Your rights have been taken away as of today

[imbalance]

I'm not interested in the partisan blame game. There are Neocons on both sides of the aisle even if they don't publicly identify with the ideology; it's not what you say that matters it's what you do.

Here's an interview from a couple of days ago with uber Neocon John McCain (co-author of S 1867) where he flatly says US citizens can be detained without being mirandized. He starts by saying US citizens will have habeas but it doesn't take long for him to then completely contradict himself by saying US citizens can be detained without being mirandized. This clearly violates the 5th and 6th Amendments and should put to rest the question of whether the Constitution protects US citizens from this bill.

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[imbalance]

Your team Used an unconstitutional bill knowing it would be found unconstitutional in the courts eventually.

Be proud of your Bush team, you voted for it.

You are incorrect in assuming that because one wants to remove Obama from office ASAP that same person supported Bush's policies.

 

[Truthmatters]

Never said it you liar

 

[The T]

Your team Used an unconstitutional bill knowing it would be found unconstitutional in the courts eventually.

Be proud of your Bush team, you voted for it.

You are incorrect in assuming that because one wants to remove Obama from office ASAP that same person supported Bush's policies.

Bush III...

 

[imbalance]

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.

So continue living in the past while ignoring the present where just this week both the R controlled House and D controlled Senate passed this attack on individual liberty. You can continue living that way but I refuse to.

 

[Truthmatters]

This bill does not say what the op claimed it said and I proved it by the very text of the law.

The republicans crafted a law that was unconstiututional knowing it was unconstitutional.

They used it as long as it took the courts to determine it was unconstitutional.

They gamed the constitution.

The right defended them with vigor.

The left screamed out against it.

The left was the one protecting the constitution and the right was the one defending a government so unconstiututional as to claim there was no gaurentee of habeous Corpus in the constitution.

You people on the right defended that.

pretending now that you did not is a fucking lie.

 

[imbalance]

never said it you liar

...

your team used an unconstitutional bill knowing it would be found unconstitutional in the courts eventually.

Be proud of your bush team, you voted for it.

...

part of patriot act ruled unconstitutional - us news - security - msnbc.com


the parts of the patriot act that were unconstitution were not allowed to stand.

Your team passed it and used and extraconstitutional law untill our courts could stop you.

It did not get to override the constitution now did it?

You now have to face that the law you claim that seeks to overide the constitution has a caveot in it which plainly says it can not be used to over ride the constitution.

If your teams patriot act had such a caveot then this man would not have been harmed by the unconstitutional parts of the patriot act because the bill would have prevented it huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Gonzales: 'There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution' | ThinkProgress

 

[imbalance]

lol at me for actually trying to have a serious discussion with Truthmatters

 

[Truthmatters]

Your team Used an unconstitutional bill knowing it would be found unconstitutional in the courts eventually.

Be proud of your Bush team, you voted for it.

You are incorrect in assuming that because one wants to remove Obama from office ASAP that same person supported Bush's policies.

your start date here is this year.

You can claim whatever you want to claim about not backing Bush.

I have no reason to believe you as you can NOT prove it.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[imbalance]

Your team Used an unconstitutional bill knowing it would be found unconstitutional in the courts eventually.

Be proud of your Bush team, you voted for it.

You are incorrect in assuming that because one wants to remove Obama from office ASAP that same person supported Bush's policies.

your start date here is this year.

You can claim whatever you want to claim about not backing Bush.

I have no reason to believe you as you can NOT prove it.

You're asking me to prove a negative lol. How about this, prove you aren't an antisocial nerdvirgin.

 

[imbalance]

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.

protip: just because you can't understand the concepts in the links you copy & paste doesn't make your warped interpretation of them any less ridiculous.

 

[Si modo]

Your team Used an unconstitutional bill knowing it would be found unconstitutional in the courts eventually.

Be proud of your Bush team, you voted for it.

You are incorrect in assuming that because one wants to remove Obama from office ASAP that same person supported Bush's policies.

your start date here is this year.

You can claim whatever you want to claim about not backing Bush.

I have no reason to believe you as you can NOT prove it.

Prove that you are not a drooling retard.

Prove it!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Immanuel]

Senate passes defense bill with detainee policy compromise - CNN



Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

FYI: An agreement to amend is not an amendment. They still have to get the amendment passed by Congress. And besides simply saying it is not the intent of the bill does not mean that such detainments will not happen.

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

How very sad your party thinks just insulting people changes the text of a law.

 

[Si modo]

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.

So, you think this bill will make what Obama did to Al-Awlaki against the law, right?

Or, was it already against the law?

Hmmmmm.

 

[Immanuel]

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