obama's law ruled Americans can be indefinitely detain

[JakeStarkey]

Amazed is a born again liar (hey, your 19, you can go on a mission for church, the rules just changed), and bigrebnc is a liar before the foundations of the earth.

big was yelling about all Americans were in danger, someone told big he was in danger, big said he was not al-quada but said nothing about his other terrorist qualificatiions, I pointed it out, and he has been squalling every since.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb forgot his lie about the law was for all Americans, then he tries to ignore my clear and deadly point, "Oh, now it is only about giving aid al-quada? I thought you said it was about all Americans. You believe in the principles of the sovereign militia movement, do you not, which includes overthrowing the government."

bigrebnc will crack under the first five minutes of questioning.

Dumb ass before you say anything else inform yourself on the law.
Because you sounding stupid.
You are ill informed on this law.

Jake lies about everything.

I know Jake does most others here are aware also. Why he continues is just for trolling

 

[Amazed]

Dumb ass before you say anything else inform yourself on the law.
Because you sounding stupid.
You are ill informed on this law.

Jake lies about everything.

I know Jake does most others here are aware also. Why he continues is just for trolling

If you fart in his direction he feels threatened.

 

[tjvh]

I remember warning my RWNJ friends about this stuff back in the days when it first became "legal." Naturally, I was slapped down because they trusted George Bush with such powers. After all, those were extraordinary times and extraordinary means must be used to keep us safe and the government would not go after every day American citizens...just the "terrorist's"

Well...here we are 10 years later and those powers are now held by someone you DON'T trust. Guess what? It's too late now to feign outrage and worry. You should have done that at the very first, instead of surrendering your liberties for safety.

Don't come crying to we liberals and progressives about it now. We warned you, but you wouldn't listen. You had your chance to stand up for freedom and the rule of law, but took the narrowly focused, short-term view of giving George Bush whatever he asked for. That it may now bite you in the butt is your problem.

And Obama has done what exactly when it comes to repealing the Patriot Act? That's right... Nothing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I remember warning my RWNJ friends about this stuff back in the days when it first became "legal." Naturally, I was slapped down because they trusted George Bush with such powers. After all, those were extraordinary times and extraordinary means must be used to keep us safe and the government would not go after every day American citizens...just the "terrorist's"

Well...here we are 10 years later and those powers are now held by someone you DON'T trust. Guess what? It's too late now to feign outrage and worry. You should have done that at the very first, instead of surrendering your liberties for safety.

Don't come crying to we liberals and progressives about it now. We warned you, but you wouldn't listen. You had your chance to stand up for freedom and the rule of law, but took the narrowly focused, short-term view of giving George Bush whatever he asked for. That it may now bite you in the butt is your problem.

And Obama has done what exactly when it comes to repealing the Patriot Act? That's right... Nothing.

Actually obama has expanded portions of the patriot act and extended the rest.

 

[Liability]

. . . [o]n its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

-- Federal court rules in favor of NDAA - National Government | Examiner.com , quoting another piece which quotes that excerpt of a judicial report [see, Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law - POLITICO.com ] The actual decision/order is found here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/indefdetnappealscourtstay.pdf

Where does it say that the President (or the military) can indefinitely detain a US Citizen? Pssst. It still doesn't say any such fucking thing.

And how exactly should we treat an American who has allied himself with say al qaeda?

Are we STILL revisiting the Clinton years and stupidly and ignorantly and erroneously equating terrorism with mere criminality?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

. . . [o]n its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

-- Federal court rules in favor of NDAA - National Government | Examiner.com , quoting another piece which quotes that excerpt of a judicial report [see, Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law - POLITICO.com ] The actual decision/order is found here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/indefdetnappealscourtstay.pdf

Where does it say that the President (or the military) can indefinitely detain a US Citizen? Pssst. It still doesn't say any such fucking thing.

And how exactly should we treat an American who has allied himself with say al qaeda?

Are we STILL revisiting the Clinton years and stupidly and ignorantly and erroneously equating terrorism with mere criminality?

The wording in section 1031 and 1032 which obama signed one part does not pertain to Citizens and the other does not give any protection to Citizens.
Judge Forrest said that the act is too vague and could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, noting that it appears to give the president “necessary force against anyone he deems involved in activities supporting enemy combatants, and therefore criminal laws and due process are suspended for any acts falling within the broad purview of what might constitute ‘substantially’ or ‘directly supporting’ terrorist organizations. If this is what Congress in fact intended, no doubt it goes too far.”

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.

Read more: Obama Administration Fights For The NDAA - Business Insider

After all we are supposed to have due process and the military is not supposed to have any interaction with civilian authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listen to them whimper, watch them quiver.

You guys are jokes. Keep em coming.

Jake lies about everything.

I know Jake does most others here are aware also. Why he continues is just for trolling

If you fart in his direction he feels threatened.

 

[Liability]

. . . [o]n its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

-- Federal court rules in favor of NDAA - National Government | Examiner.com , quoting another piece which quotes that excerpt of a judicial report [see, Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law - POLITICO.com ] The actual decision/order is found here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/indefdetnappealscourtstay.pdf

Where does it say that the President (or the military) can indefinitely detain a US Citizen? Pssst. It still doesn't say any such fucking thing.

