Obama Breaks Promise

[Sammich]

"CIA general counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson" confirmed last week that US citizens do not have immunity they are "at war with the United States."

Edit: source

Examiner on CIA military killing

You can post all of the quotes from civilian and military lawyers confirming the law will apply to U.S. citizens until the cows come home, but reading

comprehension and independent thought are concepts foreign to those suffering from excessive CO2 on the brain.

[sam12six]

You mean that Timothy McVeigh should have been immune from persecution?

That the underwear bomber could have gone out on bail to try it again?

What if a whole sect goes on a killing rampage, are you going to argue their internment?

All of these things have been and would be in the future dealt with under the existing criminal laws.

This bill applies to a certain condition, and that is being at war with the US, where being at war has a a very narrow definition. Like some US citizens trying to revive the Confederation by force. It is very doubtful if at that point they would even be considered US citizens under the citizenship act.

Regardless of how heinous the crime or how guilty the suspect, the US's biggest bragging point is freedom. This freedom means you don't get picked up by government agents and disappear without a trial.

I get that you keep saying that it doesn't apply to US citizens, but those voting on (plus those who would be applying) the law are convinced that it does. Now, say they pick up a US citizen wrongly under this law - when would the mistake be caught? At the nonexistent booking where charges are pressed? At the nonexistent bail hearing where it is determined whether the person should be held until trial? At the nonexistent trial where it is determined whether the charges are bogus?

The bottom line is those who founded the US put a lot of thought into how the populace should be protected from the government. Every effort by the government to create loopholes through those protections is a bad thing.

[Mr_Snstr]

What part of: "does not apply to US citizens" is not enough for you?

They are talking mass invasion of hostile forces, their detention and undetermined interning. Shess.. without this laws the US could not even keep prisioners of war on US soil.

Whos mass invasion of hostile forces? The canadians? mexicans?... England trying to regain sovereignty?

Since when were we in fear of a mass invasion that this needs to be passed to help protect us from it?

[Sammich]

Ehm?

You mean that Timothy McVeigh should have been immune from persecution?

That the underwear bomber could have gone out on bail to try it again?

What if a whole sect goes on a killing rampage, are you going to argue their internment?

This bill applies to a certain condition, and that is being at war with the US, where being at war has a a very narrow definition. Like some US citizens trying to revive the Confederation by force. It is very doubtful if at that point they would even be considered US citizens under the citizenship act.

Ok, Counselor, could you please state the specific sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that supports your opinions?

Secondly, Counselor, can you state under what statutes can United States Citizens can be arbitrarily stripped of due process guaranteed under the Constitution?

[questionmark]

Whos mass invasion of hostile forces? The canadians? mexicans?... England trying to regain sovereignty?

Since when were we in fear of a mass invasion that this needs to be passed to help protect us from it?

Who cares?

And I could see a few scenarios where a neighbor could invade the US, even if not today or tomorrow.

[questionmark]

Ok, Counselor, could you please state the specific sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that supports your opinions?

Secondly, Counselor, can you state under what statutes can United States Citizens can be arbitrarily stripped of due process guaranteed under the Constitution?

Arbitrary is your word counselor in chief sir, but treason and swearing allegiance to a foreign power come to mind. Declaring war on the US requires at least these two reasons as wars cannot be declared by individuals, organizations or other groups. They can only be declared by a country on another country or a fraction of a country splitting from it by force. All other fall under internal affairs and therefore under criminal justice, counselor in chief sir. Therefore the "Battlefield USA bill does not apply"counselor in chief sir.

Now sit down, law degree flunked.

[preacherman76]

I believe the reason Obama didn't veto the bill was because it was edited so it wouldn't apply to American citizens, thus removing the biggest problem people had with it. So while Obama might have no spine it doesn't seem like it's time to go out killing people just yet.

From what I understand, the version past gives the president power to indefinitly detain US citizans. 0bama wouldnt have vetoed it either way. He has openly called for the power to indefinitly detain Americans. Even had the nerve to say he wanted to do it under the guidelines of the "rule of law".

[Mr_Snstr]

Who cares?

And I could see a few scenarios where a neighbor could invade the US, even if not today or tomorrow.

As far as who cares; allot of people apparently.

All that's left is being able to suspend due process of those suspected of "terrorism" or "belligerent acts".

[Sammich]

Arbitrary is your word counselor in chief sir, but treason and swearing allegiance to a foreign power come to mind. Declaring war on the US requires at least these two reasons as wars cannot be declared by individuals, organizations or other groups. They can only be declared by a country on another country or a fraction of a country splitting from it by force. All other fall under internal affairs and therefore under criminal justice, counselor in chief sir. Therefore the "Battlefield USA bill does not apply"counselor in chief sir.

Now sit down, law degree flunked.

And you sir, your reading comprehension appears to be questionable.

Once again,

1) Please state the specific sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that supports your opinions.

2) State under what specific statutes can United States Citizens be ['arbitrarily' removed to prevent further confusion] stripped of due process guaranteed under the Constitution.

[questionmark]

And you sir, your reading comprehension appears to be questionable.

Once again,

1) Please state the specific sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that supports your opinions.

2) State under what specific statutes can United States Citizens be ['arbitrarily' removed to prevent further confusion] stripped of due process guaranteed under the Constitution.

You seem to confuse a few things here, but I believe that you are talking about section 1031, which states the following:

(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection () pending disposition under the law of war.

( Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) 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.

© Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.(...)

I hope you are capable of reading.

[ninjadude]

Whos mass invasion of hostile forces? The canadians? mexicans?... England trying to regain sovereignty?

Since when were we in fear of a mass invasion that this needs to be passed to help protect us from it?

I wondered that too. Maybe Cuba will invade Florida....Or Russian Siberians want to see Sara's house...

[Sammich]

I am completely capable of reading and you still are not supporting your opinions.

[questionmark]

I am completely capable of reading and you still are not supporting your opinions.

Then your problem must be comprehension, because that defines clearly when the provisions are to be enacted. And that is not that somebody is smoking pot in the mountains, the Prezz has a toothache or General Quivers hemorrhoids are bothering him. You can be detained indefinitely if you aided the Twin Towers attack or as seen under the second provision in case of war. Where is the problem?

[preacherman76]

You seem to confuse a few things here, but I believe that you are talking about section 1031, which states the following:

(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection () pending disposition under the law of war.

( Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) 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.

© Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.(...)

I hope you are capable of reading.

I dont see anything here that would justify eliminating due process. Especialy considering they can make these claims about a citizan, without having to provide any proof what so ever. I know there are many different folks here, with different opinions regarding any given subject, but I cant believe there is a single person on this board who can justify support for this bill.

Edited December 16, 2011 by preacherman76

[questionmark]

I dont see anything here that would justify eliminating due process. Especialy considering they can make these claims about a citizan, without having to provide any proof what so ever. I know there are many different folks here, with different opinions regarding any given subject, but I cant believe there is a single person on this board who can justify support for this bill.

So, in case of war you want to assign every prisoner taken by the troops a public defendant? Or did I understand that wrong?

[preacherman76]

So, in case of war you want to assign every prisoner taken by the troops a public defendant? Or did I understand that wrong?

Well first we should talk about the flaw that terror can be considered a war. It isnt a war, its a tactic. Its my argument that the constitution outlines rights of citizans. Among those rights is a chance to prove your inocents against those that would accuse you of a crime, decided by a jury of your peers. Whats being proposed here is a executive dictatorship. It spits in the face of everything we are told we stand for as a republic.

Edited December 17, 2011 by preacherman76