Senate Rules in Favor of Unconstitutional Detainment Bill

Feeble · Dec 21, 2011

Oh guys... I feel awful for you x

Tyrsonswood · Dec 21, 2011

wisp said:

Is this really happening in America ? i thought America was the land of the free ,is America becoming a police state ?I thought things like this only happened in countries ruled by dictators , personal freedom is dying a quick death .I got a extra room if anyone looking to move south for a while
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Might have to take you up on that offer. Can't leave my animals behind though.

Justin_Hale · Dec 21, 2011

I heard obama say the Constitution was meant for Colonial times.

Obama Says Constitution Flawed, Framers Didn’t Get It Right

Here obama says: "It was a remarkable political document."
And: "The fundamental flaw that continues to this day"..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&feature=player_embedded"]OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY - YouTube

sunfighter · Dec 21, 2011

I think you've taken that out of context -- shame on you. I believe he was talking about slavery. The Founding Fathers could have abolished slavery -- Massachusetts already had -- but failed to.

Justin_Hale · Dec 21, 2011

sunfighter said:

I think you've taken that out of context -- shame on you. I believe he was talking about slavery. The Founding Fathers could have abolished slavery -- Massachusetts already had -- but failed to.
Click to expand...

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery

Lafincoyote · Dec 21, 2011

Sunfire LLC was awarded a 23 million dollar contract from the DOD for "NIGHT RAID" equipment. This is enough gear to equip 30,000 to 50,000 men. This is in motion as I write, and the war in Iraq is over! Where do you think this equipment will be used?
Now anybody deemed as a "Terrorist" can be snatched from their home or off the street, and locked away for the rest of their lives, tortured, or even just executed outright, all nice and legal per the TRAITORS who are responsible for passing this ANTI-AMERICAN law!!!!!!!!!

Dude111 · Dec 21, 2011

sunfighter said:

The NDAA has not been signed YET.
Click to expand...

YES...I wonder if its because the FEMA camps arent ready yet?

EDIT:

I just checked the status of the bill

"DEC21st: Presented to president"

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540 (They must not be ready!!)

RooRshack · Dec 24, 2011

Dude111 said:

YES...I wonder if its because the FEMA camps arent ready yet?

EDIT:

I just checked the status of the bill

"DEC21st: Presented to president"

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540 (They must not be ready!!)
Click to expand...

This is just retarded and makes anything else you say less meaningful.

FEMA nothing. Careless power hungry puppets of puppets, yes. And it will be bad a few administrations down the line, with what's happening. It's not the guys who make the rules you have to worry about, necessarily. It's the guys who inherit the rules.

GardenGuy · Dec 24, 2011

Congress is not supposed to pass unconstitutional bills and presidents are not supposed to sign them into law, but the Supreme Court remains as our last defence against an unconstitutional law from remaining on the books.
Failing that, we either vote for wiser people to office when the next election comes or as the Supreme Court justices die or retire, we hope that we have a wiser president around to nominate a better justice and a wiser Congress to confirm that nomination.
These acts of wisdom have to happen often enough that eventually the laws are restored to conformity to the constitution.
If the system is rigged so that that our power to amend the Constitution is neutered, we may be forced to overthrow the government by any means necessary and restore the Constitution and thus our rights.

Tyrsonswood · Dec 24, 2011

I get the sneaking suspicion that all the "back to the constitution" extreme right wing talking points we hear recently means "back to the constitution without the bill of rights"...... sure looks like they are trying to remove as many of the amendments as they can. Without the bill of rights we don't stand a chance.

indydude · Dec 24, 2011

It's not the guys who make the rules you have to worry about, necessarily. It's the guys who inherit the rules
Click to expand...

What do ya mean?

trying to remove as many of the amendments as they can. Without the bill of rights we don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

They need a Constitutional Convention to do any thing. Last one was decades ago.

Tyrsonswood · Dec 24, 2011

indydude said:

........
They need a Constitutional Convention to do any thing. Last one was decades ago.
Click to expand...

Well lets see.......

The NDAA gets rid of the whole fair and speedy trial deal.

Occupy has proven that our first amendment rights are pretty much null and void.

