Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Infinite Detention Bill: USA

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
89 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#61

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:16 AM

We can't act as if we know absolutely nothing though. We'd find out pretty quickly if people were being randomly detained by the government.

Anyway, how about this. Can one of you at least try to tell me WHY the government would start detaining people randomly? Give me more than one good reason and we'll talk.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#62

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:18 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 21:00)
Jeebus, I know you have good intentions here, but both myself and sivis (him moreso, since he has more patience) have taken the time to do that. I'm done arguing the same retarded, completely unfounded talking point with people who also think that the UN is trying to enslave the world.

If the point were made by one of these conspiracy theorists that JFK was actually killed by Hitler in British Columbia, there would be absolutely nothing I can say to sway them otherwise. They are the type of people who are so deluded by their bullsh*t propaganda videos on YouTube that they know no reality.

QUOTE
does the American government now have the ability to indefinitely detain any suspected American citizen?

Yup, and they're coming for you now since you know their plan.

Because anyone here is claiming Hitler killed JFK..? Riiight...


Anyhow.. I don't get how you can't be atleast susceptible to something as outrageous as the government given the power to indefinitely detain and torture their own American citizens.. The government is here to protect and serve the citizens, not stick them in a jail cell with no trial just because they feel they're a threat to their agenda.

We're fighting a war on terrorism.. a concept, an idea.. LOL you can't win a war against an idea.. it's f*cking stupid.




QUOTE
We can't act as if we know absolutely nothing though. We'd find out pretty quickly if people were being randomly detained by the government.

Anyway, how about this. Can one of you at least try to tell me WHY the government would start detaining people randomly? Give me more than one good reason and we'll talk.


Because they're viewed as a threat.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#63

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:29 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 05:16)
We can't act as if we know absolutely nothing though. We'd find out pretty quickly if people were being randomly detained by the government.

Anyway, how about this. Can one of you at least try to tell me WHY the government would start detaining people randomly? Give me more than one good reason and we'll talk.

We know absolutely nothing. That is how the intelligence community works. Not to keep you ignorant in order to kill you, but to work covertly in order to protect you. But the critics do have a point. This is antithetical to the traditional way of understanding what our country is about. Due process of law IS the constitution. Without it none of it matters. But, Semper Fi, becomes the new law in place of it. You know this. I know this. Weaning people off of this is not easy.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#64

Posted 28 December 2011 - 06:39 AM

What the f*ck are you two talking about? You're not elaborating on anything.

In a perfect world, if the government were always right, then what is wrong with giving them the power to infinitely detain anyone who is viewed as a threat? Your argument is because it won't give terrorists proper rights, or because the system would send us down a slippery slope eventually allowing the government to detain anyone it wants to, for say, political reasons, etc? Really. This is a f*cking joke. And sorry, if you weren't a f*cking idiot Grandmaster, you'd have looked back and realized the bill does nothing of the such. Get your head out of your ass.

And your ideas, to a rational person, are no different than suggesting JFK was assassinated by Hitler in British Columbia.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#65

Posted 28 December 2011 - 06:51 AM Edited by Jeeebuuus, 28 December 2011 - 07:17 AM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 06:39)
What the f*ck are you two talking about? You're not elaborating on anything.

In a perfect world, if the government were always right, then what is wrong with giving them the power to infinitely detain anyone who is viewed as a threat? Your argument is because it won't give terrorists proper rights, or because the system would send us down a slippery slope eventually allowing the government to detain anyone it wants to, for say, political reasons, etc? Really. This is a f*cking joke. And sorry, if  you weren't a f*cking idiot Grandmaster, you'd have looked back and realized the bill does nothing of the such. Get your head out of your ass.

And your ideas, to a rational person, are no different than suggesting JFK was assassinated by Hitler in British Columbia.

