Preventative/Prolonged Detention Program

[Nu Kua]

Rachel Maddow on the hypocrisy of Obama's 'Prolonged Detention' program.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

For more information, see Salon's very well sourced and researched work,
Facts and Myths About Obama's Preventative Detention Program (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/index.html)

[Nasik]

From the Salon Link:



[Preventative Detention] does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."

This is insane. America claims its aggressions are the spread of "freedom and democracy" but it is becoming as bad as, or worse, than the oppressive regimes it says it's fighting against.

How best do people mobilize now to effect some change here; It's safe to say the honeymoon period is over and it's high-time this new president felt the wrath of the people.

Change we can believe in has beome nothing but broken promises.

[Nu Kua]

From the Salon Link:


This is insane. America claims its aggressions are the spread of "freedom and democracy" but it is becoming as bad as, or worse, than the oppressive regimes it says it's fighting against.

How best do people mobilize now to effect some change here; It's safe to say the honeymoon period is over and it's high-time this new president felt the wrath of the people.

Change we can believe in has beome nothing but broken promises.

A lot of people here are feeling betrayed, and enlightened, two states of being that too often go hand in hand.
I am not sure what to do, or how to start a movement, other than to open it up for discussion. I am looking now for a respectable, sane group to work with. The laws are set up in such a way now that I feel one has to be very careful of how and what we do, and the manner we present it, in order to avoid being detained as a threat to the government! I am not even joking.

People should be taking to the streets. These types of policies not only generate more hatred towards us than anything else, but are a danger to everything this country itself is supposed to stand for.
And the hypocrisy... oh god it's enough to make me sick.

Our whole system is fucked. Choice, what choice did we really have at election time? It's common knowledge that only pre-approved candidates get media screening, are allowed to be heard.

I think now of Buscho and the Obamathon as kind of a Bad Cop, Good Cop strategy to keep up the course of a plan that was cooked up even long before them. They are no different, not underneath the faces and the choice of words. It is the same for them all... they all run as being so much different yet they all keep doing basically the same things.
Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton were part of a global affairs discussion the other day and the media noted how much they agreed with, and defended each others Presidency. Yet we've all gotten so heated up in arguing the differences between the two, who started this or that.
Please, they are nothing more than front people for an agenda so vast I can barely even think of what to call it. What is it?
I hate to say that, it almost sounds like something that should be in Conspiracy theories, but what the hell else can one think?

[James Random]

I will draw a prophetic quote from our wisest of prophets Uki:

SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT ASSHOLE!

[BLOODLINES]

A lot of people here are feeling betrayed, and enlightened, two states of being that too often go hand in hand.
I am not sure what to do, or how to start a movement, other than to open it up for discussion. I am looking now for a respectable, sane group to work with. The laws are set up in such a way now that I feel one has to be very careful of how and what we do, and the manner we present it, in order to avoid being detained as a threat to the government! I am not even joking.

People should be taking to the streets. These types of policies not only generate more hatred towards us than anything else, but are a danger to everything this country itself is supposed to stand for.
And the hypocrisy... oh god it's enough to make me sick.

Our whole system is fucked. Choice, what choice did we really have at election time? It's common knowledge that only pre-approved candidates get media screening, are allowed to be heard.

I think now of Buscho and the Obamathon as kind of a Bad Cop, Good Cop strategy to keep up the course of a plan that was cooked up even long before them. They are no different, not underneath the faces and the choice of words. It is the same for them all... they all run as being so much different yet they all keep doing basically the same things.
Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton were part of a global affairs discussion the other day and the media noted how much they agreed with, and defended each others Presidency. Yet we've all gotten so heated up in arguing the differences between the two, who started this or that.
Please, they are nothing more than front people for an agenda so vast I can barely even think of what to call it. What is it?
I hate to say that, it almost sounds like something that should be in Conspiracy theories, but what the hell else can one think?

Really??? You are just now begining to take notice of all this,

I'm not jabbing at you here NK. but it's kinda taking me back a bit.

No not a conspiracy theory---just conspiracy...I'm excited to see you glaring down the rabbit hole finally...

I predict here and now "your going to see a VAST change in "OUR SADCIETY" in the near future, it won't just be here in America. it will be Global.

Because it has to be...:0.02:

[BLOODLINES]

In other word's when do we become part of a detention program???:0.02:

[James Random]

In other word's when do we become part of a detention program???:0.02:

As soon as you resist fealty to the New World Order, or refuse to give up your guns. The Gun Ban is coming, oh yes,


Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
Link (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718)

And as soon as you refuse, A terrorist label is yours. Off to New Gitmo with you.

America is a court jester. The Constitution stands for nothing. You are all enemy's of the NWO.

[olddragon]

Change we can believe in has beome nothing but broken promises.
Can you see me smiling?

The laws are set up in such a way now that I feel one has to be very careful of how and what we do, and the manner we present it, in order to avoid being detained as a threat to the government! I am not even joking.
Careful, thought police are everywhere......

People should be taking to the streets.
That will just make the round up easier.

Our whole system is fucked.
It has been for some time now. Way before Obama...

I think now of Buscho and the Obamathon as kind of a Bad Cop, Good Cop strategy to keep up the course of a plan that was cooked up even long before them. They are no different, not underneath the faces and the choice of words. It is the same for them all... they all run as being so much different yet they all keep doing basically the same things.
Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton were part of a global affairs discussion the other day and the media noted how much they agreed with, and defended each others Presidency. Yet we've all gotten so heated up in arguing the differences between the two, who started this or that.
Please, they are nothing more than front people for an agenda so vast I can barely even think of what to call it. What is it?
I hate to say that, it almost sounds like something that should be in Conspiracy theories, but what the hell else can one think?

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/evillaugh.gif

I will draw a prophetic quote from our wisest of prophets Uki:

SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT ASSHOLE!
:w00t:

.I'm excited to see you glaring down the rabbit hole finally...

I predict here and now "your going to see a VAST change in "OUR SADCIETY" in the near future, it won't just be here in America. it will be Global.


There will be anarchy !


As soon as you resist fealty to the New World Order, or refuse to give up your guns. The Gun Ban is coming, oh yes,
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/violent069.gif

And as soon as you refuse, A terrorist label is yours. Off to New Gitmo with you.

America is a court jester. The Constitution stands for nothing. You are all enemy's of the NWO.
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/Internet_Police.gifhttp://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/jail.gif

[Nasik]

The laws are set up in such a way now that I feel one has to be very careful of how and what we do, and the manner we present it, in order to avoid being detained as a threat to the government! I am not even joking.

It really is quite remarkable isn't it? If I had told you, back in 1999 that within 10 years, the government would spy on you without warrants, hold people without charge or trial, torture people routinely and now, basically detain you for what is effectively, "thought crimes" - you'd laugh.

No, you'd say, this is what we stand for, these are the beliefs that we hold most dear as a nation. We are the architype of democratic nation you'd say.

The thing is, I wouldn't have said it to you back in 1999 because, quite honestly, I would have found the idea to be a bad joke - but there's not much laughter now.

This reminds me of the story about a frog boiling to death. If you try to put a frog into boiling water - it will jump out; but if you put the frog in water and gradually heat it - it will boil to death. In this case, it's the death of liberty by increments. As soon as the Americans are aclimated to a set of assaults on their liberty, another one comes.



People should be taking to the streets. These types of policies not only generate more hatred towards us than anything else, but are a danger to everything this country itself is supposed to stand for.
And the hypocrisy... oh god it's enough to make me sick.

Our whole system is fucked. Choice, what choice did we really have at election time? It's common knowledge that only pre-approved candidates get media screening, are allowed to be heard.


Manufactoring Consent talks about that. Media has become steadily more serville to the power structures. It's not a conspiracy, it's self-regulating. Once the larger corporations subsumed the smaller independent news outlets, they became beholden to their corporate sponsors and then subject to the news filtering that follows.


I think now of Buscho and the Obamathon as kind of a Bad Cop, Good Cop strategy to keep up the course of a plan that was cooked up even long before them. They are no different, not underneath the faces and the choice of words.

It almost seems as though this is the new monarchy - you have the wealthy elite and sorry to use the term, but the unwashed masses beneath who, I thought were supposed to have a say, but they go unheard. I don't know why Obama has done such a 180 - is it internal pressure, was it all a ruse to begin with, is it pressure from lobbies, is he having problems standing up to his generals? I mean, I don't understand it all.

He was supposed to be the new President of hope, for the next generation, a light. I don't know what the hell is going on.

[Freddy]

In 1865 when my great grandfather was mustering out of the US Army they gave him all of his Civil War equipment to keep, except his Model 1861 Springfield musket. The US government charged its soldiers $6.00 to keep their weapons/guns.

With the US government selling its guns to its former soldiers is there any doubt that the people had the right to keep and bear arms?

From his diary:
"June 13th.

Had a fine night’s rest on deck of the steamer. Into Providence at 8 a.m. We were treated to a fine collation, interspersed with music from Morris Brothers minstrels. Came upon General Burnside on the street and cheered him most lustily. At 10 a.m. left for Readville. On our arrival were paid off, received our discharge papers, and allowed to take our muskets on payment of six dollars and all other equipments gratis. By nearly noon all the military red tape was cut, a team was procured and we West Dedhamites, were en route for home early p.m. The welcome home joyful in every way, and the old scotch motto-”Do ye the next thynge”-in the form of life as a citizen the next thing in life’s programe open before me."


http://www.civilwardiary.net/diary1865.htm

[James Random]

The right to bear arms is only slightly less ridiculous than the right to arm bears.

[JenaS62]

It almost seems as though this is the new monarchy - you have the wealthy elite and sorry to use the term, but the unwashed masses beneath who, I thought were supposed to have a say, but they go unheard. I don't know why Obama has done such a 180 - is it internal pressure, was it all a ruse to begin with, is it pressure from lobbies, is he having problems standing up to his generals? I mean, I don't understand it all.

He was supposed to be the new President of hope, for the next generation, a light. I don't know what the hell is going on.


Obama was set up to be president by the Bilderbergs to carry on the NWO plans. He has the gift of oration and he just happens to be black. It quieted the masses. It gave the minorities hope and offered the Obama detractors the label of "racist". No one wants to be labled a racist so they shut up even though they clearly see what is going on. The plan is working perfectly. This forum is a perfect example. How many here have been called racist for pointing out the flaws of Obama"? Raise your hands! :bye:

[Ningishiddza]

For those interested in taking a break from stupid troll threads....


Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

***
In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”



http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

Additional resources:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP1126:



S.AMDT.1126
Amends: S.1867
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (submitted 11/17/2011) (proposed 11/17/2011)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S7745

STATUS:

11/17/2011:
Amendment SA 1126 proposed by Senator Feinstein. (consideration: CR S7685; text: CR S7685)
11/18/2011:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S7785)

COSPONSORS(3):

Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 11/17/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 11/17/2011
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 11/17/2011


S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867&tab=amendments

Of note is this amendment in particular:


(11) S.Amdt. 1072 by Sen. Leahy [D-VT]
To enhance the national defense through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency response.
Proposed: Nov 17, 2011.

That would transform the National Guard into more of a quasi-federal army than it already is.

(18) S.Amdt. 1080 by Sen. Leahy [D-VT]
To clarify the applicability of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees.
Proposed: Nov 17, 2011.


S.Amdt. 1138: To provide for the exhumation and transfer of remains of deceased...

To provide for the exhumation and transfer of remains of deceased members of the Armed Forces buried in Tripoli, Libya.

An amendment to S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Offered: Nov 17, 2011

Sponsor: Sen. Dean Heller [R-NV]

Okay, so, um, how many Americans died in Libya?

Perhaps it refers to Americans killed in action during WW II, but that would be highly unusual.


S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

112th Congress: 2011-2012
17%
83%

An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]

Status: This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the Senate as a whole. Explanation: Although it has been placed on a calendar of business, the order in which legislation is considered and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Nov 19, 2011 6:12AM]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867

Just FYI, not that you guys will ever actually do anything about it. It's much more fun to watch your country devolve into a police-state dictatorship, and then say "I told you so!" than making any attempt to prevent it.

[Blu-ray]

This is an old video clip. It's from 2009ish from what I can tell. So is this law now?

This video was posted May 22, 2009...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

As soon as I saw the beginning of this video I could tell it was old. Her hairstyle has changed.

Still not cool. Now notice this here. Some say Maddow is uber left wing and an Obama lover, yet she's bringing this to light and calling Obama out on this. That's REAL journalism for you folks.

[Blu-ray]

Just a little something to add to this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/senate-defies-obama-veto-threat-terrorist-custody-/


Defying a veto threat by President Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/), the Senate (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/senate/) voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-military/) first crack at holding al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) operatives, even if they are captured in the U.S. and are American citizens, and also reaffirmed the policy of indefinite detention.“We’re no longer going to have an absurd result that if we capture you overseas where you’re planning an attack on the United States, we can blow you up or put you in a military prison indefinitely, but if you make it to America, all of a sudden you get Miranda rights and you go to federal court,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lindsey-graham/), a South Carolina Republican who has fought the Bush and Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) administrations on treatment of suspected terrorist detainees.Tuesday’s 61-37 vote to buck Mr. Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) and grant the military dibs exposed a deep rift within the Democratic Party (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/democratic-party/). Sixteen Democrats and one independent who caucuses with them defied the veto threat and joined 44 Republicans.The vote was the latest chapter in a debate that has raged since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks plunged the U.S. into the war on terrorism and created the problem of how to handle self-professed enemies who belong to shadowy terrorist groups when they are caught far from traditional battlefields.In a deal between Armed Services Committee (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/armed-services-committee/) Chairman Carl Levin (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/carl-levin/), Michigan Democrat, and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/john-mccain/) of Arizona, the military (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-military/) is given custody of anyone who has planned or carried out an attack against the U.S. and its allies, or who is deemed to be a member of al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) or one of its affiliates. The compromise gives the administration the authority to waive military custody but only if top Cabinet officials certify that national security dictates civilian control.Mr. Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) and his top advisers fought the provisions, arguing that it amounted to micromanaging the war on terrorism. The administration said it should be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether themilitary (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-military/) or civilian law enforcement is better able to handle a situation.“The best method for securing vital intelligence from suspected terrorists varies depending on the facts and circumstances of each case,” Director of National Intelligence (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-intelligence/)James R. Clapper (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-r-clapper/) wrote in a letter to senators detailing the administration’s objections.He said the national security waiver given to the administration still doesn’t allow enough flexibility.The White House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/) this month threatened to veto the legislation if it “challenges or constrains the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.” An official on Tuesday said that threat still stands.The bill also recodifies existing law on indefinite detention and the right of the administration to try suspected terrorists in military commissions rather than civilian courts [-] authority that the Bush and Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/)administrations have exercised, but which Mr. Levin (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/carl-levin/) said he wanted to reiterate. Mr. Levin (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/carl-levin/) said the administration thought the restatement unnecessary, but didn’t object to the language.Sen. Mark Udall (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-udall/), Colorado Democrat, tried to strip the detention and the military custody provisions from the bill and replace them with a call for further study of the issue.“We’re ignoring the advice and the input of the director of the FBI, the director of our intelligence community, the attorney general of the United States,” Mr. Udall (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-udall/) said.His effort won the support of two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Kirk of Illinois, both of whom won their seats in last year’s elections.Among the Democrats who bucked the administration were members of the Armed Services Committee (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/armed-services-committee/), and also a host of lawmakers who hold politically vulnerable seats up for election next year. Among them were Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.The fight was part of a broader debate over the annual defense policy bill, which is considered one of the few must-pass pieces of legislation Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) considers each year.

The story continues at the link above.

[murph]

I don't like how some have taken to calling her Mister Maddow.

[Nu Kua]

Still though he said it- but get this twist.

Now this from the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/senate-approves-military-custody-for-terror-suspects.html?_r=1), which similar to the story Blu posted above, seems to contradict what Obama said in the clip- yet at the same time, who noticed that at the time of the clip, Obama said Congress would "construct an appropriate legal regime" and now that is what exactly Congress is doing, although now Obama says he is against something that in 2009 he said he was for. (prolonged detention of American citizens)

...The most disputed provision would require the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. The provision would exempt American citizens, but would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.

A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago...

Now am I missing something here? I want to be fair and I want to understand this fully. It seems to me that what is happening here is pretty much exactly what Obama was rooting for in that speech dissected by Maddow.
If that is so, then is the veto threat just a ton of bullshit?


Some say Maddow is uber left wing and an Obama lover, yet she's bringing this to light and calling Obama out on this. That's REAL journalism for you folks.

She is a Lefty, but that doesn't make her a liar. That can also be the case for Righties. We should judge not by the name but by the fruit... :0.02:

(BTW Blu I am sorry, looks like all that work I did to prove this bill would not involve the detaining of American citizens practically just for the helluvit clearly missed something key, as per our visitor messaging convo.)

[Blu-ray]

fruit...

Who you callin' a fruit?????

[Nu Kua]

But seriously now, folks!

Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/gop-sen-kirk-blasts-indefinite-detention-our-rights-are-inalienable/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29) shares:

GOP Sen. Kirk blasts indefinite detention: Our rights are inalienable


Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois appeared Tuesday on Fox News to discuss a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) regarding the rules on detention of terrorism suspects....

...“I’m very concerned about this language, because it expands the authority of the president to arrest anyone — including U.S. citizens on U.S. soil — if the president alleges they committed an act of terrorism, or are part of al Qaeda or the Taliban,” Kirk said.

“The critical thing is Americans would not have to be presented to a civilian court,” he continued. “All the decisions on their detention would be made by the U.S. military and the president. Our rights are inalienable, I don’t think Congress has this power.”

“Here in the United States, especially if you’re an United States citizen, you have rights that are protected by the Constitution. And no Congress and no president can take it away. I’m very concerned that under this process, you can be detained by the U.S. military only on the accusation from the president, and no civilian court would have jurisdiction,” Kirk said.

An amendment to the bill that would have replaced the provision was shot down (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/senate-defeats-challenge-to-indefinite-detention-provision/) later Tuesday, by a vote of 37 to 61.

Sixteen Democrats voted against the proposed amendment. Kirk and Rand Paul were the only Republican senators to vote for it.

The bill was drafted by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) during a closed-door committee meeting, without a single hearing....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmflKH-72uA

I am not sure if I should change the title of this thread. I am still confused- it seems to me that the Obama speech that Maddow highlighted back in 2009 is saying this is exactly what he'd like to of done- but now the story is "THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT OBAMA IS AGAINST A MEAN CONGRESS!!!" and I am just boggled here.

[Anarch]

"As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."

Another lie.... Fuck him. If he thinks indefinite detention without charges or trials is such a good thing then he should spend the rest of his life in those dog kennels.

[JenaS62]

In the comments section to the article NK posted I found a link to the breakdown in voting.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

[Reef Badlaw]

by Ning... "Just FYI, not that you guys will ever actually do anything about it. It's much more fun to watch your country devolve into a police-state dictatorship, and then say "I told you so!" than making any attempt to prevent it.

You can't stop the devolution until it becomes a police-state dictatorship. And most of us don't wanna commit to becoming Bastille-stormers until there's at least a 90-plus percentage of success. There is nothing wrong with that way of thinking. It's the police-state dictatorship's fault that the country devolved into a police-state dictatorship. Not mine.

Today's John Brown... knows any Government can do whatever it wants, regardless of what laws are passed. And when you bring forces against a 'police-state', you bring them against installations like the Harpers Ferry Weapons Depot as-well. 'City Hall' isn't a revolutionary objective. It's a 'door-prize' for having taken a revolutionary objective.

Okay... I'm detained... could've happened anywhere in any time-frame. I've already been operating in that mindset forever, no matter what laws are on the books. I've already been pulled-over, handcuffed, and taken to jail without explanation. Gosh... America is just horrible, ain't it? So would Turkey be, if I was born in Turkey.

The Tripoli-thing is about the guys captured/enslaved by the Somalian-pirates from 1799-to-1805, specifically; crewmembers of The Intrepid. Time to bring 'em home. -Oh, did I say Somalia instead of Barbarosa? Who's the 'real' police-state?

[Confuzion]

Well, America, here's your government. Isn't democracy a wonderful tool to introduce dictatorship? You had it all and wasted it all.

Give the people too much power and they'll give it away; give them too little power and it'll be taken away. The right point is somewhere in between and requires continues education, sufficient freedom and a need prosper.

[Anarch]

Well, America, here's your government. Isn't democracy a wonderful tool to introduce dictatorship? You had it all and wasted it all.

Give the people too much power and they'll give it away; give them too little power and it'll be taken away. The right point is somewhere in between and requires continues education, sufficient freedom and a need prosper.


The right point can only be achieved through Direct self representation rather than relying upon representatives to do that job for you....In life, it is your responsibility to speak for yourself and be held accountable for your actions... Politics should be no different. The people that shall be governed by the law aught to have some kind of legislative say over what the law shall be.

[Nu Kua]

The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/196773-senate-passes-defense-spending-bill):

Senate passes $662B Defense bill after deal on detainee language


The Senate passed a $662 billion Defense bill Thursday evening after a long fight over how the U.S. military detains terror suspects.

The bill passed overwhelmingly 93-7, following an agreement reached late Thursday afternoon to add compromise language on the detention of U.S. citizens and terror suspects on U.S. soil...

...A half-dozen senators huddled on the Senate floor Thursday to broker the compromise, an amendment that was offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). It states that the legislation did not alter existing law for the detention of U.S. citizens or anyone who was captured or arrested in the U.S.

The deal worked for both supporters and critics of military detention in the U.S. citizen in part because the two sides disagree about what current law states.

“The Supreme Court will decide who can be detained. The Senate will not,” said Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who sparred all week with Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Armed Services Republicans who back the detention language...

...Civil liberties groups warned that the compromise did not stop military from detaining U.S. citizens and could “turn out to be meaningless.”

“The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens,” Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel, said in a statement....

We Are Change (http://wearechangetv.us/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-toolbar/toolbar.php?wptbto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fd oc%2F73053672%2FUdall-Amendment-to-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions&wptbhash=aHR0cDovL3dlYXJlY2hhbmdldHYudXMvMjAxMS8xM S82MS1zZW5hdG9ycy1iZXRyYXllZC15b3UtdG9kYXktdGhleS1 hdXRob3JpemVkLXRoZS1pbmRlZmluaXRlLXN1c3BlbnNpb24tb 2YtaGFiZXVzLWNvcnB1cy88d3B0Yj42MCBzZW5hdG9ycyBiZXR yYXllZCB5b3UgdG9kYXksIHRoZXkgYXV0aG9yaXplZCB0aGUga W5kZWZpbml0ZSBzdXNwZW5zaW9uIG9mIGhhYmV1cyBjb3JwdXM gKFVQREFURUQpPHdwdGI%2BaHR0cDovL3dlYXJlY2hhbmdldHY udXM8d3B0Yj5XZUFyZUNoYW5nZVRWLlVT) has a copy of the amendment provision.

It is still... it isn't right.

S.1867- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112Vte1bE::)

Go to "Subtitle D--Detainee Matters (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112Vte1bE:e462417:)"

[Blu-ray]

All Obama has to do is sign this bill, and then the bill of rights is DEAD.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso


Dear brothers and sisters. Now is the time to open your eyes!

In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.

The National Defense Authorization Act is being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesn't apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill, it essentially says it can apply to Americans "if we want it to.

Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 -- 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for.

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

Even WIRED magazine was outraged at this bill, reporting:

Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial

...the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn't limited to foreigners. It's confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas' Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority."

The passage of this law is nothing less than an outright declaration of WAR against the American People by the military-connected power elite. If this is signed into law, it will shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights and unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations, indefinite detainment without ever being charged with a crime, the torture of Americans and even the "legitimate assassination" of U.S. citizens right here on American soil!

If you have not yet woken up to the reality of the police state we've been warning you about, I hope you realize we are fast running out of time. Once this becomes law, you have no rights whatsoever in America. — no due process, no First Amendment speech rights, no right to remain silent, nothing.

The US senate does not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice...intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now President in command Barack Obama. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness. Justice, and freedom are more than words - they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek...then I ask you to stand beside one another, one year from November 5th, 2011, outside the gates of every court house of every city DEMANDING our rights!!

Together we stand against the injustice of our own Government.

We are anonymous.
We are Legion.
United as ONE.
Divided by zero.
We do not forgive Censorship.
We do not forget Oppression.
US SENATE...
Expect us!!

[Sirius]

I was looking at this bill yesterday. America did die on 9-11, the terrorists won.

[Sirius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM6FWnPBU5o&feature=related

Fox news is the only news I have seen covering this story. So with great pain, I post this video.

[Nu Kua]

The Senate passed it; it hasn't yet gone before the House for a vote, and according to this, the President has said he would veto this if it does pass, as it stands now.
I find that interesting, because I am still unable to understand how this is not exactly what the President said he supported, in the speech dissected by Rachel Maddow.

Tampa Bay.com (http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/war/national-defense-authorization-act-spurs-uprising-from-left-and-right-on/1205269):
National Defense Authorization Act spurs uprising from left and right on detainee provisions


WASHINGTON — In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio has been attacked as a "traitor." In Arizona, tea party members protested against Sen. John McCain. In Utah, Occupy demonstrators donned black hoods to stand against "radical and uncalled for constraints on our constitutional rights."

The uprising is directed at provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by the Senate last week, that would require the military to arrest terrorist suspects in the United States and detain them indefinitely without trial.

The intensity of the debate — from the left and right, primarily about how the law could affect U.S. citizens — underscores how the country is still struggling with profound changes brought by the 9/11 attacks a decade ago.

And it raises fundamental questions about the freedoms that are at the core of the nation, chiefly a right to due process, and whether they apply to the evolving battle lines.

"The last thing a terrorist should hear when they are captured is, 'You have the right to remain silent,' " said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a leading proponent.

Advocates say the changes affirm tools the government already has. Critics say the provisions are too broad, allowing the president to define who is an enemy combatant.

The law would cover those who aid al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States, including anyone who has "committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

President Barack Obama has threatened a veto, arguing the measures would complicate civilian intelligence gathering. FBI director Robert Mueller and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have objected as well. The bill includes a waiver to keep people in the civilian system, but administration officials say that too is cumbersome and would devour critical time in an investigation.

Despite White House objections, the Senate approved the defense bill by a 93-7 vote Dec. 1...

[Blu-ray]

I was looking at this bill yesterday. America did die on 9-11, the terrorists won.

I was going to add to my previous post when I was creating it: "Osama won in the end, didn't he?" :o/

[Blu-ray]

Watch the House pass it quietly before Chrissymass and then Obama signs it while everyone is opening presents on the 25th. Merry Chrissymass AMERIKA!

[Ningishiddza]

by Ning... "Just FYI, not that you guys will ever actually do anything about it. It's much more fun to watch your country devolve into a police-state dictatorship, and then say "I told you so!" than making any attempt to prevent it.

You can't stop the devolution until it becomes a police-state dictatorship. And most of us don't wanna commit to becoming Bastille-stormers until there's at least a 90-plus percentage of success. There is nothing wrong with that way of thinking. It's the police-state dictatorship's fault that the country devolved into a police-state dictatorship. Not mine.

Today's John Brown... knows any Government can do whatever it wants, regardless of what laws are passed. And when you bring forces against a 'police-state', you bring them against installations like the Harpers Ferry Weapons Depot as-well. 'City Hall' isn't a revolutionary objective. It's a 'door-prize' for having taken a revolutionary objective.

Your fore-fathers, to wit your Founding Fathers would disagree. They took pre-emptive action before Britain had enough troops here to quell any action before it started.

There will never appear to be a 90+% chance of success.

If that's what you're waiting on, then nothing will ever happen. Every revolution, every single one (including your Glorious "Revolutionary War"), in the history of Earth has had only 10% support and seemingly no chance of success.

90+% support is impossible. It's a Standard Population Curve (Bell Curve) shifted to the left. I learned that as part of my insurgency/counter-insurgency and terrorism/counter-terrorism training. To the right are the fanatics in government, those who benefit from the fanatics in government, and then those who benefit from the Status Quo and see no reason for change. That's about 3/5ths of the curve. In the middle are the 2/5ths who don't care. Your average American would be akin to your average Vietnamese, who didn't give a damn who was in power in Saigon because their lot in life would remain unchanged and unaffected. All they wanted to do was squat in a rice paddy with their water buffalo. Your typical American wants nothing more than the Circus & Bread Routine™ and internet access (with free down-loads).

Of the remaining 1/5th, half of them can't get their hands dirty (not that you would want them to -- they can provide valuable intelligence or support and being dirty complicates that), so you're left with 10% to do the real work.

And John Brown was an idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut, had no real plan and no real support, but lots of show (which in the end amounted to nothing).

And if "City Hall" isn't your objective, then you will lose for sure. There is a reason why things are the way they are and why things are happening and without understanding the reason, there is no way to resolve the problem. And if you understand that, then you know that government is just a tool of your enemy.

A few years ago, I posted a step-by-step plan to win an insurgency campaign specifically tailored to the US in less than a year. It doesn't involve indiscriminately killing civilians, or attacking military installations, because that would be, well, pointless, counter-productive and total waste of time and resources, not to mention it would accomplish nothing, because it does have as its object local government (ie "City Halls"). There's a reason why I did that. I was hoping someone would learn something from it (because I won't be here and don't really care).


Okay... I'm detained... could've happened anywhere in any time-frame. I've already been operating in that mindset forever, no matter what laws are on the books. I've already been pulled-over, handcuffed, and taken to jail without explanation. Gosh... America is just horrible, ain't it? So would Turkey be, if I was born in Turkey.

I was in Turkey. Twice. Had a good time. You weren't water-boarded either.


The Tripoli-thing is about the guys captured/enslaved by the Somalian-pirates from 1799-to-1805, specifically; crewmembers of The Intrepid. Time to bring 'em home. -Oh, did I say Somalia instead of Barbarosa? Who's the 'real' police-state?

Ah, that makes sense. Learn something knew everyday. And you know that prior to that, and even afterward (to 1810) the US paid an annual tribute to them of $Millions (in 1800 US Dollars)


Well, America, here's your government. Isn't democracy a wonderful tool to introduce dictatorship? You had it all and wasted it all.

Give the people too much power and they'll give it away; give them too little power and it'll be taken away. The right point is somewhere in between and requires continues education, sufficient freedom and a need prosper.

Odd, but hardship forces people to struggle and to appreciate life and the things they have. Gluttony makes people complacent.


The right point can only be achieved through Direct self representation rather than relying upon representatives to do that job for you.

That isn't even possible. Even assuming you could educate an electorate to MENSA levels, diversity of opinion becomes grotesque to the extreme. Without the potential for consensus, there could never be any success. And seriously, you'd let some of the fuctards on this forum vote? Why don't you just hang yourself? At least you wouldn't suffer as much.


I was looking at this bill yesterday. America did die on 9-11, the terrorists won.

No, not the terrorists, the fanatics in your government.


The Senate passed it; it hasn't yet gone before the House for a vote, and according to this, the President has said he would veto this if it does pass, as it stands now.
I find that interesting, because I am still unable to understand how this is not exactly what the President said he supported, in the speech dissected by Rachel Maddow.

Perhaps it's a bluff. He has a habit of saying one thing, yet doing exactly the opposite. That has been his pattern to date. For example, he says raising the debt-ceiling is a total failure of America, and then later he's begging to raise the debt-ceiling. We're not going to drill in the Gulf, then we do. We're going to pull troops out of Iraq, yet troops stayed there, and then he was working night and day on a SOFA with the Iraqi government to keep troops there longer, but failed, and that is the only reason troops are leaving Iraq. Had he been successful negotiating the SOFA, troops would still be in Iraq. As it stands, those troops are now moving to Kuwait. He said you don't raise taxes during a recession, and then he's wanting to raise taxes. He has a long history of contradicting himself, especially for political expediency.

[Confuzion]

Next up: due to "security reasons" elections will be cancelled, to be held on a "later" date.

[Anarch]

I suspect you all of terrorism.


Liberty dead. Fuck off in a camp.

[Bob]

See! THIS is the kind of thing that happens when you let everybody go to college. What are these guys thinking? I told my wife ..."the Supreme Court will overrule this." and she laughed, an honest to god laugh. The S.C. has made so many other stupid and destructive rulings that I do have some doubt that they will see the obvious un-constitutionality of this insane attempt. ONLY 9 Senate votes against!!! One Senator voted for it the other(Michigan) SPONSORED the damn thing. They have lost their fucking minds and must be voted out. I like my Senators and I suspect you all like yours, but they're gone, fired, they gotta go, ALL OF THEM. Except for the 9...they can stay. Bi-Partisan madness!

[Freddy]

Well Bob, SCOTUS is our only hope if this passes the House and Obama signs it into law.

[Blu-ray]

Well Bob, SCOTUS is our only hope if this passes the House and Obama signs it into law.
You don't think that Justice Thomas and Justice Roberts aren't already bought and paid for??????

[Lillith]

Who is not bought and paid for in Washington? Thing is...they are too selfish. They live for today and to fill their pockets and sate their vanity. Im not sure any of them are entirely moral enough to worry about anyone elses tomorrows or future. Because most of them will be long dead and gone before they realize the really long term ramifications of their actions. Or, they just dont give a crap. Because none of it will be their problem.

[Lillith]

I was looking at this bill yesterday. America did die on 9-11, the terrorists won.

Yea, the terrorists are all in Washington, wearing suits and neck ties. Tis them terrorists making and passing the laws now.

[Nu Kua]

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70527.html):

National Defense Authorization Act sent to W.H.


The Senate on Thursday sent a defense policy bill to President Barack Obama, who has said he would reluctantly sign it after months of fighting over the handling of suspected terrorists, especially those who are U.S. citizens...



