60 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Dec 02, 2011 3:02 AM GMT
    60 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus

    http://wearechangetv.us/2011/11/61-senators-betrayed-you-today-they-authorized-the-indefinite-suspension-of-habeus-corpus/


    Detainee policy gone horribly awry

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/detainee_policy_gone_horribly033822.php

    I hope that Obama veto's this bill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 4:08 AM GMT
    If Obama does not veto that, I sincerely hope, wish, and even pray that they all get assassinated...soon.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Dec 02, 2011 5:29 AM GMT
    Yeah, and they were led by that fascist in liberal's clothing, Carl Levin of Michigan. His bill would give the president or the military the power to arrest anyone they suspected of being a terrorist, or planning to be a terrorist, and hold them in jail forever, without ever charging them with a crime, and without any right to get a court hearing. Is there a political opponent you don't like? A political activist (perhaps a gay activist)? Just have make up an accusation that he is a terrorist, lock him up, and throw away the key. Kind of like Germany in 1935, or China or Castro's Cuba today. Or Rome after the fall of the republic in the time of Augustus, Tiberius, or Calligula. We have come a long way, haven't we america?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:39 AM GMT
    This is a disgrace. Where's the Tea Party on this one? Where is any pressure from the right-wing to repeal the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThis is a disgrace. Where's the Tea Party on this one? Where is any pressure from the right-wing to repeal the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act? icon_rolleyes.gif


    agreed completely. are rights are being impeded here. I cant wait to here what the other republicans have to say about this stupid ass measure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:51 AM GMT
    If Obama signs this, I change my party affiliation to vote Ron Paul in the Republican Primary.

    And I may do it anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:54 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWhere's the Tea Party on this one?


    Look up how Rand Paul voted. That's where they are on this.


    Really? Where's the protests? Where's the screaming at the steps of Congress? Do the Koch brothers not ship their acolytes in for actual attacks on Americans' liberty?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:59 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWhere's the Tea Party on this one?


    Look up how Rand Paul voted. That's where they are on this.


    Really? Where's the protests? Where's the screaming at the steps of Congress? Do the Koch brothers not ship their acolytes in for actual attacks on Americans' liberty?


    Perhaps the Soros goons abducted the "Koch brothers acolytes." icon_rolleyes.gif

    Now, as for attacks on liberty, let's take another look at that new power the Federal government has, which is to force citizens to purchase a private good or service.


    I see that you also don't actually care about civil liberties, just lowering your taxes... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 6:11 AM GMT
    Wonder what the SCOTUS will do with this.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Dec 02, 2011 6:37 AM GMT
    I don't see what the big deal is....unless you're a terrorist icon_eek.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 6:46 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see what the big deal is....unless you're a terrorist icon_eek.gif

    {pic of jailed guy}


    Or someone who is not in the favour of the ruling party.

    The definition of "terrorist" just might now have a tendency to expand to included political undesirables such as ... fundamentalist Christians (for far lefties) or LGBTQ persons (far righties)
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Dec 02, 2011 6:49 AM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see what the big deal is....unless you're a terrorist icon_eek.gif

    {pic of jailed guy}


    Or someone who is not in the favour of the ruling party.

    The definition of "terrorist" just might now have a tendency to expand to included political undesirables such as ... fundamentalist Christians (for far lefties) or LGBTQ persons (far righties)



    I think that would be unlikely. I choose to believe this is a measure to protect us, not hurt us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 6:57 AM GMT
    "Emergency Powers" once granted ... are seldom ever relinquished by
    those elites so empowered.

    And a govt with near unlimited power to arrest and detain without stated cause is a threat to the people it purports to protect.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Dec 02, 2011 7:07 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    AlphaTrigger said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see what the big deal is....unless you're a terrorist icon_eek.gif

    {pic of jailed guy}


    Or someone who is not in the favour of the ruling party.

    The definition of "terrorist" just might now have a tendency to expand to included political undesirables such as ... fundamentalist Christians (for far lefties) or LGBTQ persons (far righties)



    I think that would be unlikely. I choose to believe this is a measure to protect us, not hurt us.

    Right, unlikely, like it was unlikely that the government would imprison 100,000 citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent in world war II. I guess that didn't happen, did it? The government was just protecting them, wasn't it? It was for their own good, after all. Do you know how the french got rid of their enemies in world war II? They just accused them of something - and off they went - arrested.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 6:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    I see that you also don't actually care about civil liberties, just lowering your taxes... icon_rolleyes.gif


    If that's what you see, then you need a stronger pair of glasses. icon_eek.gif


    Please direct us to some instance of your defending civil liberties... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 6:26 PM GMT
    Legislation like this makes me want to weep for the ongoing slow collapse of the United States as a once-free nation that was free in practice, and not just patriotic, jingoistic platitudes.

