http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/congress-vote-next-week-explicitly-creating-police-state?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/congress-vote-next-week-explicitly-creating-police-state?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)
Here are the sections (SS1031 and 1032) and wording that has you worried:
a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
Here is who is covered:
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under 16 this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
But if you read through the entire entire section and Bill:
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(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.
And furthermore, it is nothing new:
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in tended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
What else you got?
So if it is nothing, NNM, why would they want to make a useless law about it? Seems it must be something.
I didn't say it was "nothing". If you are Taliban or Al Qaeda, it is something. I was responding to the link which asserts that SS1031/1032 turns the country into a defacto "police state".
Seriously, there should be a law against posting links before reading the underlying data. I see it all the time - cut-and-paste politics. Whether its "the coming police state", "can't drink raw milk", "GE pays no taxes", "FEMA camps", "UNICEF President gets $1 million and a Rolls-Royce", or any of the other thousands of similar emails, I'd bet 99.9% of the people don't bother to look at the data for themselves. If they read it on the internet, it must be true. d* d* d*
If somebody wants to post a link, get specific about the underlying data, and offer their own opinion or analysis, then at least there is some attempt at rational discussion. Posting a link and walking away is not productive. Just my $0.44 cents (or whatever the inflation-adjusted 2 cents is these days).
Quote from: Native_NM on November 27, 2011, 11:28:07 AM
. If they read it on the internet, it must be true. d* d* d*
Are you saying it isn't? [shocked]
I will not censor discussion of a topic that is of concern to a member, NNM.
I realize that you feel it is your duty to support all new infringements on our freedom as being good for us but I think we can still go ahead and talk about it no matter how you feel about it.
Here is an example of the corrupt police state even going after high school students.
We should support Emma and her right to express her views.
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.msg148338#msg148338
I support the girl's right to free speech. Clearly the KS governor was wrong.
I've written my reps on numerous occasions stating my opposition to the Patriot Act.
That aside, the legislation referenced in the OP does not introduce any new infringement on your freedom or mine (unless you are a non-US citizen and a member of the Taliban); it does not affect US citizens or their constitutional rights. The OP wrongly asserts that the Bill erodes the rights of citizens and equates to a new police state. That is clearly false. It is scare tactics.
There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike what is happening in Washington. This is not one of them.
Remember this? It happened under existing law. Nobody has yet been charged with any wrongdoing. And we need a law to make this kind of thing even easier? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111127/D9R98C700.html
My Way News - SWAT team's shooting of Marine causes outrage
apnews.myway.com
I've read it now and honestly can't see anything wrong with it except for two things.
First, why do we need it?
Second, I've grown to distrust any of the 9/11 bills. The road to Hell is paved with 9/11 bills.
I suppose it all depends on your vision of the near future. If you follow John's "Muddle Through" philosophy, all is good.
I'm sticking with my melt down plan and we seem a little closer every day.
I also think we're on the outer edge of an extremely violent era. This bill could easily be amended,
Well it lost credibility with me when, "The ACLU's Washington legislative office explains:".
There are organizations that need to have its base live in fear, that is how they keep their relevence and their funding!
Some people believe every word that the Enquirer writes too.
I was in the Army in the 70's and I fully believe in the freedom of speech but I also believe that with that freedom, there is a responsibility to dig out the information and vet it as best as possible. Think for yourself.
No one knows any better than me what the sport coat, sun glass wearing, Glock packing Federales can and will do, based upon unsubstantiated, anonymous information; but why do people need someone else to tell them the sky is falling when they can see it for themselves?
This quote has stuck with me for years, by William Pitt the younger:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
I'm just glad we are going to have NBA basketball, I was starting to feel disenfranchised!
Quote from: Native_NM on November 27, 2011, 11:28:07 AM
Seriously, there should be a law against posting links before reading the underlying data. I see it all the time - cut-and-paste politics. Whether its "the coming police state", "can't drink raw milk", "GE pays no taxes", "FEMA camps", "UNICEF President gets $1 million and a Rolls-Royce", or any of the other thousands of similar emails, I'd bet 99.9% of the people don't bother to look at the data for themselves. If they read it on the internet, it must be true. d* d* d*
If somebody wants to post a link, get specific about the underlying data, and offer their own opinion or analysis, then at least there is some attempt at rational discussion. Posting a link and walking away is not productive. Just my $0.44 cents (or whatever the inflation-adjusted 2 cents is these days).
Cheers to that. d* d*
Quote from: Native_NM on November 27, 2011, 09:30:24 AM
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in tended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
The construction clause is intended not to revoke or expand the original Sept, 18 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40). This is required under the War Powers Act of 1973. It clarifies it that the intent of the original act can be used against American citizens. This has been the application of it by the past two administrations, but it has not been expressly permitted by congress. The drafter of this section would take the position that this was always part of the law and intent of congress, but is now being clarified. It would cover all actions from September 18, 2001 to when this passes. Knowing what happened this year, this is not surprising.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html
SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 1031, add the following:
(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122kdJty:e129150: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122kdJty:e129150:)
Lindsay Graham in his own words
American citizens can be held by the military as enemy combatants including arrests made in the US
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12076
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/11/29/beltway-blog-udalls-attempts-at-compromise-on-defense-bill-defeated/48226/
Info on the Udall amendment.
Quote from: toddtar on November 28, 2011, 03:28:02 PM
SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 1031, add the following:
(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122kdJty:e129150: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122kdJty:e129150:)
Your link is dead. I just downloaded the entire Bill, and this is not at the end of Section 1031. Paragraph (e) is the last paragraph.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
I don't see that it made it to the final Bill. At least as of tonight.
http://www.dailypaul.com/189650/udall-amendment-fails-rand-paul-1-of-only-2-republican-yeas
http://www.markudall.com/content/page/full_text_of_the_udall_detainee_amendment#
.
Quote from: muldoon on December 01, 2011, 01:22:00 PM
.
???
I almost posted about this before Tod did... glad I didn't as it gave me more time to research about it. Otherwise, I might have been intimidated by some... ;)
Here's another article on this http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html
Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US
APBy MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.
The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.
The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.
The courts in habeas cases, such as those involving whether a detainee should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, make the determination of who can be considered an enemy combatant.Seems like everything is pointing to any US citizen can be suspect... and I have a question: Since when, in the last 100 yrs (probably more) has our Congress or even the president followed the rules? ??? Give an inch & they take a mile! [waiting]
So for all my friends left of center, how does it feel now that Obama has essentially expanded on Bush's policies? Who do we run as a candidate that will listen to the mainstream, middle-Americans? It was not Republicans trying to sneak that in, but leftist Udall. Obama can grandstand and threaten to veto, but it was Democrats that drafted much of the language.
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/eEMDX2iuHyI[/embed]
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/wle2CrwLYGc[/embed]
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/iD1T61oTrR8[/embed]
Quote from: Windpower on December 03, 2011, 08:47:15 AM
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/eEMDX2iuHyI[/embed]
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/rand-paul-single-handedly-stops-bill.html
Didn't see that this was posted yet - just another reminder that we are indeed in a police state...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PLiKvSz_wX8
and if you don't think so, look at the treatment of this young girl/woman & police brutality - totally unnecessary, totally out of line, despicable, alarming & most of the mall shoppers around just walk on by like nothing is even happening... reminds me of when I was younger & would read about the brutality in the totalitarian countries, the disrespect of anyone's right to free speech or to not be assaulted by the very people who are supposed to be protecting you... disgusting
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/censorship/dont-buy-war-freeze-flash-mob--police-brutality-in-austin-tx.html
I watched the ridiculous piece and, from my perspective found the protestors to be out of line. First of all, there's no freedom to protest in a privately owned business. Just because it's a mall does not mean that you can go there and disrupt other folks who just want to shop and be left alone. If they were protesting on the sidewalk outside of the mall I would be more sympathetic, but screaming and yelling obscenities when I am shopping would not sit well with me. Also, I see no evidence that she was "brutally beaten." What I do see is mall security and police officers exercising restraint with these people who obviously were spoiling for a fight so they could post it on the internet.
