Trading more liberty for security????

[Joe the meek]

[FONT=&amp](b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.[/FONT]
I think there is a lot of concern that this opens the door for the abuse of power even though the portion in red indicates this in not applicable to US citizens. No wonder they don't read the bills before they vote on them...they aren't written to be read!!!! All this stupid legalese....shall drive me crazy!!!!!!

When the Patriot Act was passed who would of thought that local governments would use it to go after meth labs?

The portion you quoted in red is subjective and will always leave the door open to the discretion of the government.

 

[Johnfromokc]

John, I'm not sure if it's me or not, but your language seems to really have gone down the tube since you've come here.

I'm real fucking sorry you have turned into such a fucking puritan since you've come here Joe. I'm enjoying the latitude and the common sense of the admin and mod team here - unlike the asshat fuckwits at the other forums we were members of.

Oh, and fuck you Joe. :fing27

The original comment that I replied to stated that we could do little about what was happening. I disagree. If you don't know what is worth dying for, you'll never know what is worth living for. Perhaps Patrick Henry put it best, but how many people will put their money where their mouth is, particularly in todays "age"? Too some extent, we have become a nation of sheeple, and as long as their TV and computer time isn't interrupted, no one probably will care what their government does.

I do believe we can do something. I just thought your "armed man" comment was stewpit in the context of the OP.

By the way, I really don't think you are really well armed, you just have a couple of guns laying around that you never shoot anymore That said, I still regret selling most of mine.

I can still iron sight a chest shot at 500 meters first shot after dusting the old Colt off, and a head shot before the end of a 30 round magazine - unlike you Army POGS that were trained at 50 meters. :ninja

 

[Johnfromokc]

I agree for the most part. I don't think most are narcissists though. Just apathetic and lazy. Like you said... until it hits their wallet. But then we have been conditioned to such a nanny state and expecting things from the govt that it ends up nobody is willing to give up anything.

Why is it so many people trot out the "nanny state" rhetoric as if American citizens are the only recipients. If anyone is gaming the system it is the banks and corporations that got bailouts on top of the billions in tax payer subsidies - in addition to paying ZERO in taxes.

Take for example the public sector unions. Nobody wants to pay for stuff they did not have to before. Well guess what. Most everybody else has had to pay into their retirement and health insurance for several years now. In the private sector people have lost jobs. They did not have the option of pay cuts or concessions. Yeah it sucks but reality is what it is. The sooner everybody realizes we ALL will have to pay the price the sooner we can recover.

What public sector unions were asking for "stuff" they never had before? All of the union negotiations I am aware of were willing to pay more for their retirement and health care. The unions in Wisconsin GAVE BACK pay and benefits, but that was not enough for the Republicans - they wanted to ultimately ban collective bargaining altogether.

Can you name these public sector unions you allege were negotiating for "more stuff", and name the specific "stuff" they were asking for?

I live in a heavily union area in the past. Detroit is exactly where this country is headed if people want to ignore the obvious.

You mean it was totally the "union greed" of representing working class people in order to negotiate living wages, some vacation time and sick leave and affordable health care that bankrupted Detroit?

Come on Allen. Can't you see the problem with that suggestion? Did the auto manufacturers have zero to do with it? Or was it corporate sharholder greed for greater profit that drove the factories overseas?

Why is it that even when manufacturing plants relocate overseas, the prices keep going higher and higher despite the slave wages and working conditions of the overseas workers?

The only hope is that with 24/7 news and the internet that more can be shed light on. There is a ton of waste and corruption going on in both the public and private sector. We need to not just vote in Novembers but also with our wallet. You don't like all the jobs going to China then quit buying shit coming from there. I am not speaking to you here but as a generality. We bark a lot but never bite if you catch my drift. We want to maintain jobs but ignore the higher costs to provide goods here and are unwilling to pay the extra price to buy local.

As usual this is all IMO

I can agree with buying American and staying away from Wal-Mart (aka PRC Manufacturing Outlet)

As to the 24/7 news - the major media in the United States is owned by 6 corporations:

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

What kind of "fair and balanced" information do you think we will get from them?

