Welcome to Hell.

[Douger]

Have fun. Remember, wave them thar flags !
OpEdNews - Article: S 1867: Killing The Bill of Rights and Declaring War on Americans

 

[strollingbones]

paramilitary police


but the butterheads continue their cries of what? freedom is not good...security is

 

[Full-Auto]

paramilitary police


but the butterheads continue their cries of what? freedom is not good...security is

But Strolling this is overwhelmingly bipartisan. The establishment of both parties say this is good for you.


butterheads. Great one.

 

[strollingbones]

you should be more suspicious when everyone agrees.....but you....

 

[zzzz]

Parts of this bill are obviously unconstitutional and will be be rendered mute if it ever become law by the USSC.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The Senate is run by the anti-military DEMOCRATS.......why did THEY allow it to be passed.....?

 

[strollingbones]

ahh a new patrioteer

 

[Paulie]

I love how when you look it up on google news, there isn't a single mainstream media outlet covering it.

 

[G.T.]

ohhhh nooooesss the hysteria




life goes on.

 

[uscitizen]

The Senate is run by the anti-military DEMOCRATS.......why did THEY allow it to be passed.....?

Because of the perception propagated by the media/politicians that if you do not vote for it you will NOT be keeping America safe and are weak.

Stupit programmed Americans....

 

[AmericanFirst]

One more step to socialism that the socialists love so much. I see that the dimwit tool panetta is against it, must really be bad. Doesn't surprise me the dimwit controlled senate passed this, reid is an idiot.

 

[Full-Auto]

One more step to socialism that the socialists love so much. I see that the dimwit tool panetta is against it, must really be bad. Doesn't surprise me the dimwit controlled senate passed this, reid is an idiot.

It seems there are plenty of repubs kissing his ass.

 

[LibertyForAll]

We are on the verge of an Orwellian nightmare, how disheartening it is to me to see that so many of our representatives sold us out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Calm down people....this bill does not infringe on your Constitutional rights....(altho Obama's/Dem's amendment to it attempted to... but that is another story...)

Here is Marco Rubio's explanation to questioning constituents...

Fighting for Florida - U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio

Several people have asked about my votes on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. In particular, some people are wrongly suggesting that this legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain any American citizen, and that the US Armed Forces would be able to perform law enforcement functions on American soil because of the authority conferred under Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act. While I do have other serious concerns with this legislation, those particular assertions could not be further from the truth. I want to take this time to explain what the law actually does, what my position is on these issues, and why I joined with Senators Demint, Coburn and Lee to vote for those specific sections, but against cloture on the final bill.

Section 1031 of this act merely affirms the authority that the president already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current Authorization for Use of Military Force; in fact, this same section of the bill specifically states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no language that could possibly be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act and allowing the US military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities.

In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.” This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision. There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store. What this section of the bill does is help provide for our national security by giving clarity to the military in regard to its authority to detain people who have committed substantially harmful acts against the United States. This is extremely important given that there are Al-Qaeda cells currently operating within our borders. I would not leave the risk of a terrorist attack that could claim the life of a member of my family up to chance, and I will not leave that risk for your family either.

Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security. Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners. Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies. However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

cont.

 

[Full-Auto]

Calm down people....this bill does not infringe on your Constitutional rights....(altho Obama's/Dem's amendment to it attempted to... but that is another story...)

Here is Marco Rubio's explanation to questioning constituents...

Fighting for Florida - U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio

Several people have asked about my votes on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. In particular, some people are wrongly suggesting that this legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain any American citizen, and that the US Armed Forces would be able to perform law enforcement functions on American soil because of the authority conferred under Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act. While I do have other serious concerns with this legislation, those particular assertions could not be further from the truth. I want to take this time to explain what the law actually does, what my position is on these issues, and why I joined with Senators Demint, Coburn and Lee to vote for those specific sections, but against cloture on the final bill.

Section 1031 of this act merely affirms the authority that the president already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current Authorization for Use of Military Force; in fact, this same section of the bill specifically states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no language that could possibly be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act and allowing the US military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities.

In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.” This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision. There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store. What this section of the bill does is help provide for our national security by giving clarity to the military in regard to its authority to detain people who have committed substantially harmful acts against the United States. This is extremely important given that there are Al-Qaeda cells currently operating within our borders. I would not leave the risk of a terrorist attack that could claim the life of a member of my family up to chance, and I will not leave that risk for your family either.

Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security. Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners. Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies. However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

cont.

I am still suspicious. LACK OF TRUST.


It is illegal to traffic firearms and launder drug money. Our government does both.

Accountability resulted in promotions.

Then add what lawyers do to the real meanings of words.


Why should I believe Government?

 

[G.T.]

We are on the verge of an Orwellian nightmare, how disheartening it is to me to see that so many of our representatives sold us out.

Are we?

Or could it be more of the faux hysteria of people reading too far into shit - same as it usually is ...............yet when you go outdoors and breath real air and live real life, you don't seem to really be effected by any of it afterall.

The only thing that ever seems to change in our boring complacent Country is which war we're fighting.

Everything else is overtly-commercialized Capitali$m like it always has been, and the day-to-day lives haven't changed a titty. People do the 9-5, pick up sally from dance class, cook, clean, oversee homework, take a vacation or two a year, play some sports, exercise, check out new movies/books/music, have barbecues, deal with a little family drama once in a while maybe alcoholosm or drug abuse, watch the superbowl, shop on black friday, wash rinse repeat until you die.

That's life in America and it hasn't changed since the patriot act, since people started to cry "socialism!," since the Recession, since Clinton got his dick sucked, since Area 51, since Kennedy got capped, etc. etc.

 

[Truthmatters]

there is a line written in the bill that will not let it be used extraconstitutionally.

This is why it recieved the votes it did.

Lets not let ourselves be whipped into a false frenzy for some poltical hack reason

 

[Jackson]

This bill is worrisome and it is covered by the MSM. I'm all for the Patriot act, but I can't help think that we are puting the discretion on the side of the intelligence and who is in charge. What if you don't have faith in the government any longer?

Panetta being against it does raise a red flag to me. I believe we are slowly sliding into a system without checks and balances. What's wrong with going to court to discern the intelligence before a judge first? Even at that, there are too many ideologic judges who will rule on the behest of the administration.

There has to be some middle ground here.

 

[Truthmatters]

1031
3

(e) Authorities- 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

 

[Truthmatters]

To use the law in the way that has been suggested would result in the law itself being broken.

The patriot act had no such provision in it because the Republicans and Bush had a plan to use the parts of it that were unconstitutional right up until the courts told them they had to stop.

You are allowing yourselves to be used poltically if you keep this rant up