    MFbch.jpg
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Dec 03, 2011 6:55 AM GMT
    The National Defense Authorization Act Is Even Scarier Than We Thought, Allows Military To Torture American Citizens

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/02/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-even-scarier-than-we-thought/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 7:04 AM GMT
    tumblr_lvinjkjzZp1qzxiar.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 7:40 AM GMT
    This could be a prelude to a declaration of martial law following any civil chaos comin from a global economic collapse.

    Reminds me of the militia hysteria of the 1990s when lots of people out West were convinced that Bill Clinton was the forerunner of Antichrist and that the government was building FEMA concentration camps/GULAGs for dissident civilians on former military bases closed under the BRAC.

    If this truly prefaces the fall of the Republic and the dissolution of America, it will be a sad thing to see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 2:19 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    I see that you also don't actually care about civil liberties, just lowering your taxes... icon_rolleyes.gif


    If that's what you see, then you need a stronger pair of glasses. icon_eek.gif


    Please direct us to some instance of your defending civil liberties... icon_rolleyes.gif


    The insurance mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional.



    You may want to ice down after that stretch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 2:26 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't see what the big deal is....unless you're a terrorist icon_eek.gif


    And who decides who's a terrorist, and in what court do you get to dispute that charge under this new law? Habeas corpus requires a hearing to establish that probable guilt, whereas this establishes the 21st-Century equivalent of the King's Prerogative to arrest whom the monarch wishes without hearing or right of appeal.

    Arrests become secret abductions by the government, and not even by the police, but the military coming into our homes. All things that were rejected during the American Revolution over 200 years ago. Where are the Constitutional "purists" blocking traffic in the streets now, and invading public meetings?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 2:54 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidWonder what the SCOTUS will do with this.

    Play a political game with it. I truly believe Obama has few core principles, though a blank slate is preferable to the anti-civil rights slates of his current leading Republican opponents.

    The critical issues may be whether this Senate bill is veto-proof (having gotten 60 votes), and what other vital legislation has been attached to it. That's the leverage the Republican Senate used to strong-arm Bill Clinton into signing DOMA in the 1990s, when he had little choice, but today he alone gets all the blame.

    Obama and his political advisers must be wondering whether those 60 votes would stand firm against his veto. And how damaging a veto would be as 2012 approaches, when the Republicans would portray him as "soft on terrorism."

    But signing it would make him partner to one of the worst violations of US Constitutional protections in our history. And like Clinton and DOMA, this bill would come back to blacken his legacy in years to come, forgotten Republicans in Congress from decades earlier escaping the blame as in the Clinton/DOMA case.

    My guess is that Obama will rationalize that the bill is veto-proof, going into law with or without his signature. So he'll sign it, to avoid political damage in 2012, taking the short-term political gain for the long-term historical loss. And perhaps telling himself he can overturn it in his second term, and not using its authority himself.

    Except if he loses the White House, a real possibility, he'll have given his Republican successor the most terrible tool a President has ever wielded against US citizens. Candidates who are not shy of their intention to use it to torture & detain without restraint, like world dictators of the past.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 3:33 PM GMT
    If he does his DUTY as president and vetoes this atrocious, evil, freedom killing legislation, I'll vote for him hands down.

    Even if the veto fails.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 4:52 PM GMT
    god american freedom is going to hell - what with the right to protest undermined by pepper spraying monkey cops and now the suspension of habeas corpus... and yet the right bleats on about "Our Freedoms" but does nothing to protect them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2011 5:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    Except if he loses the White House, a real possibility, he'll have given his Republican successor the most terrible tool a President has ever wielded against US citizens. Candidates who are not shy of their intention to use it to torture & detain without restraint, like world dictators of the past...

    ... and Democrat President FDR did with his internment of Japanese-American citizens.

    False. There was no legislation enabling FDR to do as he did following the Pearl Harbor panic. Although a wartime Supreme Court (heavily Republican) did uphold the action. Only to be reversed decades later, apologies issued, and (inadequate) compensation authorized.

    That is not the case here. This is the permanent legalization of torture (which did not happen in WWII against Japanese-Americans under FDR) and total suspension of Habeas Corpus as the President alone shall decide.

    The perfect formula for right-wing Fascists to exploit. Is this why you cheer it?