The proof to me that the 24/7 news is nothing more than corporate propaganda is the fact that so many people are still blaming unions even though unions get weaker and weaker by the day and private sector union membership in 2010 fell below 9%, and the total union represented workforce when you count government is only 11%.

Now the stats above reflect representation not membership. Actual union membership is down to about 7%.

About 40% of public employees in the USA do not even have the right to organize a legally established union.

Hell, at the peak of union membership in the United States in 1945 only 36% of the workforce was represented by unions. It has dropped every year since as a direct result of corporate lobbying to bust labor unions.

I'm sorry, but union blaming does not stand up to reality. It's just a false boogeyman of the corpratocracy designed to fool the gullible from seeing the real problem.

 

[Codrus]

Why is it so many people trot out the "nanny state" rhetoric ....

im not happy about this either,..i feel like i was lied to and used.










to think, this whole time i was thinking i'de have access to unlimited supply of gestapo like baby sitters who needed orgasms....fucking liars i swear

 

[CityGirl]

im not happy about this either,..i feel like i was lied to and used.










to think, this whole time i was thinking i'de have access to unlimited supply of gestapo like baby sitters who needed orgasms....fucking liars i swear

:24:

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Codrus]

:24:

but then yours will be lonely

 

[Alien Allen]

Why is it so many people trot out the "nanny state" rhetoric as if American citizens are the only recipients. If anyone is gaming the system it is the banks and corporations that got bailouts on top of the billions in tax payer subsidies - in addition to paying ZERO in taxes.

I never said we were alone being the nanny state. Europe has us beat in that regard. I was against the bank bailouts. Don't see what that has to do with the nanny state anyway.

What public sector unions were asking for "stuff" they never had before? All of the union negotiations I am aware of were willing to pay more for their retirement and health care. The unions in Wisconsin GAVE BACK pay and benefits, but that was not enough for the Republicans - they wanted to ultimately ban collective bargaining altogether.

You misunderstood. I am not saying the public sector unions are asking for more. I am saying they only now in the crisis state have accepted concessions. There is a serious flaw when they can collectively bargain and it is bargaining with the govt. In the private sector a union is faced with overreaching and a company being put out of business where the public unions the govt just borrows more.

Can you name these public sector unions you allege were negotiating for "more stuff", and name the specific "stuff" they were asking for?

see above

You mean it was totally the "union greed" of representing working class people in order to negotiate living wages, some vacation time and sick leave and affordable health care that bankrupted Detroit?

Yes the UAW was damn friggin greedy. You can disagree with that all you want but it was not excessive pay to the bosses but the legacy costs that were killing the Big 3. I don't like excessively absurd pay to the bosses but I can separate that from what was the downfall of Chrysler and GM

Come on Allen. Can't you see the problem with that suggestion? Did the auto manufacturers have zero to do with it? Or was it corporate sharholder greed for greater profit that drove the factories overseas?

See above. Legacy costs were the problem. Which is the same thing which is dooming the govt. Sure it would be nice to have a guaranteed retirement with free health care but we can not afford it. And that is something that is relatively recent that was started if I am not mistaken in the last 30 years.

Why is it that even when manufacturing plants relocate overseas, the prices keep going higher and higher despite the slave wages and working conditions of the overseas workers?

That ignores the facts of why they left to begin with. I have a little tiny company in the grand scheme of things and the oppressive regulations we have to deal with have crushed the industry. With not one damn benefit to the public gained. IMO ..... We could turn back the clock 25 years as far as the regulations I deal with and not one thing would suffer. IMO

I can agree with buying American and staying away from Wal-Mart (aka PRC Manufacturing Outlet)

I hate the place so I don't go there. I try to buy things at the local hardware and other stores that have the same goods.

As to the 24/7 news - the major media in the United States is owned by 6 corporations:

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

What kind of "fair and balanced" information do you think we will get from them?

The proof to me that the 24/7 news is nothing more than corporate propaganda is the fact that so many people are still blaming unions even though unions get weaker and weaker by the day and private sector union membership in 2010 fell below 9%, and the total union represented workforce when you count government is only 11%.

