Posted on 01/03/2012 3:21:42 PM PST by Yosemitest
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
January 03, 2012m paraphrasing the signing statements but that January 03, 2012m paraphrasing the signing statements but thatbrm paraphrasing the signing statements but that
January 03, 2012li
Not entirely, but it does show that the NDAA 2012 is not a revolutionary bill that is unique in terms of power it gives the govt to detain Americans. And also, the power the govt has reserved to detain American citizens has also been limited to very specific circumstances-which is why there have always been huge legal hassles and fiascos whenever the govt tried to detain an American without a trail. See the Padilla case, which was moved to civilian court after endless legal battles. or Hamdi case, where the US govt lost a case before the Supreme Court when it tried to suspend Habeus Corpus. NDAA 2012 does not change this,
They won’t boot American citizens, we would come back for serious payback. Indef. detention will be it and is now allowed for American citizens detained by our own military on American soil for ANY reason they decide as a just reason. No attorney, no court dates, no arraignment, no judge, no jury....NO due process allowed! (See the video of senator Linday GrAMNSETY proclaiming on the floor: “They say they want a lawyer? Well, they don’t GET a lawyer”.) Scary stuff ahead fellow FReepers....
Yep. If this law was in effect back when the poor souls that was supposed to be a milita were arrested and the judge had them turned loose, they would have not have been so lucky. They would have just disappeared. The next bunch won’t be so lucky.
That loudmouth has crossed me for the last time. Detain the fascist windbag. Because yes, we can.
RINOs and Rats. Rats salivating over it. RINOs sheepling.
Almost infinitely better to let Moose turn court into a circus than this.
From what I have seen, a better question would be, does any of them even care about it.
“After endless legal battles”
You really want us to believe, at the very best, that an equally gargantuan effort to get habeas would not be required the next time Obama comes down on some “redneck militia”?
Sheepling? Maybe, but I think they know EXACTLY what they voted for. They didn’t just blindly follow along sheep wise here, they WANTED it as much as hussein and the democRATS. Elitists all. Us vrs. them. It WILL be used against us in exactly the way it was/is designed.
As the Jews in 1930s Germany said to those Jews thatr tried to warn them as to what was coming,"Don't worry Hitler will not do that. It is just politics, he does not really mean what he is saying,ect. History tells a different story.
This is why rednecks (and rednecks come in many colors) need militias... those Rats and RINOs are spoiling for a civil war aren’t they?
Well, okay. Lets say “do they know or care about it”?
Think maybe someone will ask them?
Yep and over at the DUmp even the dummies are goin’ nuts over this NDAA nazi crappola and are coming down on hussein more and more each thread of their’s on this. This NDAA is not just a screwball Alex Jones tin foil hat deal either, it is for real!
I would characterize these circumstances as vague not specific...
(b) COVERED PERSONS.A covered person under this section is any person as follows:(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(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.
Lots of room to stretch those definitions.
I really hate to say it, but it was Democrat Dianne Feinstein who introduced an amendment to exclude US citizens from the NDAA’s detention authority. Of course, that may have been a ploy to deflect political heat from ACLU types who also oppose indefinite detention.
On the NDAA legislation, only 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats and Bernie Sanders voted against. Thus, the yeas had it 93-7.
Of those few Republicans opposing this usurpation — not only of the Constitution, but also the rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta — Rand Paul stands out as the most vocal.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_fv6Nw2jwg for Paul’s Senate debate.
Among those supporting, McCain was enthusiastic, so this isn’t an Obama-only abomination. Instead, it’s fully bipartisan treachery against the Bill of Rights.
— @2:00 Note Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin discussing how much time the Republicans need to debate the usurpation of the Bill of Rights.
— @3:00 McCain cleverly rebuffs Rand Paul’s criticism of the NDAA’s usurpation of basic liberties.
— @4:00 Lindsey Graham uses his intellectual arsenal to expound on why government must be empowered to deprive Americans of their basic liberties.
Forty-four Republican Senators voted for NDAA. Republican leadership said it only needed a few minutes to debate the Act’s indefinite detention language. Rand Paul was one of the dissenting Republicans. I am really surprised that Rush and the Freepers are critical of something opposed by the Pauls and enthusiastically supported by the countryclub Republicans and Democrats alike.
No I dont. Since this bill does not give the govt detention powers regarding US citizens it already has, an arrested redneck militiaman would go through the same legal battles Hamdi and Padilla did. So it could require large efforts for said detained redeck to get Habeus Corpus-and it would be at least as big, if not more so, of a legal hassle for the govt to do the it. And that is just for one individual case, much less with regards to going after hundreds of thousands of rednecks.
What is it you’re trying to point out to me?
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.