Members Operator Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Obama Withdraws Threat of Veto Over Detainee Rules Here are some laymen's terms: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/explaining-to-a-5-year-old-why-the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html This is an indefensible violation of the American Bill of Rights (in a delicious twist of irony, it's Bill of Rights Day). I was really hoping Obama would bitchslap everyone for even suggesting that we do this in a "free country," but apparently he has caved on this like everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spoonie g Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 I heard Sen. Feinstein changed the language within the bill that excludes all American Citizens and anyone within the US from detention without Due Process/Constitutional Protections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted December 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 I heard Sen. Feinstein changed the language within the bill that excludes all American Citizens and anyone within the US from detention without Due Process/Constitutional Protections It's quite the opposite. Read the links. Sec. 1032: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members d4rk0 Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 "By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law. In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side." - Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era, and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted December 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Optional On Topic Conversation: Dynasonics vs Filtertrons? The battle continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juri Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Why would US citizens need to be excluded? Because they are special? I don't get why THAT is the point of argument here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members d4rk0 Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 because it negates the bill of rights... its like suddenly habeus corpus doesn't apply to us anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan. Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Why would US citizens need to be excluded? Because they are special? I don't get why THAT is the point of argument here.... You would think the rule of law would apply to all. It does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted December 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Why would US citizens need to be excluded? Because they are special? I don't get why THAT is the point of argument here.... Because in the farce that is the "war" on terror, we're essentially treating terrorists as enemy combatants who aren't given the same rights as American citizens. The point of the argument is that now Americans are also all potential enemy combatants in the war zone that is now being explicitly described as American soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members macadood Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 needs scumbag hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cirrus Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 As a non american I can't help but wonder what the hell's going on over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nomenclature Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 but wasn't this already going on during Bush's reign? I thought I read somewhere that this is basically just acknowledging a policy that was already in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A.P. Ryder Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Political forum, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vidret Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 As a non american I can't help but wonder what the hell's going on over there. same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 because it negates the bill of rights... its like suddenly habeus corpus doesn't apply to us anymore. Habeus corpus doesn't. If I remember correctly that {censored} was never reinstated. Or at least it slipped past me if it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan. Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 can't be denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faldoe Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 just goes to show, or hope it will, to all the folks that thought "change" was possible within this paradigm that it really isn't. Right and Left really mean nothing. This country and many others are owned by corporations and influence the government and politics. Fascism. Perfect place to execute it; in a country people believe to be a democratic society. What makes it work so well is the illusion of perceived freedom - we can buy EHX or Boss, etc. etc. "You're free to do as we tell you." People happy we consume and consume, blind and helping those that make money off the death of the world gain even more profits. can't be denied. thats sick. indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jhamnett Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 but wasn't this already going on during Bush's reign? I thought I read somewhere that this is basically just acknowledging a policy that was already in use. That's my take. Still shady as {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members object88 Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 As a non american I can't help but wonder what the hell's going on over there. As an American, I can't help but wonder the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faldoe Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 As a non american I can't help but wonder what the hell's going on over there. UK has cameras pretty much everywhere ya? Not trying to excuse what is going on here, just saying I think similar tactics are employed else where. But America is the king of lies, oppression and historical distortion. This country was founded on the blood, death and extermination of the people that lived here first. People don't talk about that. This country was founded on and from colonialism which then turned into Capitalism and there is where we are today. Business owns government and politics. Resources are dwindling and they know people are waking up (the occupy movements are some indication of this but I don't think the occupy movement represents all the potential consciousness that is needed to really understand the truth of things.). The government needs bills like this to fight the people that are and will rise up when {censored} gets even worse; which it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dpizappi Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 but wasn't this already going on during Bush's reign? I thought I read somewhere that this is basically just acknowledging a policy that was already in use. To some extent yes this is true, but do we really want that 'policy' reinforced by law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted December 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 can't be denied. I naively really believed in this guy. When he was threatening the veto, I told myself that if he doesn't go through with it, I wash my hands of him. And I do now. But I'll probably have to vote for him anyway because Newt Gingrich is a piece of {censored}. Unless the whole plan is to create an unelectable opponent to Obama so that he'll have to win, and we'll all truly be in the firing lines of the corporations and financial entities that own the government, the military, the police, and the media. tinfoil hat emoticon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vidret Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Self preservation my friend. Instead of looking at the big picture, they focus on the part that effects them. Case in point, the post below. This shouldn't go through because of all the reasons it is trying to be put through. It allows us to police other coninents even more so. It's {censored}ing absurd and it's a crime against humanity all in it's own. But also it is also showing that the "Bill of rights" is truly what it has always been, a {censored}ing sham. Smoke and mirrors to make people beleive they were given rights by man, when in all honesty the day you're born you have all these rights regardless if some asshole says you do or not. Freedom of speech isn't a right someone can give you. If your vocal cords work from the day you're born, that right there is your right to free speech. Humans are too {censored}ing stupid to see the reality of government and how {censored}ing pointless it is. The biggest issue with this bill is, why the {censored} would you need something like this? Economic global collpase. Look into FEMA camps and all that jazz. If the economy collpases(which is will in the very near future) those camps will be filled with American citizens. Probably ones more so who lead towards standing up agaisnt the government than ones who are being chaotic and actually making it dangerous for others. Those people will probably just be killed on sight if and when the economy collapses. People need to do some more research than just into this bill. The world is {censored}ed. Our empire has collapsed and this is it's last ditch effort to save themselves. Habeus corpus doesn't. If I remember correctly that {censored} was never reinstated. Or at least it slipped past me if it was. you're getting me all excited over here. all i need now is just a glimmer of hope that there may be a zombie epidemic and i'm good. but i wanna know beforehand so i can quit my job and have fun everyday until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan. Posted December 15, 2011 Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 I naively really believed in this guy. When he was threatening the veto, I told myself that if he doesn't go through with it, I wash my hands of him. And I do now.But I'll probably have to vote for him anyway because Newt Gingrich is a piece of {censored}.Unless the whole plan is to create an unelectable opponent to Obama so that he'll have to win, and we'll all truly be in the firing lines of the corporations and financial entities that own the government, the military, the police, and the media. tinfoil hat emoticon. I voted for Obama in '08. Regret it 100% Ron Paul is my horse. I'm not a maniac about RP, but I agree with more that he stands for than any other candidate. Living in CA it doesn't really matter who I vote for since the state is Dem. But still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted December 15, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 I voted for Obama in '08. Regret it 100% Ron Paul is my horse. I'm not a maniac about RP, but I agree with more that he stands for than any other candidate. Living in CA it doesn't really matter who I vote for since the state is Dem. But still... I wish Ron Paul weren't such a mixed bag for me; I can't back hardline libertarianism. Even though he has some really {censored}ing great ideas, he also has some really {censored}ing awful ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.