S. 1867

profit · 12-03-2011, 04:34 AM

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012
(Sen. Levin, D-MI)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s_20111117.pdf

wat do hooka?

farmergiles · 12-03-2011, 04:51 AM

Yeah that is pretty bad.

profit · 12-03-2011, 05:45 AM

this one has pictures if the first one was tldr
Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans RT

profit · 12-04-2011, 12:14 PM

not too much activity i notice and this is important. so ill give a brief synopsis.

what i dont like about it is that the bill declares the usa a battleground. it gets rid of the posse comitatus act and by doing so it just put the neck of the 4th amendment of our constitution in the guillotine. a swipe of obama's pen and that amendment's head is going to roll, and we are going to see martial law and likely increasing parallels with nazi germany. if you can jail your own population without due process and hold them indefinitely for being a "terrorist" then what cant you do? a terrorist is anyone who disagrees with them or the system in place. they define the word.

obama already assassinated two american citizens without trial or process (just his signature). anwar al awlaki and his son. (google fox news white house dinner anwar al awlaki for the luls)

Quote:

Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the “extraordinary measures” introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.

And the relative lack of reaction so far calls to mind the oddly calm indifference with which most Germans watched the erosion of the rights that had been guaranteed by their own Constitution. As one German writer observed, “With sheepish submissiveness we watched it unfold, as if from a box at the theater.”

The Senate bill, in effect, revokes an 1878 law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which banned the Army from domestic law enforcement after the military had been used —and often abused — in that role during Reconstruction. Ever since then, that law has been taken very seriously — until now. Military officers have had their careers brought to an abrupt halt by involving federal military assets in purely civilian criminal matters.

But that was before 9/11 and the mantra, “9/11 changed everything.” In this case of the Senate-passed NDAA – more than a decade after the terror attacks and even as U.S. intelligence agencies say al-Qaeda is on the brink of defeat – Congress continues to carve away constitutional and legal protections in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

The Senate voted to authorize – and generally to require – “the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons” indefinitely. And such “covered persons” are defined not just as someone implicated in the 9/11 attacks but anyone who “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.”

Though the wording is itself torturous – and there is a provision for a waiver from the Defense Secretary regarding mandatory military detentions – the elasticity of words like “associated forces” and “supported” have left some civil libertarians worried that the U.S. military could be deployed domestically against people opposing future American wars against alleged “terrorists” or “terrorist states.”
Is the all-consuming ten-year-old struggle against terrorism rushing headlong to consume what’s left of our constitutional rights? Do I need to worry that the Army in which I was proud to serve during the 1960s may now kick down my front door and lead me off to indefinite detention — or worse?"

Roach · 12-04-2011, 01:05 PM

I don't have any problem with Obama killing terrorists...America n or otherwise.

Cerpin Taxt · 12-04-2011, 01:55 PM

The 6th Amendment is overrated anyway.

Roach · 12-04-2011, 03:31 PM

so's the constitution generally.

It's in bad need of a rewrite.

Perhaps after the revolution.

profit · 12-05-2011, 02:19 AM

deadhead94 · 12-05-2011, 06:28 AM

Doesn't the president get a few free kills anyway?

If not, what is the incentive to be president?

The Rev · 12-05-2011, 07:58 AM

What are the chances, though, of this thing not being declared unconstitutional by the supreme court? The ACLU and many others will be happy to use the first case of detention to put this law before the courts and get it killed.

The Rev

profit · 12-05-2011, 09:24 PM

hmm rev, i think you've got a little too much faith in the system there buddy. judges pocketed pawns. and the aclu will probably be helpless.. i mean, this thing is on obama's desk as we speak ready to be turned into law. the tyranny from this will probably trump the aclu. technically after ohbummer signs it he could order a hit on everyone in the aclu.

12-03-2011, 04:34 AM	#1 (permalink)
profit restore the republic Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,255 Thanks: 818 Thanked 357 Times in 237 Posts	S. 1867 STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 (Sen. Levin, D-MI) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s_20111117.pdf wat do hooka? __________________ Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. follow https://twitter.com/#!/curtiswm - sub http://www.youtube.com/user/66sicksfishstix

12-03-2011, 04:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
farmergiles Yahookan Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sick of the hatred and the lies Posts: 7,807 Thanks: 2,285 Thanked 3,750 Times in 2,554 Posts	Yeah that is pretty bad. __________________ Cultivate a stoic calmness *Fuck the Monkeys* Every Kind of Vice

12-03-2011, 05:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
profit restore the republic Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,255 Thanks: 818 Thanked 357 Times in 237 Posts	this one has pictures if the first one was tldr Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans RT __________________ Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. follow https://twitter.com/#!/curtiswm - sub http://www.youtube.com/user/66sicksfishstix

12-04-2011, 01:05 PM	#5 (permalink)
Roach Victoria Aut Mors Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7,184 Thanks: 2,372 Thanked 1,987 Times in 1,509 Posts	I don't have any problem with Obama killing terrorists...America n or otherwise. __________________ לזיין את הקופים

12-04-2011, 01:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
Cerpin Taxt Yahookan Zealot Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 7,213 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 843 Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,011 Posts	The 6th Amendment is overrated anyway. __________________ Step Back. Evaluate. Recognize. "All memory is really a form of regurgitation of undigested experience." -Alan Watts

12-04-2011, 03:31 PM	#7 (permalink)
Roach Victoria Aut Mors Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7,184 Thanks: 2,372 Thanked 1,987 Times in 1,509 Posts	so's the constitution generally. It's in bad need of a rewrite. Perhaps after the revolution. __________________ לזיין את הקופים

12-05-2011, 02:19 AM	#8 (permalink)
profit restore the republic Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,255 Thanks: 818 Thanked 357 Times in 237 Posts	__________________ Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. follow https://twitter.com/#!/curtiswm - sub http://www.youtube.com/user/66sicksfishstix

12-05-2011, 07:58 AM	#10 (permalink)
The Rev Clear Light Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In my head, somewhere. Posts: 17,867 Thanks: 5,019 Thanked 5,421 Times in 2,865 Posts	What are the chances, though, of this thing not being declared unconstitutional by the supreme court? The ACLU and many others will be happy to use the first case of detention to put this law before the courts and get it killed. The Rev __________________ Budforce - My Friend August 29, 1973- May 25, 2012

12-05-2011, 09:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
profit restore the republic Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,255 Thanks: 818 Thanked 357 Times in 237 Posts	hmm rev, i think you've got a little too much faith in the system there buddy. judges pocketed pawns. and the aclu will probably be helpless.. i mean, this thing is on obama's desk as we speak ready to be turned into law. the tyranny from this will probably trump the aclu. technically after ohbummer signs it he could order a hit on everyone in the aclu. __________________ Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. follow https://twitter.com/#!/curtiswm - sub http://www.youtube.com/user/66sicksfishstix

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: