Ron Paulbarians Are At GOP's Gate...

[TakeAStepBack]

We'll bring hundreds of delegates. That said, the campaign has succumbed to the belief the nomination is out of reach. We work on building state level liberty support of leadership roles. Along with getting concessions from the convention. Like monetary reform, internet freedom and the repeal of any indefinite detention.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Indefinite detention? You really believe that...........

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you fucked in the mind? It's sign in on NDAA 2012. Americans, without trial, as enemy combatants can be detained without trial indefinitely.

Puke stain.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Are you fucked in the mind? It's sign in on NDAA 2012. Americans, without trial, as enemy combatants can be detained without trial indefinitely.

Puke stain.

Paragraph and page number shit stain........ You make the claim, show it.......

Because i know this has been debunked already.........

 

[geauxtohell]

Are you fucked in the mind? It's sign in on NDAA 2012. Americans, without trial, as enemy combatants can be detained without trial indefinitely.

Puke stain.

No.......

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Let

This year’s NDAA states that the Afghanistan Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the 2012 NDAA do not “deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus . . . for any person who is detained in the United States.” (The language is in this year’s NDAA, sec. 1033, on p. 366 of this document.)

That sounds like an effective solution until you realize that no one believes habeas has been suspended. The Bush and Obama administrations haven’t claimed that habeas has been suspended. The Supreme Court stated unambiguously in 2004, “All agree suspension of the writ has not occurred here.” As Justice Scalia recognized, the Afghanistan AUMF “is not remotely a congressional suspension of the writ [of habeas corpus], and no one claims that it is.”

Habeas corpus is available to persons detained on U.S. soil, but it offers very limited protection. It doesn’t prevent the government from snatching Americans from their homes based on accusations that they’ve “substantially supported” forces “associated” with terrorists. It doesn’t guarantee Americans that the government will charge them with a crime and try them in a court of law. And it does nothing to stop the government from locking them up for the rest of their lives.


‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Passes Senate

The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

One amendment that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.

Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists,” also failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.

Feinstein was able to include a largely symbolic amendment which states that “nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens,” but this measure is meaningless according to Republican Congressman Justin Amash, a fierce critic of the bill.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In Congress, Dem and GOPer Working Together to Change the NDAA | Mother Jones

With Congress getting ready to assemble the next big defense authorization bill, two House members are coming together across party lines to ensure that everyone arrested in the United States—even suspected terrorists—gets a fair trial.

Last year, during the fight over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress debated legalizing indefinite detention for American citizens suspected of working with Al Qaeda, ultimately deciding to dodge the issue. Now Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) are planning to offer an amendment to this year's defense authorization bill that would guarantee that no one—citizen or otherwise—could be denied a fair trial if captured in the United States. Smith, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, will introduce the bill during a hearing Wednesday. Amash has agreed to support it once the defense bill comes to the floor next week, possibly bringing along enough Republican support to ensure its passage in the House.

"The amendment is drafted to prevent the president from indefinitely detaining persons captured on US soil without charge or trial," said Will Adams, a spokesperson for Amash.

 

[Chris]

Ron Paul's folks are really throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

Republicans hate democracy.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Are you fucked in the mind? It's sign in on NDAA 2012. Americans, without trial, as enemy combatants can be detained without trial indefinitely.

Puke stain.

Paragraph and page number shit stain........ You make the claim, show it.......

Because i know this has been debunked already.........

Ok.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

(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.

How would YOU define "belligerent act" Ollie? Plus, the US Gov't supported Al Qaida in Libya, according to this shouldn't they all be arrested?
More:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Not Required does not mean Prohibited, it means Optional.

 

[Liability]

Are you fucked in the mind? It's sign in on NDAA 2012. Americans, without trial, as enemy combatants can be detained without trial indefinitely.

Puke stain.

Paragraph and page number shit stain........ You make the claim, show it.......

Because i know this has been debunked already.........

Ok.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

(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.

How would YOU define "belligerent act" Ollie? Plus, the US Gov't supported Al Qaida in Libya, according to this shouldn't they all be arrested?
More:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Not Required does not mean Prohibited, it means Optional.

