|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Rosalind_Swenson 
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 30 2012,9:05 pm |
|
   |
(busybee @ Sep. 30 2012,8:18 pm)
QUOTE I'd like to see the proof that the current President can lock any U.S. Citizen up for no good reason...without the right to a trial...an appeal...free legal representation if they can't afford it, ect...
BusyBee, we've already discussed this in another thread in the forum. I can't remember the name of the topic but it was back in January right after he signed this. I'm too tired to do much with your question at the moment. The other one had more information. But for now:
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa
It looks like there is slick little trick brewing in Congress. Supporters of locking people up without charge or trial are getting ready to play yet another trick on the American people...
That's right. The plan in the House of Representatives seems to be to try to fool Americans into thinking that they are fixing the indefinite detention problems with the NDAA and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, when in fact, they are doing nothing good....
Here's how they hope their trick will work. H.R. 4388, which was sneakily mistitled as the "Right to Habeas Corpus Act," states that no one in the United States will lose their habeas rights under the NDAA. That might sound like something good, but it's meaningless.
The question with the NDAA was never whether habeas rights are lost. Instead, the question is whether and when any president can order the military to imprison a person without charge or trial. The NDAA did not take away habeas rights from anyone, but it did codify a dangerous indefinite detention without charge or trial scheme. And nothing in the proposed bill by Rigell would change it. The Rigell bill won't stop any president from ordering the military lockup of civilians without charge or trial.
http://www.aclu.org/blog...-fooled
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,6:04 am |
|
 |
The best place to get information about this is to read anything Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg or Naomi Wolf. They are part of the group that has been suing Obama and trying to inform people on parts of the NDAA.
Here's part of an article written by Chris Hedges. It's three pages, read the whole article please. :
In January 2011 Jónsdóttir, although she is not a U.S. citizen, was served by the United States Department of Justice with a subpoena demanding information “about all [her] tweets and more since November 1st 2009.” The demanded information, which she has refused to provide, includes all mailing addresses and billing information, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, and all known email accounts, as well as the “means and source of payment,” including banking records and credit cards. The Justice Department subpoenaed records for the period from Nov. 1, 2009, to the present. The foreign minister of Iceland advised Jónsdóttir not to travel to the United States for the court hearing on Thursday, fearing she might be detained, especially after the Justice Department refused to issue a statement in writing stating that she would not be held if she appeared on American soil.
http://www.truthdig.com/report...0120402
Here is Naomi Wolf's website where she transcribes what happened in the first court appearance of NDAA:
http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/
The Federal Judge who heard the case put an injunction against the part that allows for the indefinite detention against US citizens. She didn't like how the government lawyers kept their answers vague as to who they consider suspicious and wouldn't explain what they consider "giving aid and support" to terrorists. The Obama administration immediately appealed it.= And won.
You should google "NDAA indefinite detention" or any type of wording you can think of and just see what information you can find. You won't find much of anything on any main stream site. Only "conspiracy kooks" are talking about this. So now is a good time for people to start thinking for themselves.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Santorini
Group: Members
Posts: 2015
Joined: Nov. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,10:16 am |
|
|
Never thought I would say this...
BUT, I am beginning to agree with Rosalind in some areas. Namely, we are really all just pawns in a bigger conspiracy. The economy, unemployment, etc. nothing more than a way to deflect our attention away from what is really going on. 
--------------
"Things turn out best for those who make the best
of the way things turned out." Jack Buck
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Self-Banished
Group: Members
Posts: 22567
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,1:14 pm |
|
|
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!  Santorini and a few other choice people on this site actually get it. We're paying attention to "the man behind the curtain".
--------------
Remember boys and girls,
Don’t be a Dick …
Or a “Wayne” 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,8:29 pm |
|
|
(Santorini @ Oct. 01 2012,10:16 am)
QUOTE Never thought I would say this... BUT, I am beginning to agree with Rosalind in some areas. Namely, we are really all just pawns in a bigger conspiracy. The economy, unemployment, etc. nothing more than a way to deflect our attention away from what is really going on.
