Preventative/Prolonged Detention Program

***Nu Kua*** · Jun 4th, 2009 12:35 PM

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

For more information, see Salon's very well sourced and researched work,
Facts and Myths About Obama's Preventative Detention Program

***Nasik*** · Jun 4th, 2009 12:44 PM

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*** · Jun 4th, 2009 1:04 PM

Originally Posted by Freaked out

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*** · Jun 4th, 2009 2:03 PM

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

SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT ASSHOLE!

***BLOODLINES*** · Jun 4th, 2009 2:17 PM

Originally Posted by Nu Kua

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...

***BLOODLINES*** · Jun 4th, 2009 2:43 PM

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

***James Random*** · Jun 4th, 2009 2:47 PM

Originally Posted by BLOODLINES

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

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

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*** · Jun 4th, 2009 3:26 PM

Originally Posted by Freakedout;

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

Can you see me smiling?

Originally Posted by NuKua;

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?

Originally Posted by JR;

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

SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT ASSHOLE!

Originally Posted by Blood;

.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 !

Originally Posted by JR;

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,

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.

***Nasik*** · Jun 4th, 2009 3:42 PM

Originally Posted by Nu Kua

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*** · Jun 4th, 2009 7:40 PM

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*** · Jun 4th, 2009 8:23 PM

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

***JenaS62*** · Jun 4th, 2009 8:26 PM

Originally Posted by Freaked out

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!

***Ningishiddza*** · Nov 26th, 2011 11:54 PM

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-se...y-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...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*** · Nov 29th, 2011 9:11 PM

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...

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*** · Nov 29th, 2011 9:16 PM

Just a little something to add to this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rist-custody-/

Defying a veto threat by President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military first crack at holding 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, a South Carolina Republican who has fought the Bush and Obama administrations on treatment of suspected terrorist detainees.Tuesday’s 61-37 vote to buck Mr. Obama and grant the military dibs exposed a deep rift within the 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 Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 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 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 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 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 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 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 Obamaadministrations have exercised, but which Mr. Levin said he wanted to reiterate. Mr. Levin said the administration thought the restatement unnecessary, but didn’t object to the language.Sen. 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 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, 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 considers each year.

The story continues at the link above.

**murph** · Nov 29th, 2011 9:50 PM

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

***Nu Kua*** · Nov 30th, 2011 7:37 AM

Still though he said it- but get this twist.

Now this from the NY Times, 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?

Originally Posted by Blu

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...

(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*** · Nov 30th, 2011 7:45 AM

Originally Posted by Nu Kua

fruit...

Who you callin' a fruit?????

***Nu Kua*** · Nov 30th, 2011 8:42 AM

But seriously now, folks!

Raw Story 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 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....

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*** · Nov 30th, 2011 11:02 AM

"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*** · Nov 30th, 2011 11:33 AM

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

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210

***Reef Badlaw*** · Dec 1st, 2011 4:51 AM

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** · Dec 2nd, 2011 8:31 AM

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*** · Dec 2nd, 2011 8:46 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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*** · Dec 2nd, 2011 8:54 AM

The Hill:

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 has a copy of the amendment provision.

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

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

Go to "Subtitle D--Detainee Matters"