Well, to be honest, you don't sound much different from our friend GrandMaster, only that you come at it from the opposite side and use ad hominem attacks against him for raising valid questions pertaining to laymen fears of intrusion on civil liberties. For the sake of argument, what would you say if they passed another sedition act to quell journalists from publishing anything critical of government policies in the name of the war on terror? You might say, "Don't be retarded, the bill doesn't say that at all you crazy conspiracy nut". This is partly the point. You are too easy to dismiss legislation that has historically been used in times of crisis but not potentially in todays age. I know you have mentioned it in the past but were too quick to forget it when it is convenient. Why has this no historical precedent?

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#66

Posted 28 December 2011 - 07:11 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 22:39)
What the f*ck are you two talking about? You're not elaborating on anything.

In a perfect world, if the government were always right, then what is wrong with giving them the power to infinitely detain anyone who is viewed as a threat? Your argument is because it won't give terrorists proper rights, or because the system would send us down a slippery slope eventually allowing the government to detain anyone it wants to, for say, political reasons, etc? Really. This is a f*cking joke. And sorry, if  you weren't a f*cking idiot Grandmaster, you'd have looked back and realized the bill does nothing of the such. Get your head out of your ass.

And your ideas, to a rational person, are no different than suggesting JFK was assassinated by Hitler in British Columbia.

Because these people they view as ''terrorists'' are Ron Paul supporters, people who are against a NWO, people that say the monetary system is controlled..

Look up the MIAC report of 09 discussing domestic terrorists. Straight out in the wide open they state supporters of Ron Paul can be considered domestic terrorists.. A man who stands for the freedom of every American and our constitution.. think about that..

If people who are against a worldwide government are considered terrorists, and we can indefinitely detain anyone we consider a 'terrorist', they can put away and shut up anybody who's opposing what they're doing.. How can you not see how bad this could be..?

It is plain as day taking away our rights to act against the government when we as the citizens are supposed to fulfill our duty of keeping the government in line..

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#67

Posted 28 December 2011 - 08:42 AM Edited by Irviding, 28 December 2011 - 08:44 AM.

If you seriously consider the Sedition Act of the Federalist Era to be "historical precedent" you're crazy. Those bills were almost unanimously opposed by the voting populace and were repudiated by every elected official following their repeal.

Let's be clear. You have both been told specifically what these bills entail. They do not allow for the infinite detention of citizens. If you want to continue thinking as such, you're a f*cking idiot.

That report references right wing extremism, not Ron Paul supporters. Read these things for yourself instead of on bullsh*t conspiracy websites. Find the original bill and read it. Fund that DHS report and READ IT.

Yes, our currency is controlled. It has been since the First Bank of the US.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#68

Posted 28 December 2011 - 08:57 AM

I was refering to the Sedition Act of 1918. This is becoming increasingly difficult to discuss with you since you insist on name calling and not addressing the questions presented to you. I give up only on the basis that you cannot be persuaded from your iron clad stance or any humility from arrogance. Good night.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#69

Posted 28 December 2011 - 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 05:39)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 04:35)
Sivis, can you just lock this? People continuously respond with random conspiracy bullsh*t with total disregard for the entire topic. This is like the third or fourth time now.

Instead of complaining about how much you disagree with what is said why don't you show why the point in question is wrong and misguided? This is a part of the topic after all.

I already have. Read my earlier posts- there's nothing new added to this bill that affects US citizens that wasn't already in force beforehand. It makes, quite literally, no change to the laws of detention regarding US nationals, US residents and those inside the United States, who still possess their forth and sixth amendment rights and therefore cannot be detained indefinitely (unless stripped of their citizenship, perhaps) and cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I don't personally agree with the way it treats foreign nationals- you're either a combatant, or a non-combatant; you can't be bits of one for one purpose, and bits of the other for another purpose, it's illogical- but the simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in this so-called "infinite detention bill" which is applicable to US citizens- and, if you read it in some detail, nothing that actually indicates infinite detention. Detention as long as military hostilities take place, sure, but that's permitted for PoW's under the laws of war, so it's not anything suspicious or malevolent.