Everyone in the forum would have already realized that if I was better at what I have been trying to do, and it wouldn't have taken a whole freakin year.
Things are kinda spooky once you wake up aren't they. At least in The Matrix, Neo had the choice between taking the red pill and the blue pill. I just shoved the red pill down your throats. In my defense, I tried my best to not to have to bring up the 9-11 info. I've just gotten desperate lately.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,9:04 pm |
|
|
How does one become a conspiracy theorist? Do you conspiracy nuts think it's that you're smarter than the rest of us, or just more perceptive?
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,10:25 pm |
|
|
(Liberal @ Oct. 01 2012,9:04 pm)
QUOTE How does one become a conspiracy theorist? Do you conspiracy nuts think it's that you're smarter than the rest of us, or just more perceptive?
Why do intelligent rational people such as yourself have to resort to name calling so often?  Does it make you feel better? Feel superior?
I can't speak for other conspiracy nuts, but I myself have never thought I am smarter than anyone else, or more perceptive. Maybe I am just less trusting of the government and media than others, and I really really don't like being lied to, so if I don't trust something I dig as much as I can to try and figure out the truth. I never believed the BS they were shoveling about 9-11, too many miraculous coincidences, and too many contradictions right from the start.
So Liberal, explain to me why we shouldn't be worried about Executive Order 13603
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the
President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to
require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other
than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over perform-
ance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services,
and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national
defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food re-
source facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health
resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial
fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health
resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil trans-
portation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services,
and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection
(a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations
to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures
by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense,
under BOTH EMERGENCY AND NON-EMERGENCY conditions. Each Secretary shall
authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings
on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in
support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
_
And please explain why people shouldn't be worried and upset about parts of the NDAA, when government lawyers won't even explain anything about it to a Federal Judge. And please explain why these things aren't talked about on the news. Also, could you please debunk that 9-11 video. Don't go to some 'debunking' site and copy and paste what they have to say, watch it yourself and then debunk the information. Unlike the two official "investigations" the video uses actual experts to explain things as best they can. You honestly believe the official story? The official story is kookier than most of the "conspiracy nut" stories.
Really, don't you find it strange that people are suing the President of the United States of America, and it doesn't even get on the news.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,10:36 pm |
|
|
So you also think the American Civil Liberties Union are a bunch of kooky conspiracy nuts too?
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. (To learn more about the NDAA, visit www.aclu.org/NDAA).
The law is an historic threat because it codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. It could permit the president – and all future presidents – to order the military to imprison indefinitely civilians captured far from any battlefield without charge or trial.
This kind of sweeping detention power is completely at odds with our American values, violates the Constitution, and corrodes our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law, which generations have fought to preserve.
The breadth of the NDAA’s worldwide detention authority violates the Constitution and international law because it is not limited to people captured in an actual armed conflict, as required by the laws of war.
Under the Bush administration, claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way. The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal.
Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate and uncertainty around whether Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States.
The law does not require even an allegation that a detained person caused any harm or threat of harm to the United States or to any U.S. interest. Mere allegation of membership in, or support of, an alleged terrorist group could be the basis for indefinite detention. Under the American justice system, we don’t just lock people up indefinitely based on suspicion.
Congress and the president should clean up the mess they created. Congress should repeal the NDAA’s detention provisions.
More than ten years after the 9/11 attacks, with the United States withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States should not be asserting new worldwide authority for the military to imprison persons seized in any country.
We have seen how disregard for the rule of law has disastrous results for America’s standing in the world. It is time for a return to the rule of law. It is time to turn that page.
http://www.aclu.org/indefin...ion-act
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 01 2012,11:01 pm |
|
|
By the way Liberal, I'm a high school drop-out, so if you can't actually answer any of my questions, feel free to call me names and make fun of my lack of education instead. There is alot in my past (and present) that is bash-worthy, but for now that's all I'm giving you.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