Thanks for the vid Sassy
One's first amendment rights are not superceded by location. (ie 'private' property or public property) there is plenty of case law on this.
Standing silently holding signs in a public place such as a shopping mall is obstructing shoppers ?
*shaking head in disbelief at the ignorance of many of the american public*
The clause 1031 is the end of the bill of rights IMO. From the cited C Span video, according to Senator Levin it was the Obama administration that wanted US citizens included in the elgible people to be arrested kidnapped and held indefinitely (that is code for "Forever") by our military. -- without warrant, without trial, without trial by jury, without recourse of Habeas Corpus.
Anyone accused of being a 'terrorist' or aiding a terrorist group can will be held in a prison till they die.
Can any American accept this ?
Quote from: Woodsrule on December 12, 2011, 02:46:10 PM
I watched the ridiculous piece and, from my perspective found the protestors to be out of line. First of all, there's no freedom to protest in a privately owned business. Just because it's a mall does not mean that you can go there and disrupt other folks who just want to shop and be left alone. If they were protesting on the sidewalk outside of the mall I would be more sympathetic, but screaming and yelling obscenities when I am shopping would not sit well with me. Also, I see no evidence that she was "brutally beaten." What I do see is mall security and police officers exercising restraint with these people who obviously were spoiling for a fight so they could post it on the internet.
The only person that was shouting threats was the Black security guard near the end and the older 'grampa' guard who issued a threat saying he would "take him out"
I heard no profanities or obscenities unless you are calling 'shame shame" an obscenity. No one said she was beaten but the young girl was treated roughly and had her arms twisted causing here to scream in pain.
There were no obscenities used by the protestors in the video. Nor was anyone screaming except the young girl screaming in pain at having here arms twisted. How is silently holding up signs "spoiling for a fight."
It makes one wonder if we watched the same video clip.
Quote from: Windpower on December 12, 2011, 03:56:30 PM
One's first amendment rights are not superceded by location. (ie 'private' property or public property) there is plenty of case law on this.
Mmmm. I don't think that is true. As a property owner or property manager I can restrict the rights of people to gather and demonstrate on my own or my managed property. That is a basic right; ie I can picket a shop if I have a complaint, but the mall management can restrict that picketing to the public sidewalk outside the mall property.
That's right Don.
Windpower, remember that the Constitution only protects citizens from the government, not private individuals (Including Corporations).
If I'm on my property, people are damn well going to conform to MY rules despite a constitutional right to free speech.
Most people don't understand it but even civil rights such as racial equality are not guaranteed in many states.
The Federal Civil Rights Act that is the basis for insuring racial equality, only restrains the Governments at every level, certain businesses such as Hotes/Motels and businesses receiving Federal funding or conducting interstate business.
There is no guaranteed right to do as you please, anywhere you please.
Quote from: Woodsrule on December 12, 2011, 02:46:10 PM
I watched the ridiculous piece and, from my perspective found the protestors to be out of line. First of all, there's no freedom to protest in a privately owned business. Just because it's a mall does not mean that you can go there and disrupt other folks who just want to shop and be left alone. If they were protesting on the sidewalk outside of the mall I would be more sympathetic, but screaming and yelling obscenities when I am shopping would not sit well with me. Also, I see no evidence that she was "brutally beaten." What I do see is mall security and police officers exercising restraint with these people who obviously were spoiling for a fight so they could post it on the internet.
