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 ...
The words I hear coming out of Ron Paul's mouth, and the words people like you want us to believe are coming out of Paul's mouth are two different things. I believe my ears, not your interpretations. You hate Ron Paul, pure and simple. Ron Paul has made it clear that the U.S. should not attack a country unless it is attacked. This seems reasonable to some, including me. Let Europe, Japan, Korea and the Middle Eastern countries carry their own defense. They collectively squandered the good will of the US protections to build their socialist/welfare states instead of providing for their own defense, and I am pretty fed up with it too.
I am no fan of radical Islam, but American citizens have Constitutional rights provided by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to a trial by jury, expectation of probable cause and protections from unlawful searches and seizure - I don't see Obama's right to unilateral judge and execute anyone he deems is a Terrorist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Do you?
The current legislation under discussion explicitly excludes U.S. Citizens and Alien residents in certain categories. Representations to the contrary by so many people are simply contrary to the actual language in Subchapter D.
The President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeus corpus in the event of rebellion and invasion since it was adopted in 1878. This Presidential power has been exercised a number of times in the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries. President Abraham Lincoln used Presidential orders to suspend the writ of habeus corpus on four occasions during the Civil War, and three of those occasions were pursuant to Congressional resolutions to do so. It was done so again in nine counties of South Carolina in response to rebellion by the Klu Klux Klan. It was done so again in Hawaii during the Second World War.
The current legislation is far more limited in the scope of its authority than the still operative powers of the President existing since 1787. The Progressive lawyers are attempting to mislead and deceive you into supporting acts which are war crimes and would put U.S. citizens in much more grave danger than would be faced by the indefinite detention in accordance with the law of armed conflict.
The indefinite detention mandated by the law of armed conflict serves to protect the detainee against unjust prosecutions and punishments by hostile governments. By insisting there must be and can be no indefinite detentions of belligerents during the existence of hostilities, you are putting the detainees at even greater risk of being subjected to hostile kangaroo courts i which the defendant cannot call witnesses in defense or command discovery of evidence. Before you go destroying these protections in ignorance, you had better learn what the consequences can be to our prisoners of war and our own U.S. citizens detained by a corrupt federal government.
While you may not like what Ron Paul has to say when The Wall Street Journal & FORBES MAGAZINE agree with what he says in regard to NDAA 2012 I pay attention. This is not going to end well.
The thing is they can't over ride the constitution with a bill, but the way this one is written they can arrest you and keep you incommunicado, so who will you seek redress?
Just because the messenger is a nut case doesn't mean he is wrong. Paul is right about this bill.
I have to respectfully and most strongly disagree with the assertion by Ron Paul and you about how we must conduct our foreign affairs. At the risk of offending you, I must say that the idea we must battle aggressors alone and without allies is suicidal and irrational in the extreme. Again, you obviously disagree. If I were to debate this issue with you I would begin by pointing out that the enemy wants to divide and conquer us, and the approach you and Ron Paul demand fulfills a would be aggressor's fondest wishes. It is a surefire strategy for defeat.
I have to observe Ron Paul is irrational and wrong to claim indefinite detention and suspension of writ of habeus corpus being unconstitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Ron Paul had his way as described in his speeches, he would demand that any belligerent must be afforded the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus and given a prompt trial in a criminal court. I am here to inform you that taking a belligerent out of indefinite detention during hostilities and putting the detainee on trial in a criminal court is a violation of the law of armed conflict and constitutes a war crime.
Now, is that what you intend to do, commit war crimes because Ron Paul said it was ok for you to do so?
While Ron Paul is not my favorite politician & I often think of him as crank , when the Wall Street Journal & FORBES magazine give basically the same description of NDAA 2012 and what it implies for the average American I pay attention. Why because when these three sources are suddenly in agreement something is seriously wrong & it ain’t Ron Paul .
He’s right about this. It’s were most of his support lies.
The GOP is out to lunch with Senator McCain’s terror war on the United States.
It has to stop and be turned back.
Some days Ron Paul shows up and some days the cuckoo bird shows up. On this particular subject Ron Paul has got it right. The police state is slowly and steadily being installed right in front of our eyes and with the willing assistance of the Republican elites. Never think for one moment that they love power and control less than the Dems.
No, they cannot “arrest you and keep you incommunicado” by virtue of this legislation. It expressly excludes the authority to detain a U.S. Citizen. It applies only to the belligerents. The law of armed conflict makes it illegal to put a lawful belligerent on trial in a criminal court, detain in a criminal jail or prison with convicted criminals, or deny the protection of indefinite detention during hostilities. Doing so constitutes a war crime. Do you propose to commit such war crimes by denying belligerents the protection of indefinite detention during the hostilities?
The argument is not about someone acting on a foreign battlefield getting shot. It is about the changes in the law that are so poorly thought out & so poorly written that they allow the US armed forces to detain without charges American citizens right off of American city streets.
Combined with changes to Federal law that allow for persons in custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to transfer civilian inmates to military custody. Also the courts have ruled repeatedly that if you are a illegal alien & a criminal once you are in this country all the rights due to a criminal defendant will apply . This piece of legislation is an attempt to get around that.
It is a war crime to deny a belliigerent the protection of indefinite detention during hostilities and put the detainee on trail in a criminal court in violation of the law of armed conflict. Do you propose to listen to Ron Paul and commit war crimes?
This legislation does no such thing. You are being stampeded by false propaganda.
Regardless of what anyone has to say about Ron Paul, I heard that this bill was bad news for liberty.
Paul was right on this one although he is wrong on other issues.
I fervently mean that. There are two absolute reasons I will stay at home in election day. #1= ROMNEY, #2= RUN PAUL!
If America has truly become this stupid and hopelessly out of touch with reality to understand this, and votes for either Romney, Paul or Obama, then there is no longer any hope to turn this around. I will build by bunker and save up food and hard metal currency instead. Because with either of them in office, the Muslim World will start World War 3.
The bad news is the way in which Ron Paul seems to have so badly misled the people who trusted him here. It is a war crime to deny a lawful belligerent the protection of indefinite detention during hostilities, put the belligerent on trial in a criminal court, or detain the belligerent in a criminal jail or prison for criminals. What would have us do, commit war crimes because Ron Paul says it must be done?
Um, NO.
Article I, Section 9 (Limits on Congress)
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
As to your continued insistence on claiming it is a war crime to immediately try "illegal combatants" - try reading the Geneva Conventions which call for EXACTLY that.
I believe the law allows the Military and their Commander in chief to declare America a “Battle Zone”. With this declaration in effect it allows the Military to arrest Americans as Terrorists. Under this arrest they can be incarcerated for as long as they like with no further charges placed against them, and without benefit of an attorney.
As I read this Posse Comitatus and Habeas Corpus are ignored in violatiopn of the Constitution. Now I am no lawyer, and I am not a Constitutional scholar, but if I am wrong tell me where misrepresentation is.
Wrong. It is a war crime to deny a Protected Person the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists are not protected persons. The BIGGEST mistake GWB ever made was the creation of the term "illegal combatant" and then granting them semi-protection.
We were well within our rights under the convention to try each and every one of them in front of a military tribunal, in country. We didn't.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Art 75. Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) murder;
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(iii) corporal punishment; and
(iv) mutilation;
(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) the taking of hostages;
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.
4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:
(a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;
(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;
(c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;
(d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;
(e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;
(f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;
(g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;
(i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and
(j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.
5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men’s quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.
6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.
7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:
(a) persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and
(b) any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.
8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1
The I guess the info at this link is also false propaganda ... Post 31
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.