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 06:29)
We know absolutely nothing. That is how the intelligence community works.

Actually, it's not, even in the US where the theoretical power of the intelligence community, and the degree of oversight that they are treated to, is far less than other political entities. That doesn't mean that the intelligence services are unaccountable, just that they aren't bound under the separation of powers like other political institutions are. There's still a great degree of both public and political oversight for the US intelligence services- a surprising amount of what they do makes it into the public domain in one way or another. Of course, there's seldom any detail to reports, but the fact the public hears about at least some of the work they do is an indicator that there's oversight.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 08:11)
people who are against a NWO,

the monetary system is controlled..

who are against a worldwide government

taking away our rights

Look, whilst I appreciate the sentiment in some of the arguments you make, please keep conspiracy theory posts to the designated "conspiracy theory" thread. They muddy otherwise sensible arguments, involuntarily change the focus of responses away from countering legitimate points to ridicule, and don't serve to add anything to the discussion. If you're making legitimate points- which you are; not things I agree with and some things that I dispute in fact, but an argument nonetheless- then please do so without referring to conspiracy theories, because every time you do, you run the risk of derailing the entire topic and the entire weight of doubt and burden of proof is thrust upon your shoulders in the rudest way possible

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#70

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:32 PM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 28 December 2011 - 03:45 PM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 00:42)
If you seriously consider the Sedition Act of the Federalist Era to be "historical precedent" you're crazy. Those bills were almost unanimously opposed by the voting populace and were repudiated by every elected official following their repeal.

Let's be clear. You have both been told specifically what these bills entail. They do not allow for the infinite detention of citizens. If you want to continue thinking as such, you're a f*cking idiot.

That report references right wing extremism, not Ron Paul supporters. Read these things for yourself instead of on bullsh*t conspiracy websites. Find the original bill and read it. Fund that DHS report and READ IT.

Yes, our currency is controlled. It has been since the First Bank of the US.



Well if it has nothing to do with detaining American citizens without trial if suspected to be affiliated with someone involved with terrorism, what's all this fuss about? I haven't read through it yet myself so I can't say, I'm just curious if it has nothing to do with that then why's it on news headlines? Cause I first heard about this from a news site then came here-

"““We think al-Qaeda operatives, citizens or not, are not common criminals. We think they are crazy people,” he said.

"What this legislation does,” lectured Levin, “says from the Congress’ point-of-view, that we expressly authorize the indefinite detention” of someone deemed a threat. “We recognize the authority of this president and every other president to hold an enemy combatant indefinitely, whether they are captured home or abroad, because that only makes sense.”

Under the Act, those suspected of “belligerent” crimes can be subjected to the treatment. Graham tried to calm fears by insisting that suspected criminals will all be allowed a day in federal court, but made it clear that as long as a judge deems someone a suspect in a crime, that indefinite detention can begin without the help of any legal counsel for the defense. "


-http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/


But I didn't read about the MIAC report off some conspiracy website, I read through the actual thing, I was actually going to post a direct link to the pdf file earlier but you can just google it and right on top.

It doesn't directly say "If you support Ron Paul you're a terrorist," it says groups of domestic terrorists may be supporters of Ron Paul and Charles something and a couple other politicians. Anyone who supports Ron Paul is supporting personal freedom, ending the fed and anti-invasive government.. what's wrong with that?

And yeah, money's controlled by a privately owned bank that runs a system that inevitably leads to irreversible debt and bankruptcy. It's set up, they manipulate inflation any way they wish.. Why the hell should the every single citizen of America allow some tiny little group of people bend all of us over and f*ck us in the ass?



@Sivis- I know, but these aren't 'conspiracy theories,' it's from actual news articles. Don't worry, I won't bring any Alex Jones in here or nothin lol

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#71

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:11 PM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 16:32)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 00:42)
If you seriously consider the Sedition Act of the Federalist Era to be "historical precedent" you're crazy. Those bills were almost unanimously opposed by the voting populace and were repudiated by every elected official following their repeal.

Let's be clear. You have both been told specifically what these bills entail. They do not allow for the infinite detention of citizens. If you want to continue thinking as such, you're a f*cking idiot.

That report references right wing extremism, not Ron Paul supporters. Read these things for yourself instead of on bullsh*t conspiracy websites. Find the original bill and read it. Fund that DHS report and READ IT.

Yes, our currency is controlled. It has been since the First Bank of the US.



Well if it has nothing to do with detaining American citizens without trial if suspected to be affiliated with someone involved with terrorism, what's all this fuss about? I haven't read through it yet myself so I can't say, I'm just curious if it has nothing to do with that then why's it on news headlines? Cause I first heard about this from a news site then came here-

"““We think al-Qaeda operatives, citizens or not, are not common criminals. We think they are crazy people,” he said.

"What this legislation does,” lectured Levin, “says from the Congress’ point-of-view, that we expressly authorize the indefinite detention” of someone deemed a threat. “We recognize the authority of this president and every other president to hold an enemy combatant indefinitely, whether they are captured home or abroad, because that only makes sense.”

Under the Act, those suspected of “belligerent” crimes can be subjected to the treatment. Graham tried to calm fears by insisting that suspected criminals will all be allowed a day in federal court, but made it clear that as long as a judge deems someone a suspect in a crime, that indefinite detention can begin without the help of any legal counsel for the defense. "

Hang on, wait a minute....

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 16:32)
-http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

This says all you need to know about the quality and veracity of the reporting in this article. It's from Russia Today, the Russian state news network, who are about as well-regarded in "fair and liberal media" stakes as the likes of Iran's state news network (who famously said that homosexuals are treated better in Iran than they are in the West, followed several hours later by the bodies of two men accused of being lovers swinging from construction cranes after a show trial), and Syria's Press TV, who have handily been ignoring the near-genocide that their own government is committing in order to focus their time on 4-hour specials about the "intrinsic link between the great state of North Korea and the Syrian people". Russia Today are renowned for two things- one, being completely unrelenting in their support of Vladimir Putin, every comment he makes, everything he stands for whilst at the same time attacking all the other oligarchs who are after his job; and producing conspiracy theories.

I've read S1867- or at least, I've skim-read it. There have been various interpretations banded around by both sides of what it means- the Libertarians claiming that it's an affront to the forth and sixth amendments because it doesn't expressly outlaw the detention of US nationals captured abroad under terrorism legislation- which, for the record, it shouldn't; and the Hawks who don't think it goes far enough, and want to see the legislation override the forth and sixth amendment rights in the name of "national security". Basically, it's a messy compromise put into writing; it's the DoD's lawyers wringing their hands of any responsibility and leaving it entirely for the judiciary to decide whether these laws can be applied to US citizens or US residents, in court, on a case-by-case basis- which somewhat counteracts the entire idea of "indefinite detention without trial", does it not? Also, the section that I've highlighted with the underlining is quite deceptive; I mean, Senator Levin has spoken at length on the issue; for instance-

QUOTE (Sen. Carl Levin @ 2011)
"This is not just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, 'There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant'."

Now, that says, in essence, that US citizens can be treated as enemy combatants. There's nothing new about that; US citizens have been treated as enemy combatants in previous conflicts so there's already a precedent for that to be enacted. The interesting fact of the matter is that, whilst US citizens can be treated as enemy combatants, they still cannot be denied their basic rights (under the Geneva Convention) unless they are treated as unlawful combatants, which they cannot be according to US legislation as only foreign nationals are bound by the "unlawful combatant" legislation as it violates the 4th amendment right of US citizens or nationals.

