Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**72ptheriot** · 11-19-2012, 07:29 PM

Don't care much for him but way to go holding up the vote on NDAA. Civil Liberties should be the fight of all parties. Lets see who stands with him and we will know who is truly for people rights. Mc Cain hates this so it must be good. Dems this is our fight do the right thing.

**72ptheriot** · 11-19-2012, 07:41 PM

My congressman has said he vote no on it. We will see. Jeff Landry do the right thing. I have called him twice on NDAA and the Internet kill switch. We will see if I can count on a Republican to fight for civil liberties. I want this vote to happen so I can see who is for the rights of ALL PEOPLE. This is a constructional right. There is no very of inturpitaion. We have a right to a trial.

**sandnsea** · 11-20-2012, 03:29 AM

The NDAA is pased every year so if you're just looking at votes on that, you'll be disappointed no matter what.

The primary section in question says:

SEC. 1021. <> AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C.
1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United
States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending
disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any
person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has
directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

© Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person under
the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the
end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use
of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code
(as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII
of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity.

(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section is intended to limit or
expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization
for Use of Military Force.
(e) 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.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress.--The Secretary of Defense
shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ``covered persons'' for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Really? It's unconstitutional to hold people, who are basically POWs, when we continue to conduct military actions in accordance with the 9/11 Authorization? Hmm. Alrighty then.

**72ptheriot** · 11-20-2012, 01:43 PM

How are they guilty if they haven't done anything yet or has even been found guilty by a trial. Have you seen the list of people the DHS thinks are terrorist? Occupy are on there. Go tell those kids they are terrorist. Preppers are terrorist because they have food stored. Right now right wing groups are on there. When republican becomes president then it will be left wing groups. We have a right to a trial. If these people are truly guilty why are they worried about a trial? I think if this was a republican bill more people would be up in arms about this. Sooner or later this power will be in the evil hand of the right. Lets see how harmless you think it will then.

**sandnsea** · 11-20-2012, 02:21 PM

(11-20-2012 01:43 PM)72ptheriot Wrote: How are they guilty if they haven't done anything yet or has even been found guilty by a trial. Have you seen the list of people the DHS thinks are terrorist? Occupy are on there. Go tell those kids they are terrorist. Preppers are terrorist because they have food stored. Right now right wing groups are on there. When republican becomes president then it will be left wing groups. We have a right to a trial. If these people are truly guilty why are they worried about a trial? I think if this was a republican bill more people would be up in arms about this. Sooner or later this power will be in the evil hand of the right. Lets see how harmless you think it will then.

Read it again. Every word. Explain how you think this would apply to Occupy using the exact law as was written.

Do you think we held civil trials for POWs in World War II? Do you know we had 175 POW camps here in this country during WWII? According to wiki they held 425,000+ prisoners. Should we have given them civil trials and released them back to Germany?

**72ptheriot** · 11-20-2012, 02:32 PM

Even the German hitler death squads were given a trail for their war crimes. I don't think Nazis should be treated better then Americans.

**sandnsea** · 11-20-2012, 03:33 PM

(11-20-2012 02:32 PM)72ptheriot Wrote: Even the German hitler death squads were given a trail for their war crimes. I don't think Nazis should be treated better then Americans.

*sigh*

Seriously. READ.

**janedrake** · 11-20-2012, 10:19 PM

Can't get the image of Rand Paul tepidly renouncing his campaign goons kicking an unarmed woman in the head. He's a psycho as far as I'm concerned. (Bonus: would you really trust your eyes to a "self-certified" opthamologist?").