying only to the people engaged in the attacks and who are not U.S. citizens. How can only person make it any plainer and better understood?
People are getting really stupid over this simple to understand issue and making the most outrageous misrepresentations of the wording in the legislation.
Get a grip People! You are shooting yourselves in the head with this issue, and for no good reason.
That’s right. it is false.
You’re right. This is a paultard tempest in a teapot to make their conspiracy theories seem less nutty.
Here is Marco Rubio’s letter explaining his vote for the NDAA.
http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/senator-marco-rubio-defends-ndaa.html
Jim Demint also voted for this, along with every other conservative Republican Senator. The only ones that didn’t were Rand Paul and Mark Kirk (what does that tell you?)
Go download the bill and read it.
It's a painful thing to read, since its written in lawyer & bureaucratic lingo then decide for yourself what it says.
I have discover over the years that many of the “claims” of the “professional libertarian crowd” (and I consider myself very much a constitutionalist! I actually have read the thing, several times! I have it handy to refer to.) are at best overblown often just showing ignorance regarding the issue. At worst its lies to support another agenda.
Only 6 Republican Senators voted against the temporary tax credit financed by higher mortgage rates, and Mark Kirk was one, along with DeMint. So what does that tell you?
He screwed up and hit the wrong button?
I read it when this first came up, and Rubio is telling the truth.
Unless you’re a member of Al-Qaeda and have attacked the US, you don’t have to worry about it. It is very narrowly defined, regardless of what Barbara Boxer and paultards say about it.
The war act specifically pertains to a “declared war” by Congress and is about the way we treat enemy combatants on the field of battle not US citizens inside the United States who are all protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The American people are not enemies of the state. They are the state.
Thats pretty much what I got out of it.
WhiskeyX, have you read any part of the bill, I have?
It says US citizens are exempt from this law, but a lawyer for the WH said that if a person decides to take up arms against the government they forfit thier citizenship......
Yep, DeMint must be a RINO
Spoken like a true follower of Dr. Paul!
Instead, you might want to consider that DeMint and Rubio were trying to make it easier to neutralize Al-Qaeda and their followers, in their pursuit of terror on our own soil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.