And for the record, NWO is a conspiracy theory. It is, as I've said before, a complete misunderstanding of commonly used political lexicon by an individual or group of individuals who should have been educated enough to know better, that has been jumped on by self-centred, delusional lunatics whose sole aim is to exploit what should be seen as a simple, naive misunderstanding and imply that it's a clear and present danger, when it doesn't even exist in the terms in which it is described. I would argue that the "one-world government" idea also falls under the same maxim.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#72

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:23 AM

So basically if the American government sees it fit, any citizen within the states can be treated to indefinite detention if deemed a threat? Because it says you get the chance of appearing in front of a court, but if the judge sees you as a 'terrorist' as well then you don't have any chances to defend yourself.

You don't see all the things that could go wrong with this? It says in the MIAC report that people that are against a 'one world government' can be considered a threat. Why? Why would they have to include that in there?

Do you honestly believe the UN is out for the entire worlds good being?

Gtaman_92
  • Gtaman_92

    I love women and money

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2011

#73

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:51 AM

So let me get this straight. Dont this give the government more control over the rights of people and completly blocks the 1st amendment? In that case i could see this law passing.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#74

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:40 AM

I doubt they were actually included in there by the way though. And if they are, I don't blame them for putting them in there considering some of the more militant conspiracy theorists out there, you know, the ones who stock up on rifles and explosives in order to "protect themselves from the man".

Why do you think a one world government would work? Who would run it? I really can't understand why people believe there is one being created.

And no, a citizen cannot be subject to that. The judge is for foreign nationals.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#75

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:19 AM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 03:23)
So basically if the American government sees it fit, any citizen within the states can be treated to indefinite detention if deemed a threat? Because it says you get the chance of appearing in front of a court, but if the judge sees you as a 'terrorist' as well then you don't have any chances to defend yourself.

No, it's not "if the government sees fit"- its if the courts see fit after proper, public judicial process. Such a process could, under current legislation and as far as I can see, also only take place if the citizen has or is to be stripped of their right of citizenship- a process that would require a trial of its own and a changing of the existing laws in order to enact. Basically, though this law does not expressly forbid the detention of US citizens without trial, the legislation already exists to prevent that from occurring. The caveat of "innocent until proven guilty" still exists, at least inside the United States' borders, as do the Forth and Sixth amendments. In theory, a US citizen could be accused of terrorist actions, dragged in front of a court, and could then find their citizenship removed and this regulation applied. This would all occur as a public process in line with existing legislation.

It's also worth pointing out that the boundaries for it's application in current legislation are extremely slim, and that despite all this talk of "infinite detention" it's a complete misnomer- there's nothing infinite about the policy and it ties in with existing human rights legislation on the treatment of combatants- that is, that they can be legally held by a military party until the resolution of a conflict. That's not infinite is it; indefinite, maybe, but it's certainly finite.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 03:23)
You don't see all the things that could go wrong with this? It says in the MIAC report that people that are against a 'one world government' can be considered a threat. Why? Why would they have to include that in there?

Find the MIAC report here. There's significant mention of the NWO conspiracy theory in it, but it doesn't explicitly say that "believers of the conspiracy theory are a threat". What it says, if you read it rather than paraphrasing it, is that many violent militia groups present arguments to support their existence that are based upon, or are variants of, the older NWO conspiracy theory. That's not calling those who believe the conspiracy theory a threat; it's saying- quite accurately and quite factually- that belief in this conspiracy theory is a general rule of thumb for anti-establishment violent militias an their members. Again, a case of individuals twisting the truth to suit their own purpose, rather than taking information at value.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 03:23)
Do you honestly believe the UN is out for the entire worlds good being?

No, it's out for the good of it's member nations. You imply that the UN is some kind of union and it isn't. It's just an arena in which different nations can air their views and grievances. It has no power, no real internal structure and all of the policies produced by it are implemented by ad-hoc groups of nations or existing military alliances rather than by the organisation itself. The UN's only purpose is essentially to offer individual nations an arena in which to communicate with each other. Save for very specific and incredibly difficult to enforce legislation on issues like the laws of war, human rights and the treatment of foreign nationals the UN has little to no legislative power.