Now the stats above reflect representation not membership. Actual union membership is down to about 7%.

About 40% of public employees in the USA do not even have the right to organize a legally established union.

Hell, at the peak of union membership in the United States in 1945 only 36% of the workforce was represented by unions. It has dropped every year since as a direct result of corporate lobbying to bust labor unions.

I'm sorry, but union blaming does not stand up to reality. It's just a false boogeyman of the corpratocracy designed to fool the gullible from seeing the real problem.

Not all news comes from the same sources. You have other outlets than those supplied by the six you cite.

As to the harm unions have done. We shall never agree on that. Like I said I am old enough to have witnessed all the crap between the Big 3 and the UAW over the last 40 years. Unless you lived here I doubt you were given a lot of the info we have.

The public union issues speak for themselves. It is plain as day if you look at the issues being faced by most cities and states. But I suppose we can always buy into the bullshit we get spoon fed that we can afford it. Just cut out fraud and waste ... Right

If I messed up on this post then tough shit. I am tired and not up to these long rebuttals. Not my style.

Maybe Stone will come back and dig in. He thrives on these kinds of lengthy parsed responses.

 

[Joe the meek]

Oh, and fuck you Joe. :fing27

If you did, you'd leave CG for sure

Exactly when was the last time you used irons at 500 meters with a 14.5" barrel?

 

[Johnfromokc]

That ignores the facts of why they left to begin with. I have a little tiny company in the grand scheme of things and the oppressive regulations we have to deal with have crushed the industry. With not one damn benefit to the public gained. IMO ..... We could turn back the clock 25 years as far as the regulations I deal with and not one thing would suffer. IMO

They left for profit - their claims of being oppressed by labor unions is pure bullshit. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the union issue. My data, statistics and life experience support my suppositions. I've been a union member and elected union officer and a manager within the same company. I've also owned 3 small businesses. Not buying the corporate line.

What regulations have harmed your business so? I can't imagine any regulation that cannot be profitably met.

If I messed up on this post then tough shit. I am tired and not up to these long rebuttals. Not my style.

Maybe Stone will come back and dig in. He thrives on these kinds of lengthy parsed responses.

Well, at least you gave a reasoned (if flawed) reply. I'm sorry if Stoner is your friend, but I can't abide by the fucktardery of his rambling nonsensical responses.

 

[retro]

Awesome op-ed on the subject by Rand Paul in the Washington Times.

We should not have to sacrifice our liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our Constitution, were written so that it didn’t matter who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our Constitution allows for that. This bill does not.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rror-doesnt-justify-retreat-on-rights/?page=1

 

[CityGirl]

How soon we forget.

Never Again
I grew up in an internment camp, and no one American ever again should have to

A picture of me, at the time my family was incarcerated in Rohwer camp in Arkansas
November 30, 2011 Internment specter raises ugly head in forgetful U.S. Senate Japanese American Internment

Nearly 70 years ago, Executive Order 9066 authorized the U.S. military to remove any person from designated "military zones" without charge, trial or any kind of due process. This Order led to the forced evacuation and internment over over 120,000 Japanese Americans, two thirds of whom, including myself, my siblings, and my mother, were U.S. citizens. I spent over four years in two of America's internment camps, in Rohwer, Arkansas and Tule Lake, California, simply because I and my family happen to look like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor.
Now a bill proposed in the U.S. Senate, S. 1253 (McCain/Levin) would authorize a similar sweeping authority, granted to the President, to order the detention--without charge or trial--of any person even suspected of being associated with a "terrorist organization." I could scarcely believe my eyes when I saw that we hadn't learned from the terrible lessons of the past.
We are a nation of laws, and we have a Constitution that guarantees certain inalienable rights, including the right to liberty, the right to a jury trial, and the right against unlawful search and seizure. And yet, in times of trouble, how quickly these cornerstones of our freedom are abandoned. We must be constantly vigilant against tyranny and injustice of all forms, especially when it isn't politically expedient.
Please share this article and write to your senator, telling her or him to vote against S.1253, and to say loudly and clearly: "Never Again."
--GHT http://www.allegiancemusical.com/video/never-again?p=643

 

[Johnfromokc]

Exactly when was the last time you used irons at 500 meters with a 14.5" barrel?

