Is this for real?

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Elizabeth Conley, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    From Citizens for Legitimate Government:
     
  2. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Every single one of these fascist freaks wants the power to make citizens "disappear" without due process. They aren't arguing about whether citizens should have due process rights, they're arguing about who gets the power to abuse our natural rights.

    All the stumpin' and wrapping themselves in the Constitution and the flag are just tattered, filthy rags hiding the ugliness of their naked lust for power.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...einstein-introduces-due-process-guarantee-act

    Sorry - no time for chatty-chat. Just sayin'!
     
  3. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Yet Feinstein voted for the NDAA, along with 92 other senators. Obviously, this was not a priority for her. This allows her to pose as standing up for the Constitution immediately after knifing it in the back.
     
  4. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I don't think he'll veto it either. I included the tweet because it had the lopsided vote tally - 86-13.

    This has got to be the worst congress ever. I wish we could impeach everyone who voted for this bill. I think I saw a news report that those who voted for it said it conforms to existing law, but that's not true. This bill goes beyond the law (imo). Here's Hamdi and Padilla.

    sigh
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  5. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    sunny goth, you're a lawyer, correct? what happens to habeus corpus under NDAA? gone, right?
     
  6. Leave no trace

    Leave no trace Original Member

    Really ??

    So "unlawful imprisonment" is now "lawful imprisonment" - That is totally bonkers.
     
  7. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Yeah, I am.

    I think habeas would be under grave threat.

    Just because Obama (or any other president, for that matter) signs a bill into law doesn't mean that it will stand. As soon as the law is challenged, the Supreme Court will hear it, and they may rule that section of the law unconstitutional.

    Section 1031 (e) says: Authorities.--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.

    And that's where the challenge will be. We have Hamdi v. Rumsfeld on our side. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that US citizens cannot be held indefinitely without due process/judicial review. So that is the existing law.

    Of course, we have a different Supreme Court make up now, so I don't know how this Court will rule. They could distinguish Hamdi from whatever case comes before them.

    In another section of the bill (which I need to get), I believe funds for civilian courts in this context are cut off. So even if habeas corpus isn't explicitly gutted, it is implicitly so.

    Section 1032 is also problematic. 1032(a)(1) and (2) describe who the bill affects - an al-Qaeda member or someone who has participated in planning to carry out an attack against the US.

    Section 1032(b) says that the requirement to detain a person in military custody doesn't extend to US citizens or legal residents.

    The part that bothers me are the words 'the requirement'. So holding a person is not required, but the military court 'may'?

    And interestingly enough, when I looked up the bill in Thomas (you can get the wording for all public laws there), section 1031 is not included in the text.

    It's a big bill to slog through, but those are my first blush impressions....
     
  8. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    thanks. 1031 is in the public print version I looked at on thomas site. seems to say two different things. one, citizens can be detained and two subject to existing law bla bla bla
     
  9. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Yeah, it's really unclear -- which is one of the reasons why it's so dangerous. :(
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  10. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

  11. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    nachtnebel likes this.
  12. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    It could probably help - but ---

    Udall, who voted for the bill, which passed in final form Thursday, has fought this provision from the beginning, but said he voted for the bill anyway because the spending authorization was vital to the nation’s interest.

    Spending authorizations are important, but voting against it because it contains something this odious to the Constitution is more important, in my opinion. If he felt that strongly about it, he should have voted against it.
     
  13. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Yep. I agree. Voting against this sorry legislation on principle would allow us to figure out who the real supporters of this crime are. I agree that the spending was critical. It's going to save my bacon and a lot of other people's too.

    BUT the unconstitutional garbage that's getting shoved down our throats along with the spending is pure evil. If those who claim to stand for the Constitution would vote in a manner consistent with their claims then we wouldn't have a problem.
     
  14. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Me too.

    The way I see our choice is this -- deal with the spending now and deal with the NDAA later; or deal with the NDAA now and deal with the spending later. Neither are good options, but if forced, I'd pick deal with the NDAA now because eliminating due process is really, really scary.

    Let's just say for the moment that the NDAA is crystal clear and only applies to non-citizens. Okay, fine. Even if we let it stand at that, it will be expanded, bit by bit until it does apply to citizens. Then we're in a worse position because we'll have bad Supreme Court decisions and/or congressional amendments to deal with. All we have to do is look at FISA to see how this plays out. Best to nip it in the bud right now - especially since the bill is badly written and likely does apply to US citizens.
     
  15. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Anonymous Uncovers Night Raid Equipment-Maker Donations From NDAA Supporter to Sen. Rob Portman
     
  16. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I love them. :)
     
  17. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Really? And how exactly would that happen? With the help of whores from the ACLU?
    Yeah, duh, it does apply.:mad: On a happier note, many people across the political spectrum are paying attention to this, and not just dumb-(expletive deleted) liberals. Many people are reacting by arming themselves.
     
  18. RadioGirl

    RadioGirl Original Member

    I just had a long talk with a European-born Australian friend who, as far as I know, has never even visited the USA. As I was describing the NDAA (and the Occupy protesters who were denied access to lawyers), she kept interrupting, "But wait! Isn't that against the Constitution?! How are they allowed to do that? They can't do that!"

    Granted, she's way more intelligent than average, but how come she gets it and the Congress doesn't?
     
  19. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Since it isn't law yet the ACLU can't litigate it - neither can anyone else. What they can do (and what I'm sure they are doing) is lobby and engage in activist campaigns. I'm not saying that it will work, but those are really the only two options available to us right now. :(

    It's good that everyone from across the political spectrum is getting involved -- sometimes that show of unity is what wins the day.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  20. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Can anyone litigate even after the bill is passed into law unless a person is actually taken into custody under provisions of the law? In other words to litigate someone would have been harmed by the law and to have standing, correct?
     

Share This Page