A Declaration of War?

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Now, if you were truly worried about the erosion of civil rights, I would look to your own backyard, where politicians and technocrats are conspiring to deprive you of your democratic rights and institutions. Good luck, there.
[/quote]

Sometimes I think that non-Americans should have to provide some description of their own countries’ issues & problems before being allowed to get all hysterical about the alledged ones of the US here.[/quote]

Post of the YEAR ^^^

As I was concerned with the possible ramifications of the current legislation, I sent an email to my congressman asking her to vote no on S. 1867. She, of course, did not obey my direct order, but was kind enough to send me a “personalized” mass email response. I copy and paste it below for your consideration…

Dear Mr. Eaton,

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 1867, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,” and more specifically, Section 1031. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue, and I share your concerns regarding excessive overreach by the federal government.

You may be pleased to know that the conference committee on this issue strengthened this language by conforming to the House version of the bill, thereby eliminating all doubt and concerns that this bill would allow the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely.

The United States is engaged in a war unlike any other we have ever been involved in. Our enemy does not wear the uniform of a foreign nation, but hides inconspicuously amongst private citizens. Consequently, we must adapt and be prepared to meet the difficulties presented by this unconventional type of warfare.

As you may know, each year Congress passes a national defense authorization bill which provides the Department of Defense (DOD) with the necessary guidance and funds needed to carry out its’ missions. As a part of the authorization bill this year, Congress has included provisions which clarify for the DOD who should and should not be considered a terrorist, and thus an enemy of the United States.

Section 1031 (b) (1) and Section 1031 (b) (2) defines these individuals as: “A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011, or harbored those responsible for those attacks” and “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.”

It is my belief that this clause is necessary because under existing law there is no clarifying statement which interprets for the courts who is and is not considered a terrorist. This leaves the decision up to the courts which could force the detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station to be brought to the United States for trial in a civilian court, when in fact they are prisoners of war.

By putting in this qualifying statement, this change in the current law ensures that those who have attacked or who are caught planning an attack on the United States remain outside the United States and in military custody while awaiting trial.

One another note, some have interpreted this detention clause as granting the military complete power to arrest and hold United States citizens indefinitely without trial or legal recourse. However, this is simply not the case. Section 1031subsection (e) clearly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.”

In other words, if you are captured or arrested trying to commit terrorist acts, as a citizen of the United States you retain all of the rights granted to you by the U.S. Constitution.

Protecting the rights bestowed on you by the Constitution remains my foremost priority as your Congressman. As we consider the debate over what is the appropriate role of the federal government in your private life, I will be sure to make your thoughts known.

It is an honor to serve Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District. If you wish to share additional information with me concerning this or any other issue, please feel free to contact me or my staff at (202) 225-4231 or through email by going to my website at http://black.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Signature
Diane Black
Member of Congress

Well, they said it will be ok and they would never lie to us, right?

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Now, if you were truly worried about the erosion of civil rights, I would look to your own backyard, where politicians and technocrats are conspiring to deprive you of your democratic rights and institutions. Good luck, there.
[/quote]

Sometimes I think that non-Americans should have to provide some description of their own countries’ issues & problems before being allowed to get all hysterical about the alledged ones of the US here.[/quote]

Post of the YEAR ^^[1]

Thanks, UL!

But some of those women you post make me want to beg to differ![/quote]

Beautiful women…uniting PWI since 2002.


  1. /quote ↩︎

When I first heard about this stuff, I thought of hardcore conspiracy stuff.
Now it seems legit. And Obama won’t veto it?

Madness.

Who of you would’ve predicted this 11 years ago?

Who thinks it’s really necessary to live officially in a perpetual warzone, even among those who believe in Bigfoot/Al Quaida cells active all over the US?
You see no potential for ultra-abuse?

You guys are marching straight into fascism, cheering and nodding grimly all the while.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
When I first heard about this stuff, I thought of hardcore conspiracy stuff.
Now it seems legit. And Obama won’t veto it?

Madness.

Who of you would’ve predicted this 11 years ago?

Who thinks it’s really necessary to live officially in a perpetual warzone, even among those who believe in Bigfoot/Al Quaida cells active all over the US?
You see no potential for ultra-abuse?

You guys are marching straight into fascism, cheering and nodding grimly all the while.
[/quote]

More hysteria from the uninformed.

But I will take seriously, for the sake of honesty, your worry about the potential for abuse. Please read the following, which is a most reasonable criticism of the bill, and not just because I happen to agree with some of what he says:

Now, having done so, do you, Freeloader, feel that your rights in Europe are somehow better guarded than mine here? That your government has no secret laws and procedures? That your society has had such an open debate about its civil rights in time of war or threat?