??? I find your answer almost more disturbing than what was done to that tiny,young woman by that big bruiser... if a lot of people think like that, our freedoms are taking a last breath. The protestors were quiet, just had things written on their bags & a few signs & were standing there - did you notice the title? All she did was take a bag & was almost immediately accosted... if that's what I can expect to happen when I go shopping, to spend my hard earned money at a mall, I will not be going to any malls... they can have their crap. [toilet] I see lots of people with slogans on their tee shirts, their bags, their hats... so if I have the name Jesus on my tee shirt, I can be manhandled, thrown on the ground, basically molested - did you see how that security guard was putting his hands all over her legs up to her crotch? I'm sorry, but that isn't the way I will be allowed to be treated.
Here's another video - it's from CSPAN, don't think its been posted but Windpower alluded to it - it is Congressman Levin talking about being forced by the Obama Administration to include US citizens in the 1867 Gestapo law - it is in section 1037
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PLiKvSz_wX8
This was a bad example of a Police State Sassy.
I happen to agree that we are in one, but what the video (Protest Video) shows is a normal protest where the protestors knew full well they were going to be told to leave and expected one or two to be arrested for trespassing.
I watched the video carefully several times. The girl that was arrested was arrested for trespassing. Why she was singled out was carefully left out of the film. It's usually because they flat refuse or say something provocative. In her case, she was hamming it up for the camera, squirming on the floor, scooting away, screaming, Etc. Again, a normal tactic.
I didn't see the cop do anything out of line.
The Security Guards were being Security Guards. There is a reason they get minimum wage, are the butt of countless jokes and do not have police powers. The fat Black Guard needs to get back to the Ghetto before he gets the Mall sued or gets shot.
Now as to what Woodsrule said in part...
What I saw was a peaceful Protest. I heard no obscenities being screamed or passerbys being accosted and if it had been on public property or had the permission of the owner, a pretty mild display.
Mild displays are also ineffective...they need some spice.
A shopping mall is private property but it is also a public place. Can "private" shopping malls exclude certain races of people because they are 'private' and thus trample on their protected rights -- of course not
Neither does one give up any other of their rights walking into a mall.
Here is a recent court decision about protests in a shopping mall.
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2008/03/01/court-rules-unions-may-protest-at-shopping-malls
"The case wound its way to the state Supreme Court. In a 4-3 decision, the court decided December 2007 to support the union.
"At the end of the day, mall property owners' restrictions that bar groups from attacking a company that's doing business on the property aren't valid," says Michael Lotito, partner in Jackson Lewis' San Francisco office. "That's pretty profound."
Interesting Case Windpower, and an argument I've made many times about Malls that ban guns. Virginia doesn't accept the principal though and private property is still private here.
I was comparing apples to oranges earlier apparently. I was talking about the Federal Constitution and rights under it. Each state has it's own interpretation of their State Constitution.
Quote from: Sassy on December 13, 2011, 05:04:00 AM
Here's another video - it's from CSPAN, don't think its been posted but Windpower alluded to it - it is Congressman Levin talking about being forced by the Obama Administration to include US citizens in the 1867 Gestapo law - it is in section 1037
How many readers here have taken a moment to write to their Representative and their Senator regarding their feelings on this?
Quote from: MtnDon on December 13, 2011, 10:24:50 AM
How many readers here have taken a moment to write to their Representative and their Senator regarding their feelings on this?
I have Don...and talked to them at least once and a number of times to their Assistants.
Don, the horse has left the barn
This 'law' was passed in the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote !
Clearly this 'law' abrogates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th amnedments to the constitution and probabaly others --- the congress doesn't give a dam about the constitution, do you really think they give a dam about us mere mundanes writing letters (unless of course it contains a 5 or 6 figure check)
Here's a thought let's just say citizen Smith gets apprehended by the Army on suspicion that he aided a spy group,
In theory he could appeal this to the supreme court to challenge the unconstitutional aspects of this 'law'
ooops , wrong, he has no standing and there has been no trial to overtune and just maybe no one knows wher he is
even if Obama were to veto it (which he won't of course) it is veto proof
George Carlin correctly sums it up, the answer is at the 2 minute mark
[embed=425,349]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/acLW1vFO-2Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
I think Don was speaking Past Tense Windpower.