You persist in misreading the statute.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ron Paul's folks are really throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

Republicans hate democracy.

And what monkey wrench do you think they are throwing into the works?

 

[Contumacious]

Paul's plan for Afghanistan was?
Oh yeah, nothing. He would decry world terrorism and blame the U.S.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't[/ame]

.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

You need a reading comprehension class.... This sentence all by itself says that this excludes citizens..... Of course if they are overseas we can still send a drone to hit them without a trial........

Go figure.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And BTW Takeashit, section 1033 has to do with changing Section 127b of title 10, United States Code. Which is titled "Assistance in combating terrorism: rewards " and has nothing to do with anyone being detained.....

 

[Synthaholic]

Ron Paul's folks are really throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

Republicans hate democracy.

And what monkey wrench do you think they are throwing into the works?

Hey, you pussy - why are you still avoiding this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...story-holds-up-to-scrutiny-7.html#post5278925

 

[Avatar4321]

Ron Paul's folks are really throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

Republicans hate democracy.

And what monkey wrench do you think they are throwing into the works?

Hey, you pussy - why are you still avoiding this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...story-holds-up-to-scrutiny-7.html#post5278925

I got tired of you fools trying to claim the story is accurate despite the witnesses and family contradicting your story. I figured rather than give you fools power to annoy me, Id let you alone in ignorance. Seems to be working well.

 

[Synthaholic]

And what monkey wrench do you think they are throwing into the works?

Hey, you pussy - why are you still avoiding this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...story-holds-up-to-scrutiny-7.html#post5278925

I got tired of you fools trying to claim the story is accurate despite the witnesses and family contradicting your story. I figured rather than give you fools power to annoy me, Id let you alone in ignorance. Seems to be working well.

You made a claim, then ran away like the pussy you are when asked to back it up.

That's a FACT.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Habeas corpus is available to persons detained on U.S. soil, but it offers very limited protection. It doesn’t prevent the government from snatching Americans from their homes based on accusations that they’ve “substantially supported” forces “associated” with terrorists. It doesn’t guarantee Americans that the government will charge them with a crime and try them in a court of law. And it does nothing to stop the government from locking them up for the rest of their lives.

Paranoid nonsense. The military may only detain civilians in the context of martial law per Ex parte Milligan (1866), where marital law can be imposed only where the courts are not functioning, where there is actual military war, and limited only the a specific area subject to actual military war where the courts are indeed not functioning.

Even if by some bizarre consequence ‘“substantially supported” forces “associated” with terrorists’ is construed as actual military war, the requirement of non-functioning courts won’t be present, invalidating any military detention, making the concern of whether or not one is charged with a crime by the government moot, since the initial detention itself is illegal.

No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people, for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and, if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people.

Ex parte Milligan

 

[Avatar4321]

Hey, you pussy - why are you still avoiding this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...story-holds-up-to-scrutiny-7.html#post5278925

I got tired of you fools trying to claim the story is accurate despite the witnesses and family contradicting your story. I figured rather than give you fools power to annoy me, Id let you alone in ignorance. Seems to be working well.

You made a claim, then ran away like the pussy you are when asked to back it up.

That's a FACT.

The fact is I was on this messageboard for barely any time this past weekend.

I also generally dont make claims that aren't already linked to multiple times.

But you still dont like the fact that I dont blindly listen to your dishonest points don't you?

Thats up to you. I've never obligated myself to respond to you. I do so our of curtesy not obligation.

Doesnt change the fact that your attack on Mitt was unravelling within hours of the story broke. Doesnt change the fact that the so called witnesses lack credibility. Doesnt change the fact that the family has come out denouncing your use of their dead relative for political purposes. Nor does it change the fact that Obama's going to lose on his record and you are so scared of that you have to make up 50 year old non-stories to distract us.

If you ignore whatever it is you think I have falsely claimed, that's fine. I dont care what you think of a point I made on a 50 year old non-story. You dont have to believe it. Because guess what, that's not what this election is about.

 

[Avatar4321]

Id still like to know what monkey wrench Paul has thrown in the works. I dont really see how participating in a primary throws a monkey wrench into anything.