Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Rand Paul filibustering


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#181    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:46 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 March 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

More than redundant, but deeply flawed because it was designed in response to events that were in fact staged.  That is, the events and the perpetrators were not as represented in the debate in Congress to create the legislation.  In short, they were talking about apples, when in fact they should have been talking about oranges.

In what way? That the attack didn't happen, or that it wasn't enacted by a terrorist group?


#182    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,550 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:41 PM

View PostTiggs, on 13 March 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

In what way? That the attack didn't happen, or that it wasn't enacted by a terrorist group?

The attack did certainly happen, and the perpetrators were indeed terrorist (and more), but the perpetrators were not who Congress thought/claimed as they constructed the AUMF.


#183    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:43 PM

**** this DHS sponsored State !!

http://www.kezi.com/...mored-vehicles/


#184    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:29 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 13 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

**** this DHS sponsored State !!

http://www.kezi.com/...mored-vehicles/

"Deputies have used the vehicles in high-risk drug-related warrant services, armed barricade subjects, armed suicidal subjects, and search and rescue missions."

Yeah! Damn them for protecting themselves while enforcing the law! They have no right to defend themselves!

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#185    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:29 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

The attack did certainly happen, and the perpetrators were indeed terrorist (and more), but the perpetrators were not who Congress thought/claimed as they constructed the AUMF.
Given the wording of the AUMF - To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States - you believe that it matters if they'd fully identified the attackers or not at that stage, because...?

Edited by Tiggs, 14 March 2013 - 12:31 AM.


#186    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:25 AM

View PostTiggs, on 13 March 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

As far as I know - that is the section dealing with such. If you want to see a wall of text, feel free to wade through the 300+ pages of legislation that that section's a part of.

I'll pass on that. ;) Let's get to the heart and the meat of the matter. Citizens can be indefinitely held in detention with no representation, which is not constitutional. Why is being detained, without due process, not unconstitutional?

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#187    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:01 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 14 March 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

I'll pass on that. ;) Let's get to the heart and the meat of the matter. Citizens can be indefinitely held in detention with no representation, which is not constitutional.
My position is that they can't be.


#188    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:36 AM

View PostTiggs, on 14 March 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

My position is that they can't be.

The provision says otherwise since it makes no exceptions for citizens. We can fight enemy combatants on the battlefields, and we can try criminals and terrorists in courts of law if they're citizens. We don't have to scrap the Bill of Rights due to new challenges, which can be confronted in constitutional proceedings. It seems like some individuals yearn for the days of internment camps where amendments can be discarded.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#189    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:20 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 14 March 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

The provision says otherwise since it makes no exceptions for citizens.
Apart from the exception for citizens in section e.


#190    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:33 AM

We've already murdered citizens overseas with no judicial review.   So if the distinction being argued is whether or not a citizen can be held indefinitely, they've already been killed indefinitely and I don't hear the proponents of the NDAA complaining about that, so that's not the difference that matters.  There are already worse violations than the theoretical ones that haven't happened yet being used as the excuse to support the NDAA.   I think what we really care about is whether or not the letters of this ridiculous law apply to citizens residing domestically inside the United States.  When it's thousands of miles away on someone else's soil, it's so easily out of sight out of mind.  When it's Ruby Ridge or Waco or Kent State University, not so much.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#191    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:48 PM

I think Rand needs to hammer on this one next:

http://naturalsociet...-us-government/

Monsanto protection act so to speak.


#192    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,550 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:51 PM

View PostTiggs, on 14 March 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

Given the wording of the AUMF - To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States - you believe that it matters if they'd fully identified the attackers or not at that stage, because...?

Given what we know 11 years later, it's safe to say that Congress acted prematurely.

Given that the President already possesses the power to use the military as he pleases, to wage war in FDR's words, it is accurate to say that Congress acted prematurely and unnecessarily.

So the result is that the AUMF is purely political posturing, nothing more.  Ultimately meant to mislead the gullible.


#193    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:52 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Given what we know 11 years later, it's safe to say that Congress acted prematurely.

Given that the President already possesses the power to use the military as he pleases, to wage war in FDR's words, it is accurate to say that Congress acted prematurely and unnecessarily.

So the result is that the AUMF is purely political posturing, nothing more.  Ultimately meant to mislead the gullible.
The military, contrary to popular opinion, requires funding. That funding authorization comes from Congress. See the NDAA discussions above.

The AUMF is exactly what it was meant to be - a mandate from Congress for the President to use military force to wreak revenge for the 9/11 attacks for an extended period of time.

Regardless - I have no idea what your obsession is with trying to classify the AUMF as "political posturing", as if the political motivation behind any law to pass Congress makes them any less legal.


#194    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 15 March 2013 - 03:29 AM

View PostTiggs, on 14 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

The AUMF is exactly what it was meant to be - a mandate from Congress for the President to use military force to wreak revenge for the 9/11 attacks for an extended period of time.

unless I'm wrong, isn't it basically forever?

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#195    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 15 March 2013 - 03:42 AM

View PostTiggs, on 14 March 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Apart from the exception for citizens in section e.

Are we referring to the same law? The provision, that I'm referring to, makes no such distinction. If you and I are referring to the same law, the two provisions are contradictory. I'm a bit confused, at the moment.

There is one reality with billions of versions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users