And how exactly should we treat an American who has allied himself with say al qaeda?

Are we STILL revisiting the Clinton years and stupidly and ignorantly and erroneously equating terrorism with mere criminality?

The wording in section 1031 and 1032 which obama signed one part does not pertain to Citizens and the other does not give any protection to Citizens.
Judge Forrest said that the act is too vague and could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, noting that it appears to give the president “necessary force against anyone he deems involved in activities supporting enemy combatants, and therefore criminal laws and due process are suspended for any acts falling within the broad purview of what might constitute ‘substantially’ or ‘directly supporting’ terrorist organizations. If this is what Congress in fact intended, no doubt it goes too far.”

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.

Read more: Obama Administration Fights For The NDAA - Business Insider

After all we are supposed to have due process and the military is not supposed to have any interaction with civilian authority.

You and I have debated this before. Your "reading" of the law is still simply wrong.

 

[Dissent]

Do you support obama?

Yes. Do you support the Romney/Ryan and EVERYTHING they stand for?

Then you support obama's law.
I am not totally sold on Romney, but we must first get rid of the one who signed this monster into law before we can get rid of it.
AND THAT IS A FACT.

Did you support Bush? I sure in the hell didn't. Oh and yeah Romney does support the NDAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivE5gJdsJrw

Same shit different letter beside his name...statists vs freedom lovers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

-- Federal court rules in favor of NDAA - National Government | Examiner.com , quoting another piece which quotes that excerpt of a judicial report [see, Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law - POLITICO.com ] The actual decision/order is found here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/indefdetnappealscourtstay.pdf

Where does it say that the President (or the military) can indefinitely detain a US Citizen? Pssst. It still doesn't say any such fucking thing.

And how exactly should we treat an American who has allied himself with say al qaeda?

Are we STILL revisiting the Clinton years and stupidly and ignorantly and erroneously equating terrorism with mere criminality?

The wording in section 1031 and 1032 which obama signed one part does not pertain to Citizens and the other does not give any protection to Citizens.
Judge Forrest said that the act is too vague and could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, noting that it appears to give the president “necessary force against anyone he deems involved in activities supporting enemy combatants, and therefore criminal laws and due process are suspended for any acts falling within the broad purview of what might constitute ‘substantially’ or ‘directly supporting’ terrorist organizations. If this is what Congress in fact intended, no doubt it goes too far.”

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.

Read more: Obama Administration Fights For The NDAA - Business Insider

After all we are supposed to have due process and the military is not supposed to have any interaction with civilian authority.

You and I have debated this before. Your "reading" of the law is still simply wrong.

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(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.

 

[Plasmaball]

Then you support obama's law.
I am not totally sold on Romney, but we must first get rid of the one who signed this monster into law before we can get rid of it.
AND THAT IS A FACT.

And, you think replacing Obama with Mitt Romney will change the law? Based upon what?

I know exactly what we have in obama and will not support the same old shit. We know for certain obama is not going to change anything he did.
No one is sure about Romney changing what obama did.
It's just shear stupidity to be against something and vote for it again.

Romney already stated he would have signed this into law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And, you think replacing Obama with Mitt Romney will change the law? Based upon what?

I know exactly what we have in obama and will not support the same old shit. We know for certain obama is not going to change anything he did.
No one is sure about Romney changing what obama did.
It's just shear stupidity to be against something and vote for it again.

Romney already stated he would have signed this into law.

I thought the left was pushing the say anything Romney stick?

 

[Plasmaball]

I know exactly what we have in obama and will not support the same old shit. We know for certain obama is not going to change anything he did.
No one is sure about Romney changing what obama did.
It's just shear stupidity to be against something and vote for it again.

Romney already stated he would have signed this into law.

I thought the left was pushing the say anything Romney stick?

what?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Romney already stated he would have signed this into law.

I thought the left was pushing the say anything Romney stick?

what?

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The wording in section 1031 and 1032 which obama signed one part does not pertain to Citizens and the other does not give any protection to Citizens.
Judge Forrest said that the act is too vague and could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, noting that it appears to give the president “necessary force against anyone he deems involved in activities supporting enemy combatants, and therefore criminal laws and due process are suspended for any acts falling within the broad purview of what might constitute ‘substantially’ or ‘directly supporting’ terrorist organizations. If this is what Congress in fact intended, no doubt it goes too far.”

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.

Read more: Obama Administration Fights For The NDAA - Business Insider

After all we are supposed to have due process and the military is not supposed to have any interaction with civilian authority.

You and I have debated this before. Your "reading" of the law is still simply wrong.

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(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.

I will also add in supporting the Libyan Rebel's and supporting the Syrian rebels obama has done this very act.

 

[Plasmaball]

I thought the left was pushing the say anything Romney stick?

what?

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

nope, just didnt understand your point

 

[bigrebnc1775]

what?

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

nope, just didnt understand your point

Again I thought Romney was the say anything candidate according to the left.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

what?

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

nope, just didnt understand your point

Likely because there isn’t one.

 

[paulitician]

The New World Order. Things are progressing right on schedule for the MIC/Global Elite.