The idea is have you done anything about it if you don't like it.
It was a losing battle and I can't understand why....but such is life.
Quote from: peternap on December 13, 2011, 11:35:52 AM
I think Don was speaking Past Tense Windpower.
The idea is have you done anything about it if you don't like it.
It was a losing battle and I can't understand why....but such is life.
It would seem that the program is far advanced, Peter. Here is a National guard commercial for Internment Resettlement Specialist.
Our Motto "of the troups for the troups"
[embed=425,349]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Uylxx0t5rss" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
Quote from: peternap on December 13, 2011, 11:35:52 AM
I think Don was speaking Past Tense Windpower.
The idea is have you done anything about it if you don't like it.
Exactly Peter, it's all too easy to complain and also as easy to take no action at all. Voicing ones concerns does not always shift the outcome, but I feel if I don't make the effort I shouldn't really be complaining. It is discouraging at times, but there have been some victories.
Quote from: MtnDon on December 13, 2011, 12:50:46 PM
Exactly Peter, it's all too easy to complain and also as easy to take no action at all. Voicing ones concerns does not always shift the outcome, but I feel if I don't make the effort I shouldn't really be complaining. It is discouraging at times, but there have been some victories.
To be clear then, Don, did you make your concerns about this bill to your representatives in congress or do you support the warrentless arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens without trial by the military ?
Why do you have to ask? Do you think that just because I come out on the side of the rights of property owners to restrict activities on their property that means I'd be in favor of granting government, police or military carte blanche? I have a strong belief in property rights as an individual. I extend that to all other properties owned privately, be that a single person, a family or a large corporation.
Yes a shopping mall, like any mom and pop store is, as a rule, open to the public. That does not make it a public place. It is a privately owned place that has invited people in for various business purposes. If I have invited people onto my private land and they don't want to follow my rules, I will ask them to leave. I feel the same rights should be extended to the shopping mall. Of course, having invited the public in they can not exclude people who have rights under various federal, state or local laws; no discrimination because of color, religion, being gay or not gay, etc. However, I have no problem with the property owners telling the invitees that certain types of behavior will not be tolerated. That's the same right I exercise when I tell visitors that I don't want them riding ATV's or dirt bikes in certain areas.
I haven't looked into those case laws links too far. I do see they come from California. I know I shouldn't paint with too a broad brush, but there have been a number of court decisions from California that make no sense at all. At least many make no sense at all to someone who is not a liberal.
So what did I write to my Rep and Senator? I told them I could not support them if they supported the bill in question. They know we vote if they've done their homework. Whether or not they listen, or rather hear, that is another matter altogether.
(excerpt from letter to me from Tom Udall (NM Senator (D) ) ....
"I also supported a compromise amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) on December 1, 2011. The amendment clarified that nothing in the NDAA changed the due process rights of U.S. citizens and individuals in the U.S. This amendment passed by a vote of 99-1. While I'm pleased that the Senate at the very least passed this amendment, I would have preferred stronger and clearer language. Unfortunately, the majority of the United States Senate did not."
and, the unfortunate part...
"Because of the many important provisions included in the NDAA for our brave men and women in the military, and for the New Mexico military installations so vital to our nation's security, I supported final passage of the legislation. The bill passed by a vote of 93-7 and is now being considered by a Conference Committee, which is comprised of several members from both the House and the Senate, to negotiate the differences between each chamber's versions of the NDAA. I am hopeful my colleagues on the conference committee will improve the detainee language. "
Politics as usual
"No shirt, no shoes, no service". If this is posted on a private business open to the public, guess whose rights are protected? Some people have argued that going shoeless or shirtless is a form of expression and protected by the Constitution. Look that case up.