So much for that promised veto.


...In order to satisfy the administration and other opponents’ concerns, the final legislation states that nothing in it may 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.”

The Supreme Court has said U.S. citizens can be held by the military as enemy combatants, but the law is unclear on whether that includes those captured inside the United States and the issue is hotly disputed...

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/), has more.


In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama?CMP=twt_gu) (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_ bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php) when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)....

Of course, this is happening when the States are considering SOPA, which we all know will pass, thus giving our brand of internet freedom the same flavor as that in evil China, sadly censored Malaysia, or boogey-boogey Iran.

:thumbs:

[Nu Kua]

Press Release, Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights):

US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights


US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, it issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries – even those cleared for release by the administration.

There are currently 171 detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom have been imprisoned for nearly 10 years. As one of his first acts in office, Obama signed an executive order for the closure of Guantanamo within one year. Instead of moving quickly to close the prison and end the use of the discredited military commissions, he supported modifications to the Military Commissions Act.

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said.

The bill also requires the US military take custody of certain terrorism suspects even inside the United States, cases that previously have been handled by federal, state and local law enforcement authorities. During debate over the bill, several senior administration officials, including the secretary of defense, attorney general, director of national intelligence, director of the FBI, and director of the CIA, all raised objections that this provision interfered with the administration’s ability to effectively fight terrorism. In the last 10 years over 400 people have been prosecuted in US federal courts for terrorism related offenses. Meanwhile during that same period, only six cases have been prosecuted in the military commissions.

“President Obama cannot even justify this serious threat to basic rights on the basis of security,” Roth said. “The law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.”

*edit to add
another good article about this, from The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/165149/dangerous-defense-bill-heading-toward-obamas-desk).


You know these are interesting times when Glenn Beck, Dianne Feinstein, Rand Paul and the ACLU all stand on the same side of an issue. The issue in question is Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), particularly Sections 1031–1033, being discussed by the House and Senate as I write and headed to the president’s desk any day now...

Yes, that is something else- smart people know the color of your tie will not matter, in the end...


...For noncitizens, such detention would be mandatory. And while news agencies from Reuters to the Huffington Post have recently reported that American citizens would be “exempt” from this requirement, the truth is more complicated. Military detention would still be the default, even for citizens, but at the discretion of the president, it could be waived in favor of handing over the case to domestic law enforcement. Under this law, if the Defense Department thinks you’re a terrorist, there would be no presumption of innocence; you would be presumed a detainee of the military unless the executive decides otherwise. Without such a waiver, again, even if you’re a citizen, you will never hear words like “alleged” or “suspected.” You will be an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” with limited rights to appeal that status, no rights to due process, or to a jury, or to a speedy trial guided by the rules of evidence.

According to the “law of war” invoked by these sections of the NDAA, a person in military custody can be held indefinitely, without charge and without access to civilian courts. Perhaps most significant, with the suspension of constitutional provisions for due process, there would be no Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. During the Congressional debate over the NDAA, proponents like Senators Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham argued that when we capture someone who is deemed an enemy, we must start with the presumption that “the goal is to gather intelligence” and “prosecution is a secondary concern.”

In numbingly infantile terms, they declared that “the meanest, nastiest killers in the world” should be questioned for “as long as it takes,” without them “lawyering up.” This need to make “them” talk was cited repeatedly, endlessly, as the main justification for military detention, with references to “surprise” technologies to get prisoners to speak. As though Abu Ghraib had never happened, there was exuberant embrace of methods Senator Graham promised would not be publicized by the Army Field Manual...

...

[JenaS62]

Obama should be "detained" for his ties to terrorist! Al - Amiri linked to the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing where 19 Americans were killed, was a visitor at the WH.

"The Washington Times first reported Tuesday that Mr. al-Amiri, who was part of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s delegation to the White House, is a former commander of the Badr Corps, which was the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The council, which also received support from Iran, has since changed its name to Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

The Badr Corps was made up of thousands of former Iraqi officers and soldiers who had defected and Iraqi refugees who fled Saddam Hussein’s regime. It received military and financial support from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the FBI has linked to a 1996 terrorist bombing that killed 19 U.S. servicemen in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/13/iraqis-us-visit-stirs-grave-concern/

[James Random]

It's sad really. Your once wonderful country is rapidly disappearing
and all you so called 'Proud Americans' can do is argue about
whose fault it is.

Where's your march on Capitol Hill? That is where the 1% tread their shadowy tread
as the nameless, faceless watches that parade the carpeted corridors of the
White House.


How much more will you let them take from you before you stand up for yourselves?

[pico]

I think the power elite now in the US is far less than 1%... more like .0001% now have the power to fuck over anyone they choose. I can foresee it these powers become abused the people in the US taking action, but until then, we will all sit on our thumbs whistling dixie.

[Anarch]

Everyone that signed this bill and the president that does not veto it are terrorists and commit treason against the citizens of the united states of america and as such by the letter of this law should be indefinitely detained themselves until the U.S.A. is safe from the likes of those that would deprive us of our constitutional rights.

[Nu Kua]

In the speech Maddow covers in the OP of this thread, President Obama said Congress would "construct an appropriate legal regime" and now that is what exactly Congress has done. For awhile Obama assured us he would veto it... now in reality, he will not veto it. Now tell me, is that some sort of a freak accident?

This is going right along with so many other troubling events. Military drones and other equipment now being used by the police force, the censoring of our internet to catch "pirates" even though censoring of the net is not needed to do so, the whistle blower trials while the crimes they spoke out about go untried, excessive police force shown being used on non-violent protesters, false emergency messages being "accidentally" beamed to thousands of people at once, false flags going up and down all over the place, becoming quite regular... increasing restrictions on the People's right to exchange their home-grown food freely- or even to grow it... talk of how much food supply is legal to store for your own family...
And, we ain't seen nothing yet. Trust me on that.

They need an event to put some of Obama's nifty new Legal Regime into action. :thumbs:

Watch- real soon a nice and convenient example, a good case, will miraculously appear on the News Show! that will be An Example of just why these very laws were needed... so shouldn't we feel sheepish in complaining about it? Don't we love our country? Silly Citizen- go back to sleep (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ejsM0VF-Os).

I’ll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and a voice of reason
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices son
They're one in the same, I must isolate you…
Isolate and save you from yourself …

Can people not see that phenomenon here, where our so called Free Democratic Republic is becoming the very type of fascist entity it says we must fight to annihilate?

THIS is what the Occupy movement and the TEA party needs to be marching the Capitol for. THIS is what The People better stand up against now.




Well, America, here's your government. Isn't democracy a wonderful tool to introduce dictatorship? You had it all and wasted it all.

Give the people too much power and they'll give it away; give them too little power and it'll be taken away. The right point is somewhere in between and requires continues education, sufficient freedom and a need prosper.


Good post.


The right point can only be achieved through Direct self representation rather than relying upon representatives to do that job for you....In life, it is your responsibility to speak for yourself and be held accountable for your actions... Politics should be no different. The people that shall be governed by the law aught to have some kind of legislative say over what the law shall be.

Absolutely.

[Blu-ray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIQ4S8xAMac

[Blu-ray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RnMUe5bbX8

[pico]

The one key difference was Germany had disarmed the populace prior to the Jewish roundups taking place. That has not happened in the US, and when it does there is likely enough knowledge of past events, combined with the internet knowledge sharing taking place these days, that a major uprising would occur in much of the US. I would think the mountain states in the west and some of the more rural areas throughout the nation would clearly have local and perhaps state law enforcement, combined with national guard elements and even US military groups that oppose such moves, making for a major civil war and violence would be rampant. If people know they are going to be lead off to camps, they will arm themselves and fight like a cornered animal. Just my 2 cents worth, but I think if something starts out with roundups, those doing the roundups will take high casualty rates and have to change tactics quickly.

[Sirius]

It's nice to think that Pico, but how many people would actually risk their financial security, their belongings or their family for an uprising? In my opinion many people would see this as a reduction in competition and an opportunity to advance themselves.

[pico]

It's nice to think that Pico, but how many people would actually risk their financial security, their belongings or their family for an uprising? In my opinion many people would see this as a reduction in competition and an opportunity to advance themselves.

You have to remember that rural areas are far more connected with their neighbors and friends. If people know what is coming, then they are already at risk and have not as much to hold them back.

[Nu Kua]

how many people would actually risk their financial security, their belongings or their family for an uprising?


What will happen to our financial security, our belongings, or our families if we do not have an uprising? We're walking a tightrope high above a spot that is between a rock and a hard place.


I would think the mountain states in the west and some of the more rural areas throughout the nation would clearly have local and perhaps state law enforcement, combined with national guard elements and even US military groups that oppose such moves, making for a major civil war and violence would be rampant.

You mean like the Oathkeepers (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/)?

[pico]

NK... that is a group, but I would think dissention among the officers and NCOs in the military would bring about outright dissention in the ranks.

[Nu Kua]

Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/) again- you know it's occurred to me that it's not a far stretch to say Greenwald is among many investigative journalist who could easily be described by the PTB as "working against U.S. interests"...

First Greenwald notes and links to several examples of intense and growing condemnation of Obama over this- the latest being staunch Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan's piece yesterday in The Daily Beast, "Obama Caves Again On Civil Liberties" (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/obama-caves-again-on-civil-liberties.html). The Lefties are furious, and the WH is in defense mode, resorting to ridiculing those who are rightfully alarmed and awakening, as well as some creative word-twisting to make it sound not all that bad.

Read that article.

To continue to summarize Greenwald on the three myths being spun by the Obama White House- why didn't he just come out and call them lies? And, how long will it be before reporters like Greenwald are sharing a detention facility with the likes of Bradley Manning?

Please take the time to go to the article because he goes into a lot further than I am quoting here.

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention


...Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “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.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):...

...It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision...

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF


This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:...

...Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/politifact_and_the_scam_of_neutral_expertise/)). ..

To divert a moment, that article linked to is a great read too. Greenwald completely tears apart WH mouthpiece Politifacts nonsense suggesting Ron Paul and others condemnation of the new AUMF was disingenuous and incorrect. Oh, the irony!

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill


...This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide 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.” ...


...But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says...

Why no clanging from the Obama supporters?

[JenaS62]

Good articles NK. I don't see this as Obama "caving" as the article suggests though. I think the real Obama has made himself known. Obviously he knows that some of his more "brain dead" supporters don't have a clue about any of this stuff and still just like the way he talks. lol

[Nu Kua]

The usually Pro-Obama NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?_r=1):

Politics Over Principle


...President George W. Bush used this insidious formula to claim that his office had the inherent power to detain anyone he chose, for as long as he chose, without a trial; to authorize the torture of prisoners; and to spy on Americans without a warrant. President Obama came into office pledging his dedication to the rule of law and to reversing the Bush-era policies. He has fallen far short.

Mr. Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the abuses of power under his predecessor, and he has been far too willing to adopt Mr. Bush’s extravagant claims of national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for those abuses. This week, he is poised to sign into law terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law...

...This is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency. To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.

And the modifications are nowhere near enough. Mr. Obama, his spokesman said, is prepared to sign this law because it allows the executive to grant a waiver for a particular prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court. But the legislation’s ban on spending any money for civilian trials for any accused terrorist would make that waiver largely meaningless...


I don't see this as Obama "caving" as the article suggests though. I think the real Obama has made himself known.

Agreed, Jena, since in 2009 he specifically said he wanted a legal regime for this exact sort of thing. The "I'm gonna veto it! I swear!" was just political play-games. Amazing.

Obama--->http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/oceanfloats/Funny%20Pics/smiliez/gangbang.gif <---The Sheeple

[Confuzion]

Perhaps this poem applies to you foolish Americans:

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. <- Check.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. <- Check
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. <- replace Jews with Muslims.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. <- you are here.
--Martin Niemöller

Of course, now some people in these forums get angry. Well, you got what you deserved.

[hobobone]

It depends on what region of the U.S. you live in...In the Pa region, its going to be really hard for even the military to get into all of the mountainous terrain without taking major casualties..In my area we are all extensively armed..There are enough weapons locally to arm a small army...This is hunting land, and thats what we do...While humans are a far smarter adversary, some of the same principles apply.. Such as divide and conquer, proper flanking of an enemy, leading or driving an enemy through crossfire and many other guerrilla tactics...


Im not sure you will have to wait for the government to enter our homes...If the Marcellus Shale wells ruin our water, air, and wildlife and the people of my area are not massively compensated in a timely fashion, all HELL is going to break loose...With a schedule of 5000 wells a year for the next 30 years, its just a matter of time...and by the way Europe, Fracking is coming to a neighborhood near you..

The local farmers here, who are armed to the hilt...Have been waiting for this moment..Many of them were in Vietnam or their fathers fought in WW2....They have been telling everyone around me for years that it is time for civil war..

One other thing ill point out, if civil war does break out in our area, those idiots who sold their land first to Marcellus Shale, will be hunted right along with any official that needs it..It will be very important as to which side you are on, and the reason for that is, you cant have traitors in your midst...

This has been brewing for quite some time, and i dont expect to die of old age..We all need water to live and when you take that away, we have nothing to live for..but you can at least die in glory...

[Sirius]

I think the government is going to do whatever it can to keep the financial system in tact, making people feel secure. Even when they are losing their freedoms. I seen a poll on CNN I believe where the majority of the people polled said the Constitution needs to change with the times. That is ominous. If there is one thing I have learned since 9-11 is that people are more willing to give up their freedom for security than ever.

I do not see the people risking what they have for ideology.

[Anarch]

I do not see the people risking what they have for ideology.


It's not about ideology. It's about your son or your wife or you being hauled away in the middle of the night for supporting an occupy protest or making comments on the wrong website (Like Inspire). Some people will willingly walk to their death when the DHS comes to cart them off. Others will fight to the death to keep their sons and daughters from being lead to concentration camps.

The people have not declared war on the government , the government has declared war on it's own people changing our designation from "citizens to be served" to "potential enemy combatants to be rounded up" . How we feel about it will not change what they intend to do to us. We can only react to their unlawful aggression.

[Confuzion]

If I may add, some people in here seem to have some misconceptions:
Having served military time 30 years ago, means that you are still as effective in combat. It also automatically means you are able to fight when faced with actual combat. Apparently people (conveniently) forget about combat shock, the effects of aging and lack repeated combat training.
Hunting skills implies combat skills and combat experience. This is a big illusion. While snipers have much the same skill set as hunters, they are also normal soldiers. On top of that, shooting at a human is something completely different then shooting at an animal.
Having a weapon equals extensive training in using it effectively and having the willpower to do so against other human beings.
The military knows the situation they are getting into and they will change their strategy and tactics accordingly. These are people who's job is to be shot at, don't you think these people know how to avoid taking hits?... do you?

They will try nicely at first. After that they will become intrusive. But when you open fire, a well trained platoon will know how to deal with that and will deal with such a situation swiftly. With luck you're going to kill one soldier, after which you will find that you are either dead in one minute or carted away with some tie-wrappers around your wrists.

Some people in here have a pretty unhealthy dose over overconfidence. Which is dumb, very dumb.

But erm... my guess is that once your military figures out it's being used as an oppression mechanism in your own country, it'll start acting in the interest of the people and not in the interest of government.

[lycanox]

Another problem is that the US government has been training for an full soviet invasion and the literal complete obliberation of the nation.
There is no way a small group of people fighting back is going to overthrow them.

Not to mention that the US has a strong hold on all the propaganda. (Most people do not visit conspiracy websites.)
Has a strong political division in the nation. The patriotic card. And quite a logical reason to press down hard on violent groups.
As social unrest due to a depression is a pretty acceptable reason.

And why should the military defect. In the opinion of the soldiers. Those rebels are just loose violent militias that have read up too much of their own conspiracy anti US propaganda.
And those that do leave. Will be replaced with those that are willing to fight against the rebels.

And lets not forget about the lessions af Nazi germany.
If you have one failing government that offers peace but cant supply jobs. And another group promising jobs but a severe reduction to peace.
People will choose jobs over peace. And those that did have a problem with less peace. Mostly just fled the nation or waited it out. Instead of fighting back. .

So if someone attempts to rebel they will be rapidly equated to terrorists and obliberated.
So Sorry for all the wannabee Rambos out there expecting an succesfull revolution. It aint going to happen.

[Anarch]

Another problem is that the US government has been training for an full soviet invasion and the literal complete obliberation of the nation.
There is no way a small group of people fighting back is going to overthrow them.



We don't want to overthrow our government. We want our government to obey the law of the constitution. The problem IS with us. To few of us understand the constitution and even less of us insist upon adherence to the US constitution. Now we shall pay for our ignorance and apathy. Even those among us that were not ignorant nor apathetic shall pay for our fellow countrymans mistakes.

Some of us Lycanox, can not leave. Some of us are fucked by poverty, by BS felony convictions, by circumstance. Sometimes shit just ain't fair. Oh well. We deal.