Unfair and biased drug testing, with more on it's way, is chopping up the 4th amendment as does the Patriot act.

They are doing a pretty bang up job with out a Constitutional Convention.

GardenGuy · Dec 25, 2011

Tyrsonswood said:

I get the sneaking suspicion that all the "back to the constitution" extreme right wing talking points we hear recently means "back to the constitution without the bill of rights"...... sure looks like they are trying to remove as many of the amendments as they can. Without the bill of rights we don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

Well, you sure aren't hearing it from me!
I want all those rights preserved. The Constitution was just a broad framework to get the ball rolling and the Bill of Rights are essential to preserving the liberties that the Constitution very broadly sets out.
Rather than abandoning the bill of rights, we may need additional rights encoded in recognition of the constitutional issues imposed by technological advances.

The problem with both liberals and conservatives is that they are trying to use the courts to circumvent the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights).

I am moderate to liberal on most issues, but rather than having alternating generations of liberal and conservative courts constantly negating the Constitution, I want to see additions to the Bill of Rights and additional civil liberties on the books, provided they serve to preserve liberties rather than infringe on them.

I'll use my support of nude recreation as an example. I would like to see nudity decriminalized nationwide rather than having individual states, cities and counties declaring the human body illegal from one year to the next, from one jurisdiction to the next. Such a law would finally get the government out of my clothes closet and let ME decide what to wear!

indydude · Dec 27, 2011

The politicians wont change the way they get money for voting for corporate interests over the interests of the 99%. Its time to demand change.

On August 9, 2011, Dylan Ratigan had his Mad-As-Hell moment on his MSNBC show -- "a wake-up call to Congress" -- in which he denounced the corruption of our institutions, the bought-out Congress, the extraction of trillions of dollars from the economy (banking, trade, taxation, or lack thereof). His message can be summed up with a simple slogan: "Get the money out of politics." Not only has Ratigan carried on with his populist crusade on a daily basis, last week he organized a petition to get money out of politics through an amendment to the US Constitution whose draft reads:

No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.

The Web site getmoneyout.com has a straightforward message: "Bailouts. War. Unemployment. Our government is bought, and we're angry. Now, we're turning our anger into positive action. By signing this petition, you are joining our campaign to get money out of politics. Our politicians won't do this. But we will. We will become an unrelenting, organized wave advocating a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics."
Click to expand...

Aerianne · Dec 31, 2011

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a law in the United States that was signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

sunfighter · Jan 1, 2012

Here's what Ron Paul says about it
Ron Paul Furious About Indefinite Detention Act (NDAA)

sunfighter · Jan 1, 2012

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have
signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for
the defense of the United States and its interests abroad,
crucial services for service members and their families,
and vital national security programs that must be renewed.
In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages,
the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives
to control the spiraling health care costs of the
Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism
initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of
key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the
efficiency and effectiveness of military operations
worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does
not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I
have signed this bill despite having serious reservations
with certain provisions that regulate the detention,
interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
Over the last several years, my Administration has
developed an effective, sustainable framework for the
detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists
that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect
intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in
rapidly developing situations, and the results we have
achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and
its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant
measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals
with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to
changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities
best protect the American people, and our accomplishments
have respected the values that make our country an example
for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress
continue to insist upon restricting the options available
to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering
with the very operations that have kept us safe. My
Administration has consistently opposed such measures.
Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because
of the critically important services it provides for
our forces and their families and the national security
programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress
revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized
the safety, security, and liberty of the American people.
Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and
implement the provisions described below in a manner that
best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends
and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority
to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note).