“So dies liberty not by the roar of gunfire, but by the sound of thunderous applause.”

[quote]Shipshape wrote:
“So dies liberty not by the roar of gunfire, but by the sound of thunderous applause.”

[/quote]

[quote]Shipshape wrote:
“So dies liberty not by the roar of gunfire, but by the sound of thunderous applause.”

[/quote]

Yay! Woohooo!! 2012!!! So exciting!! Wooohooo!! Ron Paul!!! Liberty!!!

(thunderous applause)

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Shipshape wrote:
“So dies liberty not by the roar of gunfire, but by the sound of thunderous applause.”

[/quote]

Yay! Woohooo!! 2012!!! So exciting!! Wooohooo!! Ron Paul!!! Liberty!!!

(thunderous applause)[/quote]

Yeah.

Sure.

That is what Ron Paul wanted all along.

To abolish liberty.

Jesus…

[quote]orion wrote:

That is what Ron Paul wanted all along.

To abolish liberty.

[/quote]

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Shipshape wrote:
“So dies liberty not by the roar of gunfire, but by the sound of thunderous applause.”

[/quote]

Yay! Woohooo!! 2012!!! So exciting!! Wooohooo!! Ron Paul!!! Liberty!!!

(thunderous applause)[/quote]

Yeah.

Sure.

That is what Ron Paul wanted all along.

To abolish liberty.

Jesus…[/quote]

So he neither wants to abolish liberty nor does he abolish liberty.

Do you read the links you post?

[quote]orion wrote:
So he neither wants to abolish liberty nor does he abolish liberty.

[/quote]

So he’s not running on a liberty abolition platform? Oh, that’s all right then.

[quote]
Do you read the links you post?[/quote]

Yeah, Ron Paul Newsletters - written by Ron Paul. Great stuff. Ron Paul’s going to make sure those fleet-footed, thieving pickaninnies get all the liberty that’s coming to them am I right or am I right?

The hysteria continues in other threads: Will US citizens be subject to eternal detention?

"The issue is moot during President Obama?s tenure, since ?it is the firm position of the Obama Administration that suspected terrorists arrested inside the United States will?in keeping with long-standing tradition?be processed through our Article III courts, as they should be,? and that ?when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system.? As the President reiterated today, ?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.? "

Nothing is as comforting as a “moot” issue.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Shipshape wrote:
“So dies liberty not by the roar of gunfire, but by the sound of thunderous applause.”[/quote]

You know, I seen this on TV the other day and was thinking the same thing, scary stuff. In the end, the free people will gladly give up their freedoms in exchange for the shiniest of chains.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

The hysteria continues in other threads: Will US citizens be subject to eternal detention?

"The issue is moot during President Obama?s tenure, since ?it is the firm position of the Obama Administration that suspected terrorists arrested inside the United States will?in keeping with long-standing tradition?be processed through our Article III courts, as they should be,? and that ?when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system.? As the President reiterated today, ?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.? "

Nothing is as comforting as a “moot” issue.[/quote]

And if I held a gun to your head but said I wouldn’t pull the trigger, would you also defend me on the internet? Obama isn’t exactly known for keeping his word and besides, how many presidents from this point forward do you think will abuse this power? If the answer is one or greater, we have a big fucking problem. If you answer 0, can I buy some crack off you?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

The hysteria continues in other threads: Will US citizens be subject to eternal detention?

"The issue is moot during President Obama?s tenure, since ?it is the firm position of the Obama Administration that suspected terrorists arrested inside the United States will?in keeping with long-standing tradition?be processed through our Article III courts, as they should be,? and that ?when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system.? As the President reiterated today, ?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.? "

Nothing is as comforting as a “moot” issue.[/quote]

And if I held a gun to your head but said I wouldn’t pull the trigger, would you also defend me on the internet? Obama isn’t exactly known for keeping his word and besides, how many presidents from this point forward do you think will abuse this power? If the answer is one or greater, we have a big fucking problem. If you answer 0, can I buy some crack off you? [/quote]

Please take the time to read the other posts in this thread and the links to original sources and thoughtful critics. You may find them somewhat more informative than cartoons.

When you have done so, I might choose to spend time in conversation. Until then, no thanks, junior.


PS. It looks like the fellow in your avatar is putting the moves on SpeedoBoy.
Time for a new boyfriend, eh?