This new civil war the government has declared on us is not about rebelion. Few among us want rebelion. Even I shun war. The problem is that the US empire does not shun war. The problem is that they have become pyschotic with power,declaring war against their own people. Saddam is dead. Osama is dead. Osamas second thrid and fourth leutentit are dead. The threat has been neturalized...not that the threat was ever that big to begin with. Lord knows middile eastern nations have more trouble than the USA. But the USA has joined their mentality in making their own citizens the enemy...just like nazi germany.

One day I may dissapeare. Nuka May aswell. Pico is at risk as is Tired old man. Max pain and Bluray,. This new change to our law puts all of us at risk. If we have supported wikileaks,if we have cicked on inspire if only to laugh and make fun of it, if we support public intelligence, if we attend occupy protests, if we denouce our government.... Our free speech is gone. Our liberty is comprimised. Our constitution is void. Our government is insane and has fully embraced trynnay. BE AWARE! THE USA IS A TYRANNY! The people are one thing. Pick and choose among us who are worthy of trust. Our government is anouther thing. Trust none of our government.

Maybe ron paul....maybe not..... I know not..... I hope he wins. With his win I hope he will bring us back from the brink. If not him... if it does not happen... I am sure we shall be nuked. I am dead fucking positive our fucked up behavoiur will continue till russia or china or both get sick of us and nuke us. Yeah we shall counter strike, DUH. BUt what you have here is an out of control nation. Like a spoiled child that will throw a tantrum when it does not get what it wants. We have crossed a line. BY our own standards. Something withing in our own system shall change (ron paul winning) OOORRRR (fuckshitdamnfuck) or....(GOD FORBID) or we shall require outside intervention....which would mean other nations bringing the pain unto us.

I do not want that.


I do not want civil war.


BUT THEY SEEM INSISTENT UPON IT!

ME,NUKA,PICO, FUCK METAL MELETIA ARE ALL POTENTIAL ENEMY COMBATANS ... and the mere potential is al that is required to detain us forever or kill us.


We here are in bad shape.


Please world

help us

please

[Confuzion]

Anarch, I'm sorry to disappoint you. The rest of the world won't help you, as you are not helping yourselves. However, if you are willing to request political refugee status in another country, help is available. You need to get evidence for endangerment of your basic human rights (see here (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)). Seeing all the stories of power abuse occurring in your country, that won't be too difficult.

May I suggest a West European or Scandinavian country (specifically Norway, Finland, Iceland, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands)? I gather Canada is a nice place to live too. Greenland is part of Denmark, so going there could help you on your way to the EU.

As for the means to get out of the USA; there are plenty of ways, more then you might think.

For those that are not able to leave, but want to: unless you have a loved one in a hospital (spouse or child) or a criminal record for non political reasons, you are making excuses for yourself to stay. Travel needn't be expensive, you just need to be good company and (in some cases) useful.

For overseas travel: you could work on a cruise ship or as a deck-hand on a cargo ship. Perhaps you can find somebody who has a seaworthy yacht who is willing to bring you to Greenland or Canada? (maybe s/he hates cooking or just wants some company).
On land: hitchhiking.
Lodging/food: make sure you're useful and nice. Things will arrange themselves.

[Traveler]

Looking at what is happening in the US I get the impression that you guys are about to be introduced to the concept of the floating constitution.

Government starts doing something and finds out it is against the law, no problem, change the law and all is good again from the ruling class perspective.

Just like the third world, you want to plunder something, no problem, make a law allowing it and then you do it with the nations law enforcement backing you up to make it happen. The people will soon learn to obey.

Now this is the principle you need to try and get across to your cops etc.

The reason you do not steal is not because it is against the law. You do not steal because you end up destroying that which you steal from. If you steal from your own house you will end up destroying your own house. It makes no difference how you rationalize the action or how you manipulate the law to legalize the action, the results will be the same

[murph]

MTV is just advertising what they want to do to their viewers if they stop watching MTV.

[Kiehlroy]

I'm more concerned about all the fear mongering MTV is pandering as a marketing tool clearly targeted at dumb kids who would get their asses mugged and raped in the streets if there were no cops at all.

Anyone ever wondered what would happen if all American police officers and soldiers just vanished? Our society cannot function without some form of structure and authority. Social anthropology teaches us that. Fuck! Common sense and actually having been to the "hood" teaches you that.

MTV is just doing what all the other unscrupulous parasites in the media are doing. Making money peddling "revolution" and dissent to underinformed and overstimulated hormone bags with a complete disregard as to the effects their irresponsibly projected influence has on these dumb kids and the society as a whole.

Some dumb cunt of a kid is going to go spit on a cop and get his/her dumb cunt ass shot for being a dumbass cunt who watches too much fucking MTV!

And all the other dumb cunts will go: "Oh, the poor child!" and "You fucking pigs!"

[medicvet]

Might as well add my name to that list too Anarch. :(

And words cannot begin to express how disappointed and sickened I am by Obama's decision not to veto this when it comes before his desk.

[Kiehlroy]

We don't want to overthrow our government. We want our government to obey the law of the constitution. The problem IS with us. To few of us understand the constitution and even less of us insist upon adherence to the US constitution. Now we shall pay for our ignorance and apathy. Even those among us that were not ignorant nor apathetic shall pay for our fellow countrymans mistakes.

Some of us Lycanox, can not leave. Some of us are fucked by poverty, by BS felony convictions, by circumstance. Sometimes shit just ain't fair. Oh well. We deal.

This new civil war the government has declared on us is not about rebelion. Few among us want rebelion. Even I shun war. The problem is that the US empire does not shun war. The problem is that they have become pyschotic with power,declaring war against their own people. Saddam is dead. Osama is dead. Osamas second thrid and fourth leutentit are dead. The threat has been neturalized...not that the threat was ever that big to begin with. Lord knows middile eastern nations have more trouble than the USA. But the USA has joined their mentality in making their own citizens the enemy...just like nazi germany.

One day I may dissapeare. Nuka May aswell. Pico is at risk as is Tired old man. Max pain and Bluray,. This new change to our law puts all of us at risk. If we have supported wikileaks,if we have cicked on inspire if only to laugh and make fun of it, if we support public intelligence, if we attend occupy protests, if we denouce our government.... Our free speech is gone. Our liberty is comprimised. Our constitution is void. Our government is insane and has fully embraced trynnay. BE AWARE! THE USA IS A TYRANNY! The people are one thing. Pick and choose among us who are worthy of trust. Our government is anouther thing. Trust none of our government.

Maybe ron paul....maybe not..... I know not..... I hope he wins. With his win I hope he will bring us back from the brink. If not him... if it does not happen... I am sure we shall be nuked. I am dead fucking positive our fucked up behavoiur will continue till russia or china or both get sick of us and nuke us. Yeah we shall counter strike, DUH. BUt what you have here is an out of control nation. Like a spoiled child that will throw a tantrum when it does not get what it wants. We have crossed a line. BY our own standards. Something withing in our own system shall change (ron paul winning) OOORRRR (fuckshitdamnfuck) or....(GOD FORBID) or we shall require outside intervention....which would mean other nations bringing the pain unto us.

I do not want that.


I do not want civil war.


BUT THEY SEEM INSISTENT UPON IT!

ME,NUKA,PICO, FUCK METAL MELETIA ARE ALL POTENTIAL ENEMY COMBATANS ... and the mere potential is al that is required to detain us forever or kill us.


We here are in bad shape.


Please world

help us

please

Could you post some links of who has "disappeared" thusfar? Specific examples of tyranny, etc? Just so I can better understand where your coming from?

It seems your nor anyone else's free speech here has never been hindered.

Don't get me wrong, I hope it never is and I feel that as an American citizen it is ones obligation to protect and defend the rights of ones fellow citizens as well as one's own from any threat, both foreign and domestic.

I just need more to go on than "The Government is an EVIL Boogyman!"

[Nu Kua]

It's because they passed the NDAA (http://forums.armageddononline.org/threads/20396-Preventative-Prolonged-Detention-Program)- this is a viable concern that we do need to openly address- while we can!

Couple this with the impending SOPA Act (http://forums.armageddononline.org/threads/33560-Censorship-in-the-U.S.-The-SOPA-and-the-OPEN-Acts) (assuming the counter act doesn't pass and nobody expects it to) that will turn our 'net structure and the authority there-of just like that of China, Iran, Malaysia, ect. And consider now that military 'spy drones' are being used by our police- consider what we've seen occur with non-violent protesters...

...just where do you think all could possibly lead? What do you believe are the most likely scenarios?

[Blu-ray]

It's because they passed the NDAA (http://forums.armageddononline.org/threads/20396-Preventative-Prolonged-Detention-Program)- this is a viable concern that we do need to openly address- while we can!

Couple this with the impending SOPA Act (assuming the counter act doesn't pass and nobody expects it to) that will turn our 'net structure and the authority there-of just like that of China, Iran, Malaysia, ect. And consider now that military 'spy drones' are being used by our police- consider what we've seen occur with non-violent protesters...

...just where do you think all could possibly lead? What is the most likely scenario?

http://occupylosangeles.org/sites/default/files/Aguz-kuCIAID2KO.jpg-large_0.jpeg

US ranked as 6th worst police state in 2009. When NDAA and SOPA are signed into law we are expected to move up some notches. (http://www.compfixer.net/cblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/website-blocked.jpg)

[Anarch]

Specific examples of tyranny, etc? Just so I can better understand where your coming from?


For everyone caught and prosecuted. Ten more go free

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/

[Nu Kua]

Letting you all know- I merged Blu's "the New USA" thread with this one because it is an extension of this conversation and it does not belong in Conspiracy Theories. (Blu is OK with this.)

[Nu Kua]

Why is no one talking about this? I mean, not just here... there is hardly a blip about it on the MSM.

Well...

[PoorOldRobert]

Reply from Sen. David Vitter.


Dear xxxxxxxxxx,



Thank you for contacting me about my vote on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



The U.S. Senate recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act that included language to address the handling of terrorists and enemy belligerents detained by the United States. Over recent years, there have been several proposals, including the Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act, which would grant those detained as enemy belligerents for suspected terrorist acts against the United States the rights and privileges of American citizens. I do not believe enemy belligerents have constitutional privileges, including access to federal courts to question our military authority and control.



I supported the FY12 defense bill because I have great concerns about the possibility of allowing into the United States individuals who were and will likely remain a threat to our homeland security. I believe the safety and security of our country depends upon allowing the military to pursue options to maintain our security, including detaining and interrogating terrorists.



The Obama Administration has effectively created a false choice for dealing with terrorists captured overseas: either bring them to the United States to be given the full constitutional rights available to U.S. citizens in our civilian court system or release them to return to the fight against the United States. The detainee provisions of the FY12 defense bill (S. 1867), which were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, would address this issue. Critics have launched several misleading arguments against these provisions. However, the practice of holding captured terrorists in military detention is based in long historical practice, even back to George Washington, and the provisions in the 2012 defense bill are supported by Supreme Court precedent, past practice, and common sense. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as the U.S. Senate considers legislation affecting the Guantanamo detainees.



Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you.

[Blu-ray]

Why is no one talking about this? I mean, not just here... there is hardly a blip about it on the MSM.

Well...

You know the answer. The MSM has been under control for awhile now. They will become big again because all the bloggers and non-MSM news sites will be taken care of in the SOPA which is the second act to the NDAA. News papers will make a come back also because we will have to get our news from somewhere.

Nu... do you think we'll get adjoining rooms in the concentration happy camps?

[Kiehlroy]

You know the answer. The MSM has been under control for awhile now. They will become big again because all the bloggers and non-MSM news sites will be taken care of in the SOPA which is the second act to the NDAA. News papers will make a come back also because we will have to get our news from somewhere.

Nu... do you think we'll get adjoining rooms in the concentration happy camps?

yndfqN1VKhY

[hobobone]

Why is no one talking about this? I mean, not just here... there is hardly a blip about it on the MSM.

Well...


I dont talk about it because im tired of talking about it..Talking to the American public about this is like talking to a pile of cement blocks...I found this out in the years of fighting Marcellus Shale (Cabot Oil and Gas=Haliburton)..Anything Americans get, they have coming to them...And for all you foreign people who think you know the geological layout of every piece of America, and also think you know everything that has and will take place in America....This is a global thing and eventually it will be coming to your doorstep..I suggest you start looking at your own country...And notice im not telling you what you should do in your country, thats your F'ing problem..

[Nu Kua]

I'm tired, too.

[Blu-ray]

We're tired and worn down. They're gonna win if we give up. Then we will have this:

http://www.mondovista.com/money-pp6.pier57.jpg

Oh wait. We already do. :o/

[Blu-ray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek1uqrwLmQk

[hobobone]

Thought you all might like to read my response back from Senator Bob Casey...



Response from Senator Casey
Dear Mr..Blah, Blah

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes policy and annual expenditures for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives and the Senate recently passed the final version of the 2012 NDAA with broad bipartisan support. It is currently awaiting the President’s signature before it becomes law.

The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the United States Armed Forces and ensuring that our Nation is able to effectively respond to threats. It is critical that Congress provides the Department of Defense with sufficient funding to protect American lives, defend our Nation and support our servicemembers and their families. While our overseas military engagements continue, it is particularly important to provide the resources our servicemembers need to successfully conduct operations and ensure their own safety.

As your United States Senator, I am committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Americans. Since 2001, United States counterterrorism efforts have helped to ensure our national security. Our brave servicemembers and intelligence personnel work tirelessly to protect our nation against the threat of terrorism. However, it is essential that the executive branch operate with transparency and ensure that our counterterrorism efforts do not infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not sacrifice our fundamental values and ideals in the face of this critical threat.

The custody and detention provisions in the NDAA are the result of thorough consideration and bipartisan agreement. These provisions, including Sections 1021 and 1022, will allow the United States to deal effectively with the threat posed by al Qaeda, a terrorist group that has inflicted devastating harm on our Nation and continues to seek to attack our citizens, our allies, and our interests both here at home and around the world.

Section 1021 of the NDAA does not expand the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists. This section states explicitly that it is not intended to limit or expand the authority that Congress granted the President in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The definition of a “covered person” in this section is “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.” This is the position that has been adopted by the Obama Administration and upheld in U.S. courts since 2001. In addition, it requires the executive branch to brief Congress regularly on the individuals and groups to whom this authority is being applied.

It is important to note that Section 1021 does not create any “new” or “unprecedented” presidential power, nor does it create any “permanent” detention power. The legislation explicitly states that Section 1021 shall not “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.”

Section 1022 of the NDAA requires that persons who are members of al Qaeda and have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the United States or its allies be held in military custody. However, the executive branch can exercise a waiver of this requirement if the President certifies to Congress that holding a particular suspect in civilian custody will better serve U.S. national security interests. In addition, this provision applies only to non-US citizens and non-lawful resident aliens who are al Qaeda operatives and who plan or carry out attacks against the United States. It explicitly does not apply to American citizens and those who reside here lawfully.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected terrorists captured abroad. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. I voted against this amendment because the waiver provision provides flexibility to the executive branch to determine whether a suspected al Qaeda operative captured on U.S. soil should be transferred to civilian custody.

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado offered an amendment to remove the detention provisions in Section 1021 from the bill altogether. This amendment would have essentially allowed the executive branch to continue to engage in existing detention practices without codification in law. By codifying the detention practices already in use, Congress is exercising its critical responsibility to oversee and create a legal framework for executive branch action. For this reason, I joined a majority of Senators in voting against this amendment.

Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens. I voted in favor of this amendment out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. Finally, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill “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.” I also voted for this measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 and was included in the final version of the bill.

On December 15, 2011, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This legislation would clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. S. 2003 would also require Congress to make a “clear statement” about the limitations on authority to detain U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will examine this legislation closely.

Nothing in the NDAA authorizes the U.S. military to patrol our streets, detain ordinary Americans in their homes or conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States. Section 1022 says only that a specific group of persons, narrowly defined as those who are “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” should be subject to military custody, unless the executive branch determines that civilian custody is more appropriate in a particular case. The NDAA does not address when or where a person may be captured, and does not authorize the military to exercise unprecedented powers on U.S. soil.

In addition, the NDAA will not disrupt ongoing interrogations, intelligence gathering functions and surveillance activities, and it does not require military commissions in terrorist prosecutions. The administration raised concerns that certain provisions would limit its ability to collect vital information and limit its prosecutorial options. In response, the Senate Armed Services Committee clarified that no such limitations would be placed on the President’s authority.

The NDAA absolutely does not authorize torture of detainees, irrespective of citizenship. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire proposed S. Amdt. 1068 to the NDAA to authorize certain enhanced interrogation techniques. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” and we must not tolerate the use of torture under any circumstances. I believe strongly that the United States has a moral obligation to uphold its commitments under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. We must, therefore, hold all executive branch officials accountable for alleged violations of these commitments. I am pleased that S. Amdt. 1068 was not included the final version of the NDAA that passed the Senate. Please be assured that I support efforts to prohibit the use of “enhanced interrogation” practices, and that no such practices have been endorsed in this bill.