This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary.
The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF,
as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through
lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations
in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established
authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill
does not "limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not
be construed to affect any "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." My
Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these
limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the
legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that
the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001
AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration
will not authorize the indefinite military detention
without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that
doing so would break with our most important traditions
and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret
section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it
authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war,
and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody
for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who
are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized
by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This
section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve
the security of the United States. The executive branch
already has the authority to detain in military custody
those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course
of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander
in Chief I have directed the military to do so where
appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate
military custody where law enforcement provides the best
method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section
1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create
uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that
this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner
that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the
minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect
national security. Specifically, I have signed this
bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the
executive branch with broad authority to determine how best
to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability
to waive any military custody requirement, including the
option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when
doing so is in the national security interests of the
United States. As my Administration has made clear, the
only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses
is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual
and legal complexities of each case and the relative
strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise,
investigations could be compromised, our authorities to
hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and
intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that
result, and under no circumstances will my Administration
accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement
for military detention. I will therefore interpret and
implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves
the same flexible approach that has served us so well
for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of
law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and
cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation
procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide
the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our
counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And
I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as
Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures
fall short, including but not limited to seeking the
revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be
unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with
the executive branch's processes for reviewing the
status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with
congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report,
my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting
the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what
detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject
to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding
restrictions that curtail options available to the
executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against
using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer
Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any
purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which
intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to
determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees,
based on the facts and the circumstances of each case
and our national security interests. For decades,
Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully
prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those
prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful
tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that
tool from the executive branch does not serve our national
security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain
circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers
principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains
unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's
authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This
hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military,
national security, and foreign relations activities and
like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances,
violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
The executive branch must have the flexibility to act
swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries
regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the
event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027
and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional
separation of powers principles, my Administration will
interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General
consult with the Director of National Intelligence and
Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges
against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals.
I sign this based on the understanding that apart from
detainees held by the military outside of the United States
under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force,
the provision applies only to those individuals who have
been determined to be covered persons under section 1022
before the Justice Department files charges or seeks
an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this
provision represents an intrusion into the functions and
prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends
the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding
criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney
General free from outside interference. Moreover,
section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent
operational judgments in a manner that damages our
security. My Administration will interpret and implement
section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational
flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement
professionals, limits delays in the investigative process,
ensures that critical executive branch functions are not
inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of
the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere
with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section
1244 requires the President to submit a report to the
Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified
ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section
1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed
description of the classified information to be provided.
While my Administration intends to keep the Congress
fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate
with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense,
my Administration will also interpret and implement
section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the
President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign
affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive
diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar
problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be
read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic
communications and national security secrets; and sections
1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional
authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the
Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or
discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244,
should any application of these provisions conflict with my
constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as
non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform
or remove the provisions described above in order to
facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but
certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration
will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns
through the design of implementation procedures and
other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and
Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or
expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any
provisions that undermine the policies and values that have
guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
Click to expand...

Obama

Dude111 · Jan 1, 2012

Sure just in time for 2012!!!!!

Im curious why they havent updated the OFFICIAL PAGE with this bill,IT STILL SAYS HE HASNT SIGNED IT! (I guess congress's OWN WEBSITE isnt even reliable!!)

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540

I knew he wouldnt veto it!!!!

Tyrsonswood · Jan 1, 2012

They are on vacation, of course. Either that or the guys that update the website have just been arrested and we will never hear from them again..... sort of a permanent vacation.

Dude111 · Jan 2, 2012

Ah man!!

Log in or Sign up

Senate Rules in Favor of Unconstitutional Detainment Bill

Feeble Member

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

Justin_Hale ( •_•)⌐■-■ ...(⌐■_■)

sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

Justin_Hale ( •_•)⌐■-■ ...(⌐■_■)

Lafincoyote Member

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

RooRshack On Sabbatical

GardenGuy Senior Member

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

indydude Senior Member

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

GardenGuy Senior Member

indydude Senior Member

Aerianne Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Senate Rules in Favor of Unconstitutional Detainment Bill

Feeble Member

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

Justin_Hale ( •_•)⌐■-■ ...(⌐■_■)

sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

Justin_Hale ( •_•)⌐■-■ ...(⌐■_■)

Lafincoyote Member

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

RooRshack On Sabbatical

GardenGuy Senior Member

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

indydude Senior Member

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

GardenGuy Senior Member

indydude Senior Member

Aerianne Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

Share This Page

Useful Searches