Welcome to Hell.

[Jackson]

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

Where does it say the detainee can be represented by an attorney and appear before a judge limiting unlawful detention? I have heard that citizens can be detained for an unlimited time without representation or proof.

 

[Jackson]

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

I hope that is not the case. But btw, I cannot rant before noon.

 

[Truthmatters]

Does the constitution alllow that?

 

[Truthmatters]

The bill in it says that nothing in this bill can be used to try and preempt the constitution.

Parts of the Patriot act did that.

That is why no one should have voted for the Patriot act.

Bush used the unconstitutional parts of the bill right up until it made its way through the court to determine that it HAD extraconstitutional elements in it and they were voided by the courts.

Then Bush couldnt use them anymore ( at least legally).

Your team GAMED the constitution.

This bill can not be used that way.

 

[Jackson]

The bill in it says that nothing in this bill can be used to try and preempt the constitution.

Parts of the Patriot act did that.

That is why no one should have voted for the Patriot act.

Bush used the unconstitutional parts of the bill right up until it made its way through the court to determine that it HAD extraconstitutional elements in it and they were voided by the courts.

Then Bush couldnt use them anymore ( at least legally).

Your team GAMED the constitution.

This bill can not be used that way.

Thank you for your dignified response, Truthmatters. Appreciated.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Ok so we lose a little bit of liberty here and a little bit there and everyone is ok and life goes on until one day you look around and wonder where your rights are.

What else are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security?

TSA checkpoints on the streets?
Maybe we should all have to apply for permits to travel from state to state? There should probably be checkpoints to make sure no one is trying to move drugs/guns/nuclear bombs from state to state.

We should probably all be fingerprinted and required to submit dna to a database to make it easy on the law enforcement agencies when they are looking for criminals.

Should we just let the government define what a terrorist is and also what "belligerent" means? The problem with words is they can be twisted. If I put a soap box on a corner and rail against the government and call on people to march on Washington and a policeman happens to come by and hear me and takes my speech for incitement and hostility towards the government, can I be held for terrorism? or as a "Belligerent"? If I call for a change in the current government as is my right and start to gather enough support to threaten the status quo could I be considered belligerent? Is it it not my right to enlist support to change government if I deem it to no longer be serving the people?

 

[LibertyForAll]

Ok so we lose a little bit of liberty here and a little bit there and everyone is ok and life goes on until one day you look around and wonder where your rights are.

What else are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security?

TSA checkpoints on the streets?
Maybe we should all have to apply for permits to travel from state to state? There should probably be checkpoints to make sure no one is trying to move drugs/guns/nuclear bombs from state to state.

We should probably all be fingerprinted and required to submit dna to a database to make it easy on the law enforcement agencies when they are looking for criminals.

Should we just let the government define what a terrorist is and also what "belligerent" means? The problem with words is they can be twisted. If I put a soap box on a corner and rail against the government and call on people to march on Washington and a policeman happens to come by and hear me and takes my speech for incitement and hostility towards the government, can I be held for terrorism? or as a "Belligerent"? If I call for a change in the current government as is my right and start to gather enough support to threaten the status quo could I be considered belligerent? Is it it not my right to enlist support to change government if I deem it to no longer be serving the people?

It's not a problem until it's a problem.

If you don't live your life that way, you'll be perpetually looking over your shoulder like a paranoid schitzophrenic.

Here's a reality check:

Person A (ME) is saying fuggit, it's not going to effect me and I'll talk when it does.
Person B (YOU) is saying "oh noes, this is going to effect me, I better post about it on a message board.

Difference in action: None. Are you rebelling? Are you taking up arms against the Legislators who approved the Law? Are you bringing it before the Supreme Court? No, no and no? Ok then, so you're wasting your time, life and happiness on some "I'm worried but won't do dick about it" shit.

Meanwhile, the people who are able to focus on what's important most likely WILL act if it ever DOES hit them, but they deal with REALITY, (when it happens), and not some what ifs and aren't too easily spooked.

Which ones fight for and believe in their rights? The ones who act when they're affected, not the ones who speculate that they MIGHT be affected on message boards while simultaneously showing already - that they won't do dick about it. Who's weaker? You @ home decide.


News at 11.

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.....


The rest of your post assumes a lot about me that you have no basis for. I may not use every right available to me but that doesn't mean I should lose them either...

 

[KissMy]

Here are the 7 Senators who voted against this.
Click their name to go to their contact pages to show your support:

Thomas Harken (IA)

Rand Paul (KY)

Thomas Coburn (OK)

Jeff Merkley (OR)

Ron Wyden (OR)

Mike Lee (UT)

Bernard Sanders (VT)

 

[Truthmatters]

why are both sides trying to trump this up as something it is not?

 

[LibertyForAll]

why are both sides trying to trump this up as something it is not?

I acknowledge that the section you referenced makes it appear as though our rights will be maintained. There is other conflicting verbage in the bill though and wherever there is room for error there will be error.

There is also the fact that there is a similiar bill that went through the house and that the bills have to be reconciled before they can pass and we haven't seen what that reconciliation will bring as of yet. This hasn't played out fully yet in other words.