The NDAA also does not change the fundamental, constitutional right of habeas corpus review. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to challenge their detention in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly provides this right to American citizens, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability, even with respect to suspected terrorists. Any American citizen or lawful permanent resident held in U.S. custody will have the right to habeas corpus review. Similarly, the courts have established that persons detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to such review. Nothing in the NDAA undermines this critical right.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

[Nu Kua]

So is this guy getting your vote next go-around? ^^^^^ He'd surely not get mine. :0.02:

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story) reports on how the TSA is not just for airports anymore, and that Congress will be funding a huge expansion of roving checkpoints at any old bus stop, train station, or shopping center you can think of- or rather, the plan is that you not think of them in advance.

Well I say "Congress will be funding", but where do they get the money? It's great, we're paying for our own heavy-handed surveillance state, just like we'll be paying for our own indefinite detentions.


...The Transportation Security Administration isn't just in airports anymore. TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass transit locations around the country.

"We are not the Airport Security Administration," said Ray Dineen, the air marshal in charge of the TSA office in Charlotte. "We take that transportation part seriously."

The TSA's 25 "viper" teams — for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response — have run more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year. Department of Homeland Security officials have asked Congress for funding to add 12 more teams next year.

According to budget documents, the department spent $110 million in fiscal 2011 for "surface transportation security," including the TSA's viper program, and is asking for an additional $24 million next year. That compares with more than $5 billion for aviation security.

TSA officials say they have no proof that the roving viper teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety. But they argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence.

"We have to keep them [terrorists] on edge," said Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington. "We're not going to have a permanent presence everywhere."...

"We have to keep them [citizens] on edge..." :vbroll:

My public confidence is definitely not bolstered by random, arbitrary public searches committed against my person by armed officers!

A very well sourced WIKI on the Viper program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team).

[Blu-ray]

So is this guy getting your vote next go-around? ^^^^^ He'd surely not get mine. :0.02:

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story) reports on how the TSA is not just for airports anymore, and that Congress will be funding a huge expansion of roving checkpoints at any old bus stop, train station, or shopping center you can think of- or rather, the plan is that you not think of them in advance.

Well I say "Congress will be funding", but where do they get the money? It's great, we're paying for our own heavy-handed surveillance state, just like we'll be paying for our own indefinite detentions.



"We have to keep them [citizens] on edge..." :vbroll:

My public confidence is definitely not bolstered by random, arbitrary public searches committed against my person by armed officers!

A very well sourced WIKI on the Viper program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team).

Thoughts are to expand this to checkpoints at state boarder crossings. You want to go across the state line in your vehicle, you, your passengers, and your vehicle will have to be searched first.

[Nu Kua]

Crap, Mr. Blu, I dreamed about that very thing, less than a month ago.

TPM (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/holder_obama_will_issue_signing_statement_with_nda a.php) writes that Holder has said Obama will attach a signing statement to the law when he signs it.

Quoting Holder,

“We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems,” Holder said in response to a question from the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez. “But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”

The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10309-ag-holder-obama-will-add-signing-statement-to-ndaa) (where I found the article looking into the Ron Paul stuff) speculates the signing statement "will give the Federal Bureau of Investigation plenary power over the disposition of issues related to the custody and prosecution of all terror suspects detained domestically.", since Obama's threat to veto was not due to concerns about a threat to liberty, but about making sure the President had the last word on the matter.

I guess we'll see. I also learned today that there is a two month "tweaking period" where some changes could be made to the act, as warranted or as question come up about specifics.

Speaking of TPM, they've got an article here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/so_you_think_youve_arrested_a_terrorist_tpms_incom plete_guide_to_detainee_custody_under_the_ndaa.php ) about how police departments and the like will have to re-write their rules of response regarding how they might deal with terrorist suspects.

So You Think You’ve Arrested A Terrorist: TPM’s Incomplete Guide To Detainee Custody Under The NDAA

[hobobone]

So is this guy getting your vote next go-around? ^^^^^ He'd surely not get mine. :0.02:

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story) reports on how the TSA is not just for airports anymore, and that Congress will be funding a huge expansion of roving checkpoints at any old bus stop, train station, or shopping center you can think of- or rather, the plan is that you not think of them in advance.

Well I say "Congress will be funding", but where do they get the money? It's great, we're paying for our own heavy-handed surveillance state, just like we'll be paying for our own indefinite detentions.



"We have to keep them [citizens] on edge..." :vbroll:

My public confidence is definitely not bolstered by random, arbitrary public searches committed against my person by armed officers!

A very well sourced WIKI on the Viper program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team).

No i will not be voting for Bob Casey...However the problem in Pa. is that, it really doesnt matter who you vote for, because they are all crooked assed son of a bitches...Ive said many times before, to many different people. It is very hard to have an honest man in government. If one isnt corrupt when entering government, one surely will be after being in government..

My guess is that until the presidential election is over, the hammer will not be dropped on the American public.. Better hope Ron Paul wins, because as it stands now, all the other candidates will just bring us more of the same..

I think right after the presidential election the hammer will begin to drop harder...I also think 3 months after the election we will start war with Iran..and then the hammer will really drop..

However if there is election voting discrepancies, and it looks like Ron Paul got cheated out of the election, you can look for parts of the public to go nuts and then the hammer drops hard..Also i wouldnt rule out a false flag event of any type right before the election...One that would be intended to stop Ron Paul from winning...But personally, i dont think Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell...But one can still hope..

[Blu-ray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZQwHlRf-l0

[Nu Kua]

OMFG, at first I thought that was a parody of some sort. Holy fucking cow. How can this be?

I wonder what THOMAS JEFFERSON! would say about this?

[JenaS62]

What the hell????? I thought it was a parody too. Our country is fucked. There is no coming back from the edge now. All those people that were screaming that if Ron Paul did not get elected in 2008 that this is what it would come to, were right. It's so sad.

[Traveler]

Tried to open that video and all I got was;

This video is private.
If the owner of this video has granted you access, please log in.


In other words the idea is to monitor who watches it.

[Blu-ray]

Tried to open that video and all I got was;

This video is private.
If the owner of this video has granted you access, please log in.


In other words the idea is to monitor who watches it.

It wasn't a little while ago. Many police brutality videos and videos of protests have been disappearing from YouTube at an alarming rate. I feel SOPA is already in effect.

[Blu-ray]

Here... Try this one...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_gA7bdnyOs

[Nu Kua]

Wow, so this afternoon, that video was visible, now it is private. I wonder how long RT will be able to run it?

[Blu-ray]

Wow, so this afternoon, that video was visible, now it is private. I wonder how long RT will be able to run it?

I don't know. It's getting crazy with Youtube. You have to keep re finding the videos. They take 'em down, people put them back up under a new user ID.

[Nu Kua]

I don't know. It's getting crazy with Youtube. You have to keep re finding the videos. They take 'em down, people put them back up under a new user ID.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE, then.

Good article series from The Constitution Campaign (http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=5207#.TvtHr3oYk-A).

The NDAA: Another Assault in the Dead of Night


Ten years ago, Congress enacted a draconian law with no transparency, regard for process, or even awareness of the profound erosion of constitutional rights the PATRIOT Act would entail. Congress did it again this holiday season, repeating its abdication of its constitutional role by authorizing, in the National Defense Authorization Act, indefinite military detention of even US citizens.

The NDAA, however, has older precursors then PATRIOT: the bill recalls shades of central Europe in the 1930s, long predating the pervasive surveillance enabled over the past decade. It also stands at the crux of several fundamental questions: it owes its genesis to the Obama Administration’s political cowardice and lawlessness in resigning executive accountability (http://archive.truthout.org/an-administration-on-its-heels-inviting-torture-to-appease-the-right-wing58636) for torture. Finally, the NDAA presages the recurrence of torture, as well as the false legitimacy that it confers on a system designed to coerce confessions.

I’ll explain each of these concerns over a 3-part series formatted as an FAQ....

[Nu Kua]

Nice to know we won't necessarily need to be transferred to GITMO if we dissent or work for the interests of the People. This is the type of thing more Regular Americans™ can expect to enjoy in the future, thanks to the NDAA.

The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil):

Unlawful Detention on US Soil

...Shukri Abu-Baker was among those convicted in 2009 of providing material support to terrorism because he helped found the Holy Land Foundation, a charity that the US government says is affiliated with Hamas. (The convictions were recently upheld.) He has been imprisoned at the CMU since April 2010. As The Nation reported this spring [See “Gitmo in the Heartland (http://www.thenation.com/article/159161/gitmo-heartland?page=full),” March 28, 2011], the primary purpose of these units—the only other facility of its kind is in Marion, Illinois—is to closely monitor the communications of its inmates. The restrictions are much more severe than those on prisoners at the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, with far fewer visitation hours or phone calls. Visits are restricted to family and attorneys, and there is an absolute ban on physical contact, even with their wives and children.

Prisoners at the CMU have no real idea as to why they’re there. Shukri, for instance, has no history of communications infractions. He spent the first year and a half of his sixty-five-year sentence without incident at the low-security Federal Correctional Institute in Seagoville, Texas. But like most CMU inmates, he is Arab and Muslim American.

A lack of transparency has been a trademark of the CMUs since they first began operating under the Bush administration. It continues under Obama. The BOP has been operating the Marion CMU since 2008 and the one in Terre Haute since 2006, despite its never having met the protocols dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to publish proposed new rules and regulations and provide a period of public comment before starting operations. Although the Bush administration published its proposed rule for “Limited Communication for Terrorist Inmates” in August 2006—prompting a wave of criticism—the BOP never published the final rule before moving forward. Word that the Terre Haute CMU was up and running spread only when transferred prisoners leaked information of their whereabouts to family and attorneys....

Indefinite Detention won't be reserved just for Muslims anymore.
(I guess we won't exactly be able to call it "Unlawful" before long... thanks to the new Legal Regime being erected to support it.)

This man has not been allowed to speak to his family in ages, and his family, financially struggling and unable to keep making trips to see him only to not be allowed to speak to him or even see him at all, cannot afford it.


...In March 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) sued the BOP, alleging both violations of the Constitution and the APA. In response, the Obama administration republished an expanded version of the rule, took comments via mail and e-mail and indicated that it would publish the finalized rule in October 2011.

Assuming the Obama administration was operating in good faith by complying with the APA (albeit ex post facto), the court dismissed the APA claims in CCR’s lawsuit without prejudice. A letter to the BOP from eleven members of Congress—raising questions that advocates and families had been asking for years—also presumed a finalized rule would be published in October.

But October came and went and, to date, no finalized rule has been published. ...

[Blu-ray]

Sound familiar?



First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[Nu Kua]

Inter Press Service (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106339):

Defense Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of US Citizens


...David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild (http://www.nlg.org/), called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.

"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."...

I concur. Only an idiot would disagree, only other Fascists would approve or make excuses.


..."It's quite severe. If this continues, people will not be able to count on constitutional protections at all," Debra Sweet, national director of the group World Can't Wait (www.worldcantwait.net), told IPS....

It you go to Watching American, you can read the views worldwide on America's Plunge into Fascism, in the form of opinion pieces and editorials.


...Section 1021 defines who can be detained by the military.

The definition of "covered persons" under the provision includes not only those who planned, authorised, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2011, but also "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 anyone who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

Critics say problems with this language include the vagueness of the terms "substantial support", "belligerent act", or "directly supported".

Moreover, because the act allows for individuals suspected of support or belligerence to be held indefinitely without trial - until the end of the "war on terror", which could be never - there could be no opportunities for these individuals to challenge the vagueness of the charges against them.

Section 1021(e) says the act does not alter any rights of U.S. citizens, meaning that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution remains intact. It might be up to the courts, however, to eventually determine whether the application of these NDAA provisions to a U.S. citizen would be constitutional.

However, if they are being detained indefinitely with no lawyer, then how does anyone know they are there, to appeal to the civilian courts on their behalf?...

That's the thing- remember we lost Habeas Corpus back when Bushco was doing its part to get the Fascism Train on its tracks. with all the new laws in place, they also have the right to take you without letting anybody know where you are, why you were taken, or even if you are OK. You do not have the right to speak to counsel.


Another section says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States". It does not say military custody is not an option; merely that it is not required...

It's those weasel phrases at work again... doesn't sound so bad, unless you read it carefully.

So this landed on the Presidents desk on Winter Solstice. Look for more activity around Spring Equinox and finally Summer Solstice before the events that can be timed with a major eclipse last year on Winter Solstice finally play out.
Not that this will "be over", no.
That's when so much more will be beginning. This is just a preview.

CHANGE WE CANNOT HELP BUT BELIEVE IN, EVEN IF WE'D RATHER NOT

Mr. Obama, you sold that one quite well. :thumbs:

[Blu-ray]

So he signed it TODAY

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/dec/31/obama-signs-defense-bill-despite-reservations-ar-342431/




http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/png/angry-desk-flip.png


Notice how Politico lies and said he did it on the 23rd.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0111/obama_signs_ndaa_377c1992-ed7a-4720-b6f7-3cab1fe76506.html

[JenaS62]

"HONOLULU — President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law today despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. "


But no reservations at all about executing an American citizen without a trial...must save him from agonizing over the detention, interrogation and prosecution of them.

[Nu Kua]

This is his signing statement in full.

Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540):


The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA


THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011.

[Blu-ray]

This all makes for a hell of a case for supporting a line item veto for the president.

[Nu Kua]

Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


FUCK YOU, FIFTH AMENDMENT!

Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


FUCK YOU, SIXTH AMENDMENT!

Posse Comitatus Act:

Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".


FUCK YOU, POSSE COMITATUS ACT!

Some changes were made to the act in 2007 which made it especially draconian, that were repealed in 2008 with H.R.4986, yet still say:
THOMAS (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110bEhbHs:e1065123:)


SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'...

So wouldn't that be a "Fuck you!", but twice?

Since the FBI has a history of treating non-violent environmental, peace, and anti-tax activists as "terrorists", legalized indefinite detention for anyone accused of a "terror-related" crime gives *this and every future administration* the power to override the presumption of innocence, deny the right to trial or counsel, which is a nifty way to silence critics or dissent.

This bill detracts from the ability of Congress to check and balance the powers of the Executive Branch, which now has the unprecedented power to detain U.S. citizens without right to trial or legal counsel- detain them indefinitely.

The Terrorists™ are said to be working for the destruction of the American way of life because they "hate us for our freedoms", making this bill a Win for the Terrorists™.

Oh, the analogies...

And to think, our brave President signed this bill in the creep of the night, in the dying hours of 2011... on New Years Eve... imagine all the hung over minds this morning catching a blip of this on the news and thinking "Aw, jeez, this shit again?" and just cutting off the TV. The apologetic, obedient media is trying to sell us the false perception that Obama's meandering, weasel-worded signing statement actually makes the questionable provisions of that bill be less shocking than they actually are.

I do not buy that Obama was somehow forced into signing this, had no choice... when if you go back to the speech Rachel Maddow highlighted, as shown in the OP of this thread, the President said he was looking to "construct an appropriate legal regime" for indefinite detention... so yeah, I do think he is pretending to be so very troubled by it. I can imagine that after he put his stamp of approval on this bill with its provisions he claims to be so very troubled by, that he went straight to the bathroom, locked the door, and proceeded to do a Happy Dance.

hey I was reading in a paper last night how the President planned to forge ahead in 2012 without much input at all from Congress, because Congress was slowing him down. lmao


FUCK CONGRESS!

Of course, I also think Congress in general is made up of the same type of sneaky, lying, back-stabbing, bribe-taking and bribe-making criminal element that is concentrated and personified in Barack Obama. But the IDEA of Congress, and what it is meant to do, and the IDEA of checks and balances- is one that never needs to be let go of in what is supposed to be a Democratic governance... of course now the shining ideals of Checks and Balances and the Bill of Rights are apparently considered to be "out-dated". That's Progress... ???

[Blu-ray]

I'm not sure if I should post this here but:


Ellen Barkin tweeted early Sunday morning that she was shoved to the ground by a New York City police officer as she was walking near her apartment on 13th street and 6th avenue.
"Just threatened on my street by NYPD,cop shoved me,both hands,onto sidewalk..Is it a crime 2 stand in the street in NY?WTF is going on here?" the "Another Happy Day" star wrote over the social networking service (https://twitter.com/#!/EllenBarkin/status/153387339362734080). A few hours later, Barkin wrote that she was shoved by police as she was trying to help a girl who was being arrested.

"I was trying 2 make my way 2 young girl they had thrown in2 the van.She was not a protester.Was not drunk.She was walking home," she wrote.

Just before Barkin said she was shoved, she began chronicling the police scuffles, writing (https://twitter.com/#!/EllenBarkin/status/153384546035974144), "Walking home...13th & 6th, police making random arrests of non protesters.Young girl in police van screaming"I'm just trying 2 get home" and then (https://twitter.com/#!/EllenBarkin/status/153385120638828545) "People being thrown in police vans, arrested for "jaywalking"What happened to the NYPD of my youth?Who are u all?Shame shame on u all."