QUOTE (Gtaman_92 @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 03:51)
So let me get this straight. Dont this give the government more control over the rights of people and completly blocks the 1st amendment?

In a word, no.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#76

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:08 PM

QUOTE
In theory, a US citizen could be accused of terrorist actions, dragged in front of a court, and could then find their citizenship removed and this regulation applied. This would all occur as a public process in line with existing legislation.

Only a naturalized citizen though. I, for example, could never be stripped of my citizenship since I am a naturally born American. If I were born in the UK and moved here, and went through naturalization procedure to become a citizen, then I could be stripped of that citizenship.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#77

Posted 07 March 2012 - 01:23 AM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 07 March 2012 - 02:52 PM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 14:08)
QUOTE
In theory, a US citizen could be accused of terrorist actions, dragged in front of a court, and could then find their citizenship removed and this regulation applied. This would all occur as a public process in line with existing legislation.

Only a naturalized citizen though. I, for example, could never be stripped of my citizenship since I am a naturally born American. If I were born in the UK and moved here, and went through naturalization procedure to become a citizen, then I could be stripped of that citizenship.

According to section 1021&1022 or 1031&1032, depending on which version of the bill you are looking at, it doesn't matter whether you are a born, natural or any kind of citizen. The definition of "potentially a terrorist of some kind" is all that is required to strip you of your rights and infinitely detain you at leisure. The representation of dissolved power of the judicial branch and the legislative branch to the executive branch is a direct violation of the Constitution directly and there are many others in the bill. This only gets worse when you look at the measures used to "investigate potential terrorists" (home brewed is the supposition) in other bills and methods such as the MIAC Report and others that violate several things in conjunction with this bill, from your rights to due process to the electoral process.

Trouble is that when it comes to laws versus how laws are used and to what effect you have to look at the broad spectrum at their USE, MISUSE and ABUSE. Yeah, that is right....POTENTIAL.

Oh, and here are a few other articles on the topic.

QUOTE
On January 16, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (left) introduced HB 1160, a bill designed to "prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia."

After being passed on Valentine’s Day by an overwhelming majority (96-4) in the House, the bill was sent to the Senate for deliberation by that chamber.

In a telephone conversation yesterday with this reporter, Delegate Marshall broke the latest news of the procedural progress of his very important legislation.
When asked about the future of his bill, Marshall said, “This is on the razor’s edge. There was a 20-20 tie yesterday on sending it back to committee in the Senate. Fortunately, the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie and voted to have it be reconsidered rather than sent back to committee.”

Of his opinion of the prospects on this second vote, likely to be taken today (Feb. 28), Delegate Marshall was guardedly optimistic, announcing to this reporter that he was “talking to a key Democrat that might be able to be persuaded.”

This current measure in Virginia is but one of many noble efforts on the part of sovereign states and communities to courageously assert their constitutionally protected right to self-determination by standing up to the federal government, particularly in regard to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Delegate Marshall’s bill reads:

Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Marshall’s bill is the first measure in the nation that is based on the Liberty Preservation Act. This model legislation (a copy of which is available from the Tenth Amendment Center) is designed to block the enforcement of the provisions of the NDAA authorizing the apprehension and indefinite detention of citizens of the United States.

The Liberty Preservation Act calls upon state legislatures to declare Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA to be …

inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of (STATE), and [that the NDAA] was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in the United States Constitution.

Most of what is contained in the over-500-page NDAA is in fact “inimical to liberty.” For example, under the provisions of Section 1021 of the NDAA, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

In order to more completely understand the importance of Delegate Marshall’s bill and similar measures being proposed by other state and local governments, a cursory understanding of the principle of nullification, as well as of the shocking unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA is of value.

Simply stated, nullification is the principle that each state retains the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
 
As for the NDAA, on December 31, 2011, with the President's signing of that law, the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.

One of the most noxious elements of the NDAA is that it places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