Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Indeed. 9 Rogues In black robes...that are no better than any sane citizen.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.
why do ONLY the words you want to talk about in the bill matter yet the ones which prove your stupid theory about the bill wrong dont matter?
Do you have any idea what happens when a bill has two conflicting statements or it conflicts with other law? It eventually goes to the Supreme Court to decide and that will leave it up to nine individuals to protect our freedoms.
Are you willing to gamble that those nine people really give a shit about your fellow Americans?
Immie
It was the right who did this.
They did this when they were allowed to run our entire government by themselves.
YES blame is appropriate.
Its like saying lets stop crime but not put anyone in jail for the crime.
It was the right who did this.
They did this when they were allowed to run our entire government by themselves.
YES blame is appropriate.
Its like saying lets stop crime but not put anyone in jail for the crime.
Since you support this bill so adamently, I must only draw the conclusion that you were in agreement with the Bush Administration when they held all those prisoners in Guantanamo indefinitely.
For some reason, I thought you opposed Bush holding prisoners without a trial.
Immie
Never said it you liar
lol at me for actually trying to have a serious discussion with Truthmatters
I provided links and quotes form the actual laws.
I provided links to real cases and real issues.
You cant win so you declare I have offered nothing of substance.
The cold hard facts are you can be proven wrong by the majority of my posts in this thread.
Give up loser if that is what you want to do.
go ahead and PRETEND I offfered no facts and that you won the debate.
The facts are right here and you are lying.
It will win your party no converts.
the bill says its self that it can not be used that way.
That means the bill is constitutional.
Any using of the bill the way the OP suggests is not using the bill but breaking the law, including this law by its own words.
Who took up arms?First Read - Can the U.S. kill an American citizen without charge or conviction?
Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens, who take up arms with an enemy force, have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.
"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities," Anderson said. "The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable."
Proving you lied about the bill is not me supporting the bill now is it?
Proving you lied about the bill is not me supporting the bill now is it?
Unless you have some knowledge surpassing most here who disagree with you you have nothing. And from your history of post you have a very limited knowledge of most of your discussion you are a part of.
1. Why did Dianne Feinstein try to get exception to the provision for U.S. citizens?
2. Why did obama say he would veto the bill?
3. Why are there words in the bill that do not clearly state that American citizens are exempt when it uses words such as any one or any person?
3 questions I have yet to see you answer.
Proving you lied about the bill is not me supporting the bill now is it?
Unless you have some knowledge surpassing most here who disagree with you you have nothing. And from your history of post you have a very limited knowledge of most of your discussion you are a part of.
1. Why did Dianne Feinstein try to get exception to the provision for U.S. citizens?
2. Why did obama say he would veto the bill?
3. Why are there words in the bill that do not clearly state that American citizens are exempt when it uses words such as any one or any person?
3 questions I have yet to see you answer.
1) Because Feinstein agrees with us about the infingement on our liberties
2) Because Obama agrees with us about the infringement on our liberties
3) Because it was designed to infringe on citizens liberties
They are SAINTS but thier efforts wont be worth it.... (If they want this passed it will be regardlessTruthmatters said:who were the 7 who voted against it?
)
They are SAINTS but thier efforts wont be worth it.... (If they want this passed it will be regardlessTruthmatters said:who were the 7 who voted against it?
Tell me I am wrong tell me that when the bill voted on by the senate did not just strip Americans of their 4th 5th 6th and possibly 8th amendment away?
Senate approves $662 billion defense bill - Yahoo! NewsThe bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45.
All that awaits is obama signature. It could be a poly to give obama a chance to say look I vetoed a bill and protected your rights. He get's re-elected by a grateful nation and bam he strips those rights away after he has been re-elected.
Tell me I am wrong tell me that when the bill voted on by the senate did not just strip Americans of their 4th 5th 6th and possibly 8th amendment away?
Senate approves $662 billion defense bill - Yahoo! NewsThe bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45.
All that awaits is obama signature. It could be a poly to give obama a chance to say look I vetoed a bill and protected your rights. He get's re-elected by a grateful nation and bam he strips those rights away after he has been re-elected.
You are wrong.
The bill is not law until Obama signs it and will always be subject to SCOTUS review.
Civics 101