Barkin is an outspoken progressive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/ellen-barkin-rips-liars-fox-news-tea-party_n_1081446.html) and has been an open advocate of the Occupy Wall Street movement; some of that movement's protestors were active throughout the city on New Year's Eve, including a brief retaking of their one-time base (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/before-midnight-occupy-wa_n_1178262.html), Zuccotti Park.

Later on, Barkin slammed New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, writing (https://twitter.com/#!/EllenBarkin/status/153394550679932928), "Fuck all of u,Bloomberg & every1 goose-stepping behind u.I cannot believe what I am seeing.U protect nothing.U ARE the violence in my city."

A large portion of Barkin's tweets and interactions with both supporters and detractors follows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ellen-barkin-shoved-to-ground-by-nypd_n_1178489.html

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ellen-barkin-shoved-to-ground-by-nypd_n_1178489.html)It kind of plays into this whole detention thing. They can round up anyone on the streets. You just have to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Tired Old Man]

I believe you can be arrested and held for 72 hours without any charges. I thought that was bad enough. After 72 hours you had to be charged or released. I guess the good old days are gone.

[Ningishiddza]

What will happen to our financial security, our belongings, or our families if we do not have an uprising?

They'll be gone.


The military knows the situation they are getting into and they will change their strategy and tactics accordingly.

And freedom fighters won't?

And the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan because why? Because that is what I predicted? I did predict the US would lose in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's beside the point. It is because they cannot win. So, you're effectively saying a bunch of rag-heads with little education, no prior military experience and little training can hold off the US military, but highly educated people with prior military experience who are well-trained and organized cannot?

That's absurd.


But when you open fire, a well trained platoon will know how to deal with that and will deal with such a situation swiftly. With luck you're going to kill one soldier, after which you will find that you are either dead in one minute or carted away with some tie-wrappers around your wrists.

And why would I be stupid enough to be engaging military units? If I have done my job properly, I should not be engaging military units, and the handful of times when and if I have to, it will be at my choosing at a location that I choose, and it will be a classic ambush, not an hasty assault and not a meeting engagement. And why would I be dumb enough to shoot at them? Fire is better. Fire is terrifying. Fire is frightening. Fire burns. Fire grotesquely maims and disfigures. Fire instills fear. Fire demoralizes. ...fire is the Devil's only friend...

If you don't know how to make fuel-air bombs (FABs), or flame throwers or napalm canisters, grenades and mortar rounds, then you should.

It's not so easy to shoot people when your clothes, skin and hair are on fire.


Some people in here have a pretty unhealthy dose over overconfidence. Which is dumb, very dumb.

Some people understand the situation, while others like you continue to be clueless.


Another problem is that the US government has been training for an full soviet invasion and the literal complete obliberation of the nation.

The US never trained for a full Soviet invasion. That would be stupid since the Soviets had no means of invading the US. I guess it would be totally pointless to mention that partisans, terrorists and insurgents operate differently the large military units.


There is no way a small group of people fighting back is going to overthrow them.

Not to mention that the US has a strong hold on all the propaganda. (Most people do not visit conspiracy websites.)
Has a strong political division in the nation. The patriotic card. And quite a logical reason to press down hard on violent groups.
As social unrest due to a depression is a pretty acceptable reason.

And why should the military defect. In the opinion of the soldiers. Those rebels are just loose violent militias that have read up too much of their own conspiracy anti US propaganda.
And those that do leave. Will be replaced with those that are willing to fight against the rebels.

It's a good thing people despise and ignore you.

Oh, yes, the brave Sir Lycanox, who nearly watched Rambo in its entirety, who almost saw a photo of a weapon on the internet, and who personally wet himself when he came within 3 meters of a GI Joe action doll with the the Kung-Fu grip.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that that government can only propagandize through the media if it has the ability to broadcast, and if people have the ability to receive broadcast communications.

I didn't think so.


And lets not forget about the lessions af Nazi germany.

Which don't apply to the US, because Germany is a nation-State and the US is not. That's Political Science 101. Look into it.


So if someone attempts to rebel they will be rapidly equated to terrorists and obliberated.

Like the Iraqis and Afghanis?


So Sorry for all the wannabee Rambos out there expecting an succesfull revolution. It aint going to happen.

It could be done in 6-12 months.


We don't want to overthrow our government. We want our government to obey the law of the constitution.

Then you have a bit of a conundrum, because that is not going to happen.


Few among us want rebelion. Even I shun war.

I take it you haven't seen even one video from Egypt in the last 2 weeks. Odd.

In fact, I don't see anything on the forum about it. I guess that's because non-violence only works in certain unique circumstances, and the Egyptian people just got butt-fucked on international TV.

Giving Blacks civil rights is not exactly the same thing as giving up power.


With his win I hope he will bring us back from the brink.

Then you're wasting your hope.


I do not want civil war.

That is inevitable. You will have it. But not yet, and not in this decade. But soon enough. In your life-time.



Please world

help us

please

That's not going to happen. You have to answer for all of the horrors you visited on Millions and Millions of people over the last 60 years in the name of iPods and SUVs and glossy lipstick and liquid laundry detergent and Viagra.

You have to answer for that.

For you to live and suffer under the tyranny that you forced upon so many Millions for so many decades is.....beautiful really. It's poetic justice. It's karma.

It's fucking Disneyland.

I'm actually tempted to say you should just accept it as a penance heaped upon you by the Universe.

As an ultra-conservative and a being of good conscious, I cannot liberate you if all you're going to do is continue to oppress others so you can have iPhones, plasma TVs and microwave foods with colorful packaging. I can only liberate you if you forfeit the Extravagant American Life-Style™.

Maybe you need this. Maybe you need to be terrorized and oppressed by your own government, so that for just a few seconds, you can understand and appreciate what it is like to endure the horrors and sufferings of those Millions of people living in US Economic Slave States with only the freedom to shut up (as Mohammed Talbi puts it).

Those people suffer so you can live a life of lap-dog luxury. I'm sure Jesus and Bodhisattva and all the others would be so very proud of you for "Doing unto others...."

And then maybe you all will realize there's nothing extraordinary about America or being American, and you will take your place along-side the ordinary peoples of the world. And if Iran wants to sell oil in basket currencies instead of US Dollars, then that is Iran's right. And if that costs you 6 Million more lost jobs over the next 5-6 years, then that is just the way it is. You'll just have to learn a new way to live with a new life-style and lower standard of living, instead of murdering people so you can have a job and buy an iPhone.

Try communal living or sharing accommodations. There's lots of ways to enjoy life without having a cell-phone glued to your hand 24/7.


...just where do you think all could possibly lead? What do you believe are the most likely scenarios?

This is part and parcel of the Slippery Slope the Brilliant Genius Lycanox claims doesn't exist.

You have to build the infrastructure first and lay the ground-work with laws like these. This law, like the Patriot Act and others like it will never go away. You'll be dragging them around like luggage until some breaking-point is reached in the future.

As far as the most likely scenario? Read 1984. Seriously. I started a thread on a Chinese-Japanese currency deal. That's a hint of the future a la 1984. I would say there will be some physical changes to the US, and as is par for the course, some Americans will embrace it, some won't give a damn, and some will see it as a threat and be very opposed to it. Those changes have to do with things like currency unions and Common Markets. Mexico will be at the center of most of the controversy.


Why is no one talking about this? I mean, not just here... there is hardly a blip about it on the MSM.

Why would they?

It's not in their nature. For every revolution that has every occurred on Earth, no more than 10% of the population has ever been involved. That includes your own propagandized War of Colonial Independence. The vast majority of Colonists, better than 70% did not support the Rebels. The majority supported the Tories, and the rest didn't care. Why? Because it didn't matter to them. Their life will not be immeasurably altered based on the seat of government being in London or New York.

What are the majority of Colonists? Farmers? Wrong. Go read the Census. They are share-croppers, indentured servants or farm laborers, which is not the same thing as owning the farm and being the actual farmer. So does it matter who is in power? No, because at the end of the day, they are still a share-cropper. This is no different than your typical Vietnamese. Didn't matter if the North or the South ran Saigon, because at the end of the day, your typical Vietnamese is still going to be squatting in a rice paddy with a water buffalo.

1989 Revolution in Romania, 10%. Same story. At the end of the day, your typical Romanian is still working in the factory in Vlaicu sewing t-shirts and jeans together for Americans, or making rail road cars. A change in government is not going to put your average Romanian in a Wi-Fi ready McMansion with a plasma TV and 5 cars, including His-n-Hers SUVs and Prada and Versace and Nike Air Jordans and Blackberries.

So the only people who get involved are those who stand to gain, those who stand to lose, and those with an ideological ax to grind, and then of course, your occasional revenge/vengeance kick and the dreamers. The majority fall into neither of those categories, and so they remain silent.

If you want them to move, then you have to push them out of their comfort-zone, and the only way to do that is to impose a hardship on them. That means you have to cut off their electricity, water, cable or cell communications. That's the only way to get them to pay attention. Granted I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in the classroom and in the field studying and practicing terrorism/counter-terrorism and insurgency/counter-insurgency in the military, and even took university classes on it (because they were required for my international security certificate), but it ain't rocket science, it's just common sense.


This all makes for a hell of a case for supporting a line item veto for the president.

Well, goddam, it's about fucking time you get on board. I've only been saying that for 25 years now (ever since Daniel Inouye-D Hawaii wanted to give $8 Million tax dollars to the French government to build private schools exclusively for Jewish children in France -- like what happened to the church/State thing and since when did France become a freaking 3rd World Country?).

[Blu-ray]

Well, goddam, it's about fucking time you get on board. I've only been saying that for 25 years now (ever since Daniel Inouye-D Hawaii wanted to give $8 Million tax dollars to the French government to build private schools exclusively for Jewish children in France -- like what happened to the church/State thing and since when did France become a freaking 3rd World Country?).

Bitch please. I've been wondering why a governor has it but the President doesn't since I learned about it back in HighSchool in the 80's.

[lycanox]

They'll be gone.



And freedom fighters won't?

And the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan because why? Because that is what I predicted? I did predict the US would lose in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's beside the point. It is because they cannot win. So, you're effectively saying a bunch of rag-heads with little education, no prior military experience and little training can hold off the US military, but highly educated people with prior military experience who are well-trained and organized cannot?

That's absurd.
The difference is however that the US army will now be fighting in their own country. From which they cant withdraw.
And the terrorists in those nations are not worse and possible even better trained than the average US militia.




And why would I be stupid enough to be engaging military units? If I have done my job properly, I should not be engaging military units, and the handful of times when and if I have to, it will be at my choosing at a location that I choose, and it will be a classic ambush, not an hasty assault and not a meeting engagement. And why would I be dumb enough to shoot at them? Fire is better. Fire is terrifying. Fire is frightening. Fire burns. Fire grotesquely maims and disfigures. Fire instills fear. Fire demoralizes. ...fire is the Devil's only friend...

If you don't know how to make fuel-air bombs (FABs), or flame throwers or napalm canisters, grenades and mortar rounds, then you should.

It's not so easy to shoot people when your clothes, skin and hair are on fire.

Burned soldiers will however also look good on propaganda videos.
I doubt you will do well with such tactic in an nation that has soldiers on a high pedal.

Not to mention that such tactics will not win the war. Infact, it would focus unnecessary attention on your efforts.



Some people understand the situation, while others like you continue to be clueless.



The US never trained for a full Soviet invasion. That would be stupid since the Soviets had no means of invading the US. I guess it would be totally pointless to mention that partisans, terrorists and insurgents operate differently the large military units.
Fact remains however that during the cold war, the US prepared for far worse scenarios.
So nobody knows how many targets need to be taken down. Which targets need to be taken down. Or even how to take them down.

While so far, the only real plot I have heard so far to overthrow the US government is something in the lines of.

Build army.
Kill US soldiers
????
Win war.

It really is not so simple.




It's a good thing people despise and ignore you.

Oh, yes, the brave Sir Lycanox, who nearly watched Rambo in its entirety, who almost saw a photo of a weapon on the internet, and who personally wet himself when he came within 3 meters of a GI Joe action doll with the the Kung-Fu grip.
Said the person with ramboisch ideas of overthrowing an government.


I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that that government can only propagandize through the media if it has the ability to broadcast, and if people have the ability to receive broadcast communications.

I didn't think so.

Yes, because an army will magically appear that will in one sweep magically take out the millions of targets that make the communication system of the US. Both on the internet, radio and television.

I doubt it.



Which don't apply to the US, because Germany is a nation-State and the US is not. That's Political Science 101. Look into it.
Who cares about that difference.

People will continue to support the government as long they still have a job and secure living.
During times of adversity, its safety over freedom in the end.





Like the Iraqis and Afghanis?
Again, bad comparison because the US was not fighting in its own homeland.

Not to mention both nations have in the end not been conquered by the terrorists. But are still controlled by an US installed regime.
The rebels have thus not won anything either.





It could be done in 6-12 months.
Even do your side lacks an real army, support of an majority of the people, supplies or even an realistic plan to win the war.

Best estimate would be years of preparations.

[Confuzion]

And freedom fighters won't?Depends on the situation, however within the USA (or any other given "western hemisphere" country) I give them little chance as the largest part of the populace have been turned into sheep.


And the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan because why? Because that is what I predicted?A toddler could have predicted that. Nothing special about it.

I did predict the US would lose in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's beside the point. It is because they cannot win.They specialize in destroying things, not winning wars.

So, you're effectively saying a bunch of rag-heads with little education, no prior military experience and little training can hold off the US military, but highly educated people with prior military experience who are well-trained and organized cannot?Those rag-heads have a life time of war behind them. Some of those rag-heads grew up with constant warfare around them. These people have received teaching from the best mentor: experience. Of course they lack tactical training, of course they lack strategic training... or so you think.

On top of that: you think that high education translates in combat effectiveness?
You think military experience translates in combat effectiveness?
You think training translates in combat effectiveness?
You think just any type of organization is sufficient in order to organize military action?
It's safe to conclude now... You are an idiot, without any doubt.

The US army is incapable of dealing with guerrilla tactics. In both Iraq and Afghanistan they were (eventually) dealing with guerrilla warfare. On top of that the US army seems to specialize in destroying things and not winning wars. What do you expect? OF COURSE THEY GET KICKED OUT. They aren't busy with winning hearts and minds, they are busy making sure everybody hates them with a passion. Result is obvious and can be figured out by a toddler.


That's absurd.Problem in the US is (just like any other "Western hemisphere" country) that everybody has been lulled to sleep. WHERE DO YOU EXPECT YOUR FREEDOM FIGHTERS TO COME FROM?!? Now, these people are not interested in your call to arms. They are perfectly content watching TV, playing scrabble and consuming coffee.


And why would I be stupid enough to be engaging military units?To protect somebody you love, to prevent grave injustice, to obtain the supplies you need, to get somewhere you want to go, to protect your home.

If I have done my job properly,...reading all this, you haven't.

...I should not be engaging military units,...Chances are they'll cheerfully ignore you unless you become a big enough nuisance or they want something of you.

...and the handful of times when and if I have to, it will be at my choosing at a location that I choose,...Translation: hit&run: guerila tactics, which need extensive societal support.... Oh, are you (a "terrorist" at that point) receiving any of that?

...and it will be a classic ambush, not an hasty assault and not a meeting engagement...What did I say again about overconfidence?

<snip rant about bombs>Bomb squad work.


Some people understand the situation, while others like you continue to be clueless.Bewildering how dumb you really are... or are you cherry picking your facts in order to accommodate your aggression? Now remember; a half truth is a whole lie.


...Granted I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in the classroom and in the field studying and practicing terrorism/counter-terrorism and insurgency/counter-insurgency in the military, and even took university classes on it (because they were required for my international security certificate), but it ain't rocket science, it's just common sense.Let me guess: you're out of a job and failed miserably at that certificate? Reasons for that conclusion: you underestimate opposition, poor situational insight, lack of insight in military organization... the list goes on. It just took me a look at one post of you to figure that out... or are you deliberately feigning incompetence?

[JenaS62]

Obama's signing statement was all smoke and mirrors. It was Obama who requested that the exception for American Citizens be removed from the bill.


"Obama issued a “signing statement” with the bill, which – at first blush – appears to say he won’t indefinitely detain Americans. Specifically, Obama wrote:

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.

But a closer reading shows that the signing statement is just smoke and mirrors.

Specifically, it was Obama - not Congress – who originally requested that an exception for American citizens be removed from the bill. As such, his professed reluctance is wholly disingenuous.

Moreover, Obama signed a bill which would allow future presidents to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and his signing statement in no way limits their power to run roughshod over our rights.

As the ACLU notes:

The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/obama-rings-in-the-new-year-by-signing-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans.html

[Nu Kua]

Sharing an excerpt from a column by Naomi Wolf (http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/),
How Congress Is Signing It's Own Arrest Warrants With The NDAA Citizen Arrest bill


...Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class...

Can anybody name one? I don't think I can.


...This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.

Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini’s former colleagues in Parliament — as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler’s Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the ‘other.’ Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin’s Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor....

I hadn't even thought of it that way.

[Blu-ray]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff6/DVANDERM/HzFV6.jpg

[Confuzion]

Oh, I'd like to make one additional note:

The laws of a country (any given country) often reflect the people there. So, if you take a careful look at the laws of the USA, are they currently designed to fuck it's people over?

If you say yes, that means nearly the entire populace of the USA believes that fucking others over is the way to go.

If you say no, then please explain why the populace tolerates being manipulated and fucked over by their government and large corporations?

In addition to that, people have a tendency to adapt to the laws they have to deal with. That's why a transition from freedom to oppression is a slow one. The people need to find the slight oppression normal before applying more and more oppression. The people in power know this.

You have been on this road for years now and nobody did a thing. Nobody said a thing. Now you find it normal to fuck others over and expect others to rescue you when you get fucked over?!?

Freedom comes with responsibility; clearly you are not responsible, so you do not deserve freedom.

And earlier (a reply to Ningishiddza) I made a mistake in my reply. While potential combat effectiveness does increase with training, knowledge and experience; it remains to be seen whether somebody is actually effective in combat. My error and I recognize that.

[Lillith]

The difference is however that the US army will now be fighting in their own country. From which they cant withdraw.
And the terrorists in those nations are not worse and possible even better trained than the average US militia.



In either case, civil war in this country would engage legions of men who have in one way or another, equal military training. VETERANS. Now civilians and potential for being so called terrorists. No longer would they be wearing uniforms or under obligation to their govt, They will protect their children and families as a priority.

As to state and local cops. Meh. They didnt sign up for civil war. Most have the mentality to do their eight and hit the gate. Besides, ever notice the physical condition of most of them? They'd be lucky to run 1/4 mile without having a heart attack.

[Lillith]

Oh, I'd like to make one additional note:

You have been on this road for years now and nobody did a thing. Nobody said a thing. Now you find it normal to fuck others over and expect others to rescue you when you get fucked over?!?

Freedom comes with responsibility; clearly you are not responsible, so you do not deserve freedom.

And earlier (a reply to Ningishiddza) I made a mistake in my reply. While potential combat effectiveness does increase with training, knowledge and experience; it remains to be seen whether somebody is actually effective in combat. My error and I recognize that.


Give me few hours - while I draft a petition to Prime Minister Mark Rutte, besieging you, him and the people of the Netherlands to come save the USA.

We would expect a speedy response based on...which historical event where you once before saved our country?

You, if from the Netherlands have some fuckig nerve to post what you did. American and Canadian men died to save your countries ass from the Germans during WWII

[Confuzion]

Give me few hours - while I draft a petition to Prime Minister Mark Rutte, besieging you, him and the people of the Netherlands to come save the USA.That's a first step, albeit a useless one. But what is my government going to do? Send in 2300 soldiers to repair your crumbling infrastructure only to have to return 30 years later to repair it again? Mop up all those corrupt politicians, police officers, lawyers, economists, etc. only to have them replaced by more corrupt people? That whole society is broken and you refuse to see it.

If you wish to petition anybody, you'd do better to petition the French Parliament... remember where the statue of liberty came from? Perhaps somebody else is more deserving of it now (Iceland, for example). A disappearing statue of liberty would probably wake the American people up.

No, we are not able to save you from your own corruption and ignorance. The only ones who can do that are you yourselves.


We would expect a speedy response based on...which historical event where you once before saved our country?We armed you during your own independence war. We eventually went to war over this with Great Britain. In part you owe your independence to the Netherlands (and we payed dearly for persisting to help you), so stop spewing crap and start studying world history.

You might notice things aren't as simple as you want to make them. You might also learn a lot about WW2 (especially how the USA got involved is interesting, as what you have been told by the history books is a half truth (and thus a whole lie)).

You, if from the Netherlands have some fuckig nerve to post what you did.Tisk, tisk. You Americans value freedom of speech, don't you? Well, here it is. Does it inconvenience you? Does the cold, hard truth inconvenience you? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You should listen to the message and not shoot the messenger.

American and Canadian men died to save your countries ass from the Germans during WWII.As did the British and Dutch...

Dutch men died in order to get you your weapons so you could get your independence. Of course, that's something you conveniently forget.

[Blu-ray]

That's a first step, albeit a useless one. But what is my government going to do? Send in 2300 soldiers to repair your crumbling infrastructure only to have to return 30 years later to repair it again? Mop up all those corrupt politicians, police officers, lawyers, economists, etc. only to have them replaced by more corrupt people? That whole society is broken and you refuse to see it.

If you wish to petition anybody, you'd do better to petition the French Parliament... remember where the statue of liberty came from? Perhaps somebody else is more deserving of it now (Iceland, for example). A disappearing statue of liberty would probably wake the American people up.

No, we are not able to save you from your own corruption and ignorance. The only ones who can do that are you yourselves.

We armed you during your own independence war. We eventually went to war over this with Great Britain. In part you owe your independence to the Netherlands (and we payed dearly for persisting to help you), so stop spewing crap and start studying world history.

You might notice things aren't as simple as you want to make them. You might also learn a lot about WW2 (especially how the USA got involved is interesting, as what you have been told by the history books is a half truth (and thus a whole lie)).
Tisk, tisk. You Americans value freedom of speech, don't you? Well, here it is. Does it inconvenience you? Does the cold, hard truth inconvenience you? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You should listen to the message and not shoot the messenger.
As did the British and Dutch...

Dutch men died in order to get you your weapons so you could get your independence. Of course, that's something you conveniently forget.

Bravo! Bravo!

[lycanox]

Give me few hours - while I draft a petition to Prime Minister Mark Rutte, besieging you, him and the people of the Netherlands to come save the USA.

We would expect a speedy response based on...which historical event where you once before saved our country?

You, if from the Netherlands have some fuckig nerve to post what you did. American and Canadian men died to save your countries ass from the Germans during WWII
You know, It may help to open an history book before you rant.


First of all. The dutch were one of the founders of the colonies that later became the US.
The original US thus owns their existence for a large part to the dutch. With as most notable example, New York.

The dutch aided the English in their fight against Spain. Which goal was to conquer England to stop the colonization of the new world.
And kept the Spanish occupied in europe for nearly 100 years. Preventing them from focusing elsewhere.
So we share in the thanks that you are not living in the United Catholic States of Spain over there. If something like the US even existed in such alternative scenario.

We provided aid during the war for independence and were among the first to acknowledge the US as an nation.
An act for which we ended up in war with the UK.

The Dutch played a large role in the land purchases from the French. Which not only expanded US territory. But prevented an war.

Not to mention that the dutch aided the US in various wars. Like Korea and Afghanistan.

So yes, we did play an relative large role in the existence of the US.
And the US still has a great deal of dutch heritage in its culture. Like the dollar and Santa Claus.

[Blu-ray]

You know, It may help to open an history book before you rant.

First of all. The dutch were one of the founders of the colonies that later became the US.
The original 15 states thus own their existence for a part to the dutch. With as most notable example, New York.

The dutch aided the English in their fight against Spain. Which goal was to conquer England to stop the colonization of the new world.
So we share in the thanks that you are not living in the United Catholic States of Spain over there. If something like the US even existed in such alternative scenario.

We provided aid during the war for independence and were among the first to acknowledge the US as an nation.
And act for which we ended in war with the UK.

The Dutch played a large role in the land purchase from the French.

Not to mention that the dutch aided the US in various wars. Like Korea and Afghanistan.

So yes, we did play an relative large role in the existence of the US.
And the US still has a great deal of dutch heritage in its culture.

Yes... Yes... Yes!

This is totally correct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/New_Netherland.PNG

[Lillith]

That's a first step, albeit a useless one. But what is my government going to do? Send in 2300 soldiers to repair your crumbling infrastructure only to have to return 30 years later to repair it again? Mop up all those corrupt politicians, police officers, lawyers, economists, etc. only to have them replaced by more corrupt people? That whole society is broken and you refuse to see it.

If you wish to petition anybody, you'd do better to petition the French Parliament... remember where the statue of liberty came from? Perhaps somebody else is more deserving of it now (Iceland, for example). A disappearing statue of liberty would probably wake the American people up.

No, we are not able to save you from your own corruption and ignorance. The only ones who can do that are you yourselves.

We armed you during your own independence war. We eventually went to war over this with Great Britain. In part you owe your independence to the Netherlands (and we payed dearly for persisting to help you), so stop spewing crap and start studying world history.

You might notice things aren't as simple as you want to make them. You might also learn a lot about WW2 (especially how the USA got involved is interesting, as what you have been told by the history books is a half truth (and thus a whole lie)).
Tisk, tisk. You Americans value freedom of speech, don't you? Well, here it is. Does it inconvenience you? Does the cold, hard truth inconvenience you? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You should listen to the message and not shoot the messenger.
As did the British and Dutch...

Dutch men died in order to get you your weapons so you could get your independence. Of course, that's something you conveniently forget.

Well you told me off good. And I deserved it. Because I didn't study the history that far back. And for jumping the gun in ignorance I apologize.

I do suppose, the frustration and beligerence (mine) comes from the broad brush stroke Americans enmasse are painted with... it should be obvious to you that those of us here on this board who actively discover, disclose, openly support and encourage the sharing of information, in general do NOT represent MOST Americans - which you can and should be able to discern for yourself.

Yet people like you and Ning snarl at us with contempt.

You really have no right to make such a general statement to those of us posting, nukua, anarch, etc that WE do not deserve Freedom. The greater liklihood is that we'd be the first ones to sign up for militia. Thats not to say that there ARE not Americans who would turn us in at the drop of a hat. WE have as much to fear from them as the govt. Maybe they dont deserve freedom but I'd like to believe otherwise.

And Yes, I would be the first to agree about what most of the world sees, thinks and believes about our govt is true. We, here, agree. And yet there exist another WE across the nation who number in the millions who are fed up as well, have been for a long time, the WE who are frustrated and fully recognize the corruption and deciet of our government. OWS exists because people are fed up and expressing their desperation and disgust.

Short of a full fledged bitter and violent Revolution - its unknown exactly what to do about it.

[Blu-ray]

Sharing an excerpt from a column by Naomi Wolf (http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/),
How Congress Is Signing It's Own Arrest Warrants With The NDAA Citizen Arrest bill



Can anybody name one? I don't think I can.



I hadn't even thought of it that way.

I like the part about the torture. Half those that are advocating for the use of such will change their minds once they've been tortured themselves. The other half, like myself, will be begging for more. ::tweaks nipples:: mmmmmmmmmmm

[Nu Kua]

I do not mean to do little but pepper this thread with Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/08/the_evils_of_indefinite_detention_and_those_wantin g_to_de_prioritze_them/singleton/) excerpts, but every time I read his work I learn something new, or have something else to consider, and it makes me want to share it with you all too.

This particular article starts off with a recap of the case of Lakhdar Boumediene (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)- ya gotta read that op-ed. Then he gets into the politics of it- how the issue is being discouraged from discussion among Democrats because this is an election year, with the bogus argument that it detracts from the issues that minorities feel are important... all the while when it is in fact minorities among us who do have the most to fear, as history shows us, as history repeats itself even as I bang away on this keyboard, my coffee growing cold and bitter, much like the collective hearts of people who purposely ignore these very real and serious threats to our freedom to live as human beings because it is an election year, and they really want their team to WIN!!!.

The evil of indefinite detention and those wanting to de-prioritize it


...(4) As we head into Election Year, there is an increasingly common, bizarre and self-evidently repellent tactic being employed by some Democratic partisans against those of us who insist that issues like indefinite detention (along with ongoing killing of civilians in the Muslim world) merit high priority. The argument is that to place emphasis on such issues is to harm President Obama (because he’s responsible for indefinite detention, substantial civilian deaths, and war-risking aggression (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-ron-paul-is-right-and-president-obama-is-wrong-about-iran.html)) while helping competing candidates (such as Gary Johnson or Ron Paul) who vehemently oppose such policies. Thus, so goes this reasoning, to demand that issues like indefinite detention and civilian deaths be prioritized in assessing the presidential race is to subordinate the importance of other issues such as abortion, gay equality, and domestic civil rights enforcement on which Obama and the Democrats are better. Many of these commentators strongly imply, or now even outright state, that only white males are willing to argue for such a prioritization scheme because the de-prioritized issues do not affect them. See here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left) (Megan Carpentier), here (http://www.thenation.com/article/165440/ron-pauls-strange-bedfellows) (Katha Pollitt) and here (http://twitter.com/#!/dylanmatt/status/153186103652917248) (Dylan Matthews) as three of many examples of this grotesque accusatory innuendo.

There are numerous glaring flaws with this divisive tactic. For one, it relies on a full-scale, deliberate distortion of the argument being made (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left?commentpage=1#comment-14017789); demanding that issues like indefinite detention, civilian deaths and aggressive war be given high priority in the presidential race does not remotely advocate (http://coreyrobin.com/2012/01/03/ron-paul-has-two-problems-one-is-his-the-other-is-ours/) the de-prioritization of any other issues. For another, many women (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/if-voters-cared-about-liberty-ron-paul-would-be-the-frontrunner/250880/) and ethnic (https://twitter.com/#!/ZaidJilani/status/149982116183150593) and racial minorities (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/eavesdrop-on-the-webs-most-interesting-ron-paul-debate/250725/) – as well as gay Americans — are making (https://twitter.com/#!/ZaidJilani/status/150380209714118656) similar arguments (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Muslims-for-Ron-Paul-2012/220581561289003) about the need for these issues to receive substantial attention in the election.

More important, it’s irrational in the extreme to argue that self-interest or “privilege” would cause someone to want to prioritize issues like indefinite detention and civilian causalities given that the civil liberties and anti-war advocates being so accused are extremely unlikely themselves to be affected by the abuses they protest. For the most part, it isn’t white males being indefinitely detained, rendered, and having their houses and cars exploded with drones — the victims of those policies are people like Boumediene, or Gulet Mohamed (http://www.salon.com/2011/01/11/mohamed_4/), or Jose Padill (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/true-tyranny-defined-bush-admin-v-jose.html)a, or Awal Gul (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/04/guantanamo_16/), or Sami al-Haj (http://www.salon.com/2007/11/05/ellison/), or Binyam Mohamed (http://www.salon.com/2009/02/19/exceptionalism_2/), or Afghan villagers (http://www.salon.com/2010/04/05/afghanistan_34/), or Pakistani families (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/), or Yemeni teenagers (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/).

Put another way, when you spend the vast bulk of your time working against the injustices imposed almost exclusively on minorities and the marginalized — as anyone who works on these war and civil liberties issues by definition does — it’s reprehensible for someone to deploy these sorts of accusatory tactics, all in service of the shallow goal of partisan loyalty enforcement. Those who were actually driven primarily by privileged self-interest would want to de-prioritize these issues in a presidential campaign, not insist on their vital importance...

[Ningishiddza]

Maybe you'll be deported before being detained:

H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act

10/12/2011--Introduced.
Enemy Expatriation Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality. Defines "hostilities" as any conflict subject to the laws of war.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166&tab=summary

S.1698
Latest Title: Enemy Expatriation Act

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.1698:

Original [Current] US Code is here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html


I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial. This certainly must be questioned by American citizens. The way these defense obsessed Republicans think, our rights are always in danger of being taken away.

[Emphasis Mine]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/

I'm real sorry about your luck.

[Anarch]

Either way matters little. The democratic Republican form of government that once functioned in the USA is dissolved. Gone. We couldn't keep it.

IN its place is a rotating dictatorship or elite political families.

[Ningishiddza]

Yet people like you and Ning snarl at us with contempt.

Then what are you doing here? Are you going to talk about it your entire life?


You really have no right to make such a general statement to those of us posting, nukua, anarch, etc that WE do not deserve Freedom. The greater liklihood is that we'd be the first ones to sign up for militia. Thats not to say that there ARE not Americans who would turn us in at the drop of a hat. WE have as much to fear from them as the govt. Maybe they dont deserve freedom but I'd like to believe otherwise.

I use the word "you" in the sense of "you guys" or "you Americans" (like you Havards -- only different). Everyone knows that. It's like voi in Romanian. I've only been doing that for 7 fucking years now.




And Yes, I would be the first to agree about what most of the world sees, thinks and believes about our govt is true. We, here, agree. And yet there exist another WE across the nation who number in the millions who are fed up as well, have been for a long time, the WE who are frustrated and fully recognize the corruption and deciet of our government.

Your government really isn't the problem, it's the people who run your government.

I put on a uniform, grabbed a weapon, and terrorized people in Honduras. And for what? For you? For America? No, for the 60-odd wealthy families that have run your country for a little over 100 years now.

So I fucked over Honduran villagers for that. For Chiquita and National Sugar and the jackasses who run them, and the 60 odd power families that own stocks in them (and others). And I thought I was doing right for America. I wasn't. It didn't really have much to do with America at all. And I have to live with that every day...for the rest of my life. So, yeah, I'm just a tad bitter. Betrayed by my government. Misused as an instrument of war by wealthy people who think they are something fucking special. And then I was stupid enough to fall for it. Not once, but three times (Panama, Honduras and Iraq).