Been a few years, but The University of Science Music and Culture drilled BRASSF so deep into my subconcious mind I can still gitter done.

Oh - standard barrel length is 508 mm.

Check out the basic KD course everyone from cooks to grunts and all in between do annually:

http://www.usmcweapons.com/articles/m16/m16 Qual/currentcourse/currentm16qual.html

 

[retro]

Amendment No. 1274 failed tonight. They tried to pass it by voice vote, Paul objected and forced a roll call vote... which failed 59-41.

 

[CityGirl]

Amendment No. 1274 failed tonight. They tried to pass it by voice vote, Paul objected and forced a roll call vote... which failed 59-41.

Yay for Ron Paul! All votes should be by roll call....the lilly livered sap suckers...

All voting in Congress is a matter of public record. However, not all floor votes are roll call votes. There are voice votes (“aye” or “no”) and division or standing votes (where the presiding officer counts Members), and these types of votes do not indicate by name how a Member voted.

 

[retro]

Yay for Ron Paul! All votes should be by roll call....the lilly livered sap suckers...

In this case, it was Rand.

But it's pretty fucked up how they try to get away with as many voice votes as they can so they don't have to actually admit that they voted for something.

 

[CityGirl]

In this case, it was Rand.

But it's pretty fucked up how they try to get away with as many voice votes as they can so they don't have to actually admit that they voted for something.

Thanks for the correction.

I agree. Add that to the list of changes that we the people demand.

 

[CityGirl]

The bill passed 93 to 7 during the late session and it will not be reconciled with a House version. Senate holdouts against the bill included Tom Coburn,(R, Okla.), Jeff Merkley (D, Ore.), Bernie Sanders,(I, Vt.) and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (R, Ky.). http://www.marketwatch.com/story/se...-to-trial-2011-12-02?link=MW_home_latest_news

Interesting. As I was searching the latest news on Google.

Senate Approves $662B Defense Bill

TIME - ‎3 hours ago‎
(WASHINGTON) — Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold ...

I wonder what Time's point is in emphasizing "the Democratic-controlled Senate". http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

YEAs ---93
Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brown (R-MA) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Durbin (D-IL) Enzi (R-WY)	Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Johnson (R-WI) Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY)	Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Rubio (R-FL) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---7
Coburn (R-OK) Harkin (D-IA) Lee (R-UT)	Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT)

It looks to me like they held hands and sang kumbayah during this roll call vote.

 

[CityGirl]

Some have taken solace in hearing that Obama would veto this bill. Here is a skeptical perspective from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts former Asst Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration.

During an interview with RT on December 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEMDX2iuHyI, I said that the US Constitution had been shredded by the failure of the US Senate to protect American citizens from the detainee amendment sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment permits indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. I also gave my opinion that the fact that all but two Republican members of the Senate had voted to strip American citizens of their constitutional protections and of the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act indicated that the Republican Party had degenerated into a Gestapo Party.


These conclusions are self-evident, and I stand by them.


However, I jumped to conclusions when I implied that the Obama regime opposes military detention on constitutional grounds. Ray McGovern and Glenn Greenwald might have jumped to the same conclusions.


An article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate reported that the entire Obama regime opposed the military detention provision in the McCain/Levin amendment. Lithwick wrote:

"The secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI, the CIA director, and the head of the Justice Department's national security division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the bill are a bad idea. And the White House continues to say that the president will veto the bill if the detainee provisions are not removed."​

I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples.


However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime's objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined ...

"...to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes."​

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime's ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime "flexibility."

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but "enemy combatants," "terrorists," or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.


By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.


A careful reading of the Obama regime's objections to military detention supports this conclusion. The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. ...

"After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country."​

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF, the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.

Those who see hope in Obama's threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples. http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Obama-Regime-Has-No-Co-by-paul-craig-roberts-111205-601.html

 

[Alien Allen]

Under normal circumstances the ACLU could sue on behalf of somebody. But the persons arrested one may never even know about theoretically. And until somebody is taken in under this law ya can not sue