So you can imagine a little while ago while I'm perusing Wikileaks and see that Obama illegally over threw the Honduran government in July 2009 that I was taken aback. I was there 20 years ago. Left June 15, and got back to Ft Thomas October 10 (one of the first in with the advance party and last out). So, yeah, I damn near drank a whole bottle of Glenfiddich that night.


OWS exists because people are fed up and expressing their desperation and disgust.

That is not why OWS exists and they are expressing their desperation and disgust at the wrong people. They need to be directing it at the 60-odd wealthy money families that run the USA.


Short of a full fledged bitter and violent Revolution - its unknown exactly what to do about it.

Violent Revolution. I would love to tell you that you could wave a magic wand, or sing Kum-ba-ya, or chant, or click your heels together three times and it would all go away, but that is not reality. These laws that encompass the "Intolerable Acts" have been passed, and they will not be repealed, except through forceful coercion or brute force. The very nature of government, and of bureaucracy, is to constantly strengthen its position and expand its control. It's just like a Terminator: "Listen, and understand! That Government is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!"

Study your history, and the history of every country. You will not effect the change you want without violence. And please, no one gag me and say "Ghandi." Ghandi was a front-man. Yes, he was peaceful, but his followers were extraordinarily violent. Ghandi was smart. He drew attention and focus away from his violent followers and the, um, "atrocities" they committed onto him. So the focus is on a peaceful man, and not his violent followers. Great strategy, no doubt about it.

And no one be stupid enough to say MLK. We ain't talking about riding in the front of the bus or using the same water fountain. We're talking about wresting power from 60+ very wealthy powerful families who are entrenched in your government and they ain't gonna give it up until you pry it from their cold dead hands.


In either case, civil war in this country would engage legions of men....

No it wouldn't. Civil War is a very generic term. A civil war is simply any internal conflict, which distinguishes it from external multi-State, regional or world conflicts.

There are five kinds of civil wars:

1] Revolutionary -- where you see to overthrow a government and establish a new one;

2] Colonial Independence -- where a colony seeks independence from its colonial master;

3] Cultural Independence -- where you have a group of people united by language, by religion, by ethnicity or some other aspect of culture seek autonomy or self-determination;

4] Provincial Independence -- that would be a Province, state or region seeking Independence from a federation, confederation or unitary government, like Texas seeking independence, or the New England States seeking independence. Quebec would be a combination of Cultural and Provincial Independence.

5] War of Succession -- these are similar to Revolutionary Wars, except the goal is not to overthrow the government, rather the goal is to overthrew a political party or ruling clan/dynasty. What you saw in Jericho would be an example of a War of Succession, where you had 6 governments, and then either through diplomacy or force, you were left with the ASA, USA and Texas.

With the except of the US Civil War, which was technically a multi-State external conflict, none ever had more than 10% support. Generally, it's 45% (the Status Quo seekers), 35% (the "I-don't-give-a-damn-just-let-me-watch-my-reality-shows"), 10% (Passive Supporters) and 10% (Active Supporters).

So you need 30 Million Americans? Nope. The US is not a nation. Nations are homogenous. The US is a country because it is heterogeneous. The US is also a federation.

That means you can win with <50,000 active supporters.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i134/ningishiddza/AST.jpg

Sorry I don't have anything else. This was a long time ago, part of a PowerPoint Presentation I used to give to "patriot groups." The rest of the presentation is more detailed, but this will suffice.

The key is the Political Wing. You have to have a legitimate political party. Since you are in a federation, you could have 1 to 50 political parties (one for each State or maybe 8-9 by region). The Political Wing is how you funnel money to your operations. It's also how you build your war chest. Your political leaders run for local offices at first, then State, the federal. These people are clean, meaning they are beyond reproach. Why? I already said why half a dozen times. What happened when staff members came forward about the illegal radiation experiments at General Hospital? The government attacked them: this one's an alcoholic, this one didn't pay their taxes, this one owes parking tickets, and when the nurses came forward, what happened? The nurses are sluts and whores from broken homes with broken marriages and they're home-wreckers and prescription drug users who hop from bed-to-bed-to-bed.

Those people have to be totally vetted. No affairs, no illegitimate children, no giving up children for adoption, no abortions, no claims of racial/sexual harassment, no divorce, no bankruptcies, no illegal business dealings, no drugs, no gambling of any kind (legal or not), min 725 credit score, no speeding tickets, no parking tickets, no tax fraud, no job terminations, no nothing. Squeaky clean so that the government cannot use the media to impugn their character or reputation.

And no ties to insurgent activity. You communicate between the political and military faction using non-electronic methods of communications (which cannot be hacked or broken).

Political means exactly that: Political. Social, economic, ideological and other issues are off the table. Abortion, healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, GLBT, pooper scooper laws, economic rights, unions, illegal immigrants etc etc etc are something you totally ignore.

Political issues only: Separation of Corporation and State; repeal of the "Intolerable Acts" (Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA etc etc), demilitarization of police, bars against using federal troops, spies, law enforcement etc against US Citizens; Separation of Media and State; and things like that.

Why? History. Look at the number of movements throughout history that fractured and then were destroyed because of petty social, ideological or economic issues. What's more important, abortion, or being indefinitely detained and then executed without a trial? Your goal is to build a consensus and the most effective way to do that is to keep it simple. You worked so hard to win the hearts and minds of 100 Million people who now actively support you, and then in a moment of great stupidity, you make some silly-ass comment on unions and you just lost 50 Million supporters.

Political issues only. Short plank. Maybe 6-10 issues.

In addition to a Political Wing, you have a Legal Wing with that. Why? Money laundering. Get it?

You're one of our financial supporters, and I'm a lawyer. You come to me with $10,000 and say you need a contract reviewed (Wink!Wink!), I put the money in my retainer account, give you the contract back, keep $500 and then use the other $9,500 to buy plastic explosives, weapons, ammo, Stinger missiles etc etc.

See?

I know that because I wired a client once and sat in my surveillance van and recorded an attorney explaining exactly in great detail how they launder money to bribe judges and to make illegal campaign contributions to judges and council members. Billionaire Carl Lindner (who is dead! Hooray! Hooray! Happy, Happy, Joy Joy! because he is one of the Chiquita mother fuckers that sent me to Honduras -- too bad there is no Hell for him to rot in) was in this illegal bull shit as well. I think I mentioned I was on TV for a week straight, because Corky and Danny, who worked for WCPO I=Team got fired by Lindner because they got too close in their journalistic investigation. Danny went to Pittsburgh, but Corky was still here at WLWT. He was in tears. You can't imagine how it must be to know that you are right, but not have any evidence, and then someone walks in and hands you an audio tape with all the evidence you need. Oh, and here's some bull shit; that attorney did not get disbarred. Instead, she agreed to voluntary not practice law in lieu of being disbarred. So fucking much for being an Officer of the Court.

Anyway, the Legal Wing is not just to launder money, but it also uses that money to defend your people and supporters (assuming they don't get "disappeared").

Your Tacit Supporters are "Peters." They will deny you in public, but in private, they support you and most likely would do nothing to harm you (unless their arm was twisted).

The General Population consists of Vietnamese and the Status Quo. Your typical Vietnamese didn't give a goddam hoot about who ran Saigon. All they cared about was have a water buffalo and a rice paddy to squat in. That's going to be about 100 Million Americans. They don't give a flying fuck about what you're doing, all they want to do is watch the reality show with the teenage mothers.

The Status Quo are those people who have either wealth or power/authority or both and they ain't giving it up. You can't really do much about the Status Quo, but the Vietnamese, you can really rock their world by moving them out of their "Comfort Zone" and forcing them to take sides. It don't matter which side they choose, as long as they choose one.

How can I get 35% of Afghans out of their "Comfort Zone" en masse? I can't, because there is nothing to link them together. They don't have electricity, telephones, TV/cable or anything else.

But in less than 72 hours, I can move 150 Million Americans out of their "Comfort Zone" en masse and have them stark raving mad.

I just one guy, but with a .22 caliber rifle, a scope, and 4 hours of walking around and I can take away the TV and cable of about 3 Million people. Sure, there will be a few who have satellite dishes, but the vast majority will not have any TV communications whatsoever. And that's good. Why? MSM can't work their magic if there's no TV. You don't think you will have grabbed the attention of a few million people with a stunt like that?

I guess my point is that an insurgency has to be tailored to not only a geographical area, rather it has to be tailored to impact the socio-economic status of people as well.

How does the government operate? On money, collecting tax revenues. Cut off the revenues. Can't be done? Oh, yes it can. I can do that with 8-12 people in less than 72 hours.

I don't know what you're going on about veterans and troops and such. If you're engaged in combat within the first 90 days, then your methodology is wrong; your planning is wrong; your tactics are wrong; your strategy is wrong; and everything you're doing is wrong.

If I'm running the show, then within 90 days, the unemployment rate is 50%, and half of the country has no electricity or communications, and a good chunk of the critical infrastructure for transportation and communication are destroyed.

And that's just with 8-12 motivated people.

Imagine what I could do with 100 people, or 1,000 or even 10,000.


You have been on this road for years now and nobody did a thing. Nobody said a thing. Now you find it normal to fuck others over and expect others to rescue you when you get fucked over?!?

I've mentioned that before with respect to Social Security (and Medicare).

Americans sat around like cows chewing cud watching their government blow every penny in the OASI/OADI and HI Trust Funds, and now the only way to get that money back is through tax increases or cutting spending without cutting the budget. and by also cutting benefits.

So if they do away with Social Security and Medicare then great. Maybe Americans will learn a very difficult lesson the hard way. They can think about their stupidity while sleeping under a bridge or roaming the streets as a bag-lady infected with diseases and infested with sores oozing pus eaten by maggots.

Serves them right.


Freedom comes with responsibility; clearly you are not responsible, so you do not deserve freedom.

That parallels my saying that all forms of democracy require 100% vigilance 100% of the time.

Americans think that being in a voting booth for 5 minutes once every 4 years suffices for their due diligence and obligations as an American citizen.

Watch TV or participate in their government. Well, they just couldn't make a hard choice like that.

Plato was right. All forms of democracy ultimately fail because people are stupid. I guess it's just in their nature. Best case scenario is a Darwin Moment.


While potential combat effectiveness does increase with training, knowledge and experience; it remains to be seen whether somebody is actually effective in combat. My error and I recognize that.

Combat is irrelevant. You've been watching way too many films or something.

I opened my big mouth once, and LTG Morelli sent me to the National Training Center. I was supposed to take 42 troops and defeat an OPFOR airborne battalion. It's like 9 on 1. It was ugly at first, but I learned, and when I realized that using terrorist/insurgent tactics was more effective, I got better, and then when I realized that having 4 groups operate with a loosely connected plan instead of independently, I got even better. It only took me a few days to render an airborne battalion combat ineffective.

But if I do my job right, then the military will be so spread out in a vain attempt to protect infrastructure assets, that the biggest units I'd ever see would be a squad or a platoon.

So, I don't know what you're going on about. In the first 90 days, I will have fired 1,000 or more rounds, and never one round aimed at a person, and not one single civilian casualty. My people can run around with a little .22 caliber and shoot out transformers and put a few thousand homes without power. And then when Duck Energy comes round to fix it, they'll shoot out the tires on the repair vehicle. And when the driver and crew panics and runs away, they'll a Molotov Cocktail at the truck and destroy it. They'll be setting fires to buildings everywhere. And shooting out the tires on fire trucks, and then when the firemen run away in fear, they'll destroy the fire truck. In the US, you can wage war and destroy the US without ever killing a person.

But there will be $250 Billion to $1 TRILLION in damage and economic/financial losses. And those losses will continue to mount day after day after day, until their is capitulation. Sure, it might have to eventually escalate to human violence, but only against those elected official who will not support the US Constitution. The US military cannot guard every freaking city, town and village in the US.

If you want to punish a gambler, would you take away his beer? No, you take away his money.

If you want to punish an alcoholic, do you punish him by not letting him play the lotto or eat carrots and potatoes? No, you punish him by taking away his alcohol.

I get the distinct impression you people ain't that bright.

So be it. Enjoy your indefinite detention as a non-citizen (and you can thank Senator Joe Loserman for that).

[Nu Kua]

Anyway...
Ron Paul has proposed a bill to repeal the indefinite detention provision.

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/ron-paul-lindsey-graham-ndaa-detention-american-citizens_n_1213339.html) reports:


On Wednesday, GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) urged his congressional colleagues (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/204811-ron-paul-slams-sen-graham-calls-on-house-to-repeal-detainee-language) to support legislation that would repeal a clause of the National Defense Authorization Act that could allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/guantanamo-bay-10th-anniversary-indefinite-detention-american-citizens_n_1197547.html), simultaneously criticizing Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for his past comments on detainees.

In a break from his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Paul took to the House floor to speak out against the NDAA's Section 1021 (http://democrats.rules.house.gov/112/text/112_hr1540conf_txt.pdf), which allows the government to detain without trial individuals who have "substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States." Paul and other opponents of the section's language fear that the legislation could lead to Americans being detained without due process.

Section 1021, Paul said Wednesday, "provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely."

Paul continued, "Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One senator even said, about American citizens being picked up under this section of the NDAA, 'When they say 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'" ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg69QM1yXQQ

*edit to add

Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_admin)

Journalist Chris Hedges Sues Obama Admin over Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Approved in NDAA


Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges has filed suit against President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Sections of the bill are written so broadly that critics say they could encompass journalists who report on terror-related issues, such as Hedges, for supporting enemy forces. "It’s clearly unconstitutional," Hedges says of the bill. "It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing." We speak with Hedges, now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute and former New York Times foreign correspondent who was part of a team of reporters that was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. We are also joined by Hedges’ attorney Carl Mayer, who filed the litigation on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ...

Newscast here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoqLT5yqE1k).

[Blu-ray]

http://ironboltbruce.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/national_defense_authorization_act_2012.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xf3YgaZBcEA/TtreVpbLThI/AAAAAAAA2Wg/A2c8Kq1vwVM/s1600/martial-law-fascism-poster.jpg

[Nu Kua]

This is a picture I was posting shortly after President Obama was elected. As you can see, he is repairing the Constitution.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/oceanfloats/Funny%20Pics/5684_image.gif









:Llol: Yeah, right! Oh, the unintentional innuendo!

[Nu Kua]

Indefinite Detention Ban written out of NDAA

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/politics/congressional-committee-is-said-to-drop-ban-on-indefinite-detention-of-citizens.html)


Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations. ...

It's up for a vote this week.


...The White House has threatened to veto the bill over several provisions that the conference committee kept. But it was not clear whether President Obama will do so; in previous years he made similar threats only to sign it anyway, in part because lawmakers can attach identical provisions to spending bills that are difficult to veto. ...

Think he'll veto it this time, for real? :vbroll:

[Nu Kua]

Well, it happened. Congress has affirmed the rights of the People to take the 5th amendment and go fuck themselves with it.

Adam Serwer, Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/final-defense-bill-nixes-ban-indefinite-detention-us-citizens):
Defense Bill Nixes Ban on Indefinite Detention for US Citizens


In a closed-door negotiation, top Republican and Democratic lawmakers have killed a ban on detaining American citizens without trial.

The Senate approved the ban, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/congress-indefinite-detention-ndaa), as an amendment to the 2013 defense spending bill in a vote last month. But once the House and Senate met to negotiate the differences between their versions of the bill, the ban was scrapped.

Of the four main negotiators on the defense bill, only one of the Democrats, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), opposes domestic indefinite detention of Americans. The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans without charge or trial is constitutional, and only voted for the Feinstein amendment because he and some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate convinced themselves through a convoluted legal rationale (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/congress-outlawed-indefinite-detention-or-did-they) that Feinstein's proposal didn't actually ban the practice. Both of the main Republican negotiators, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) believe it's constitutional to lock up American citizens suspected of terrorism without ever proving they're guilty....


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[LucySmith]

its shape up or ship out,.....

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zPiQgUQt3E

[Ningishiddza]

Well, it happened. Congress has affirmed the rights of the People to take the 5th amendment and go fuck themselves with it.

No shit. Got about 3 more pieces of the puzzle, then you can all kiss your asses goodbye (it'll be a few years). In case you forgot, Congress doesn't work for you.

[Nu Kua]

No kidding, Beautiful? You don't say! :vbroll:

If you wanted to say something useful, why didn't you remind me the 6th Amendment is also kaput? I thought of that tonight while watching a play and could hardly wait to get home to add it to this post.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The 8th Amendment is pretty much a joke.


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Beginning with the Patriot Acts, and then on into FISA, we can consider the Fourth Amendment pretty much annihilated.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The First Amendment- Adios!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So what do we have left?

The Second Amendment, the Third, the Seventh, the Ninth, the Tenth, but actually the Ninth is arguable, isn't it? Well wait a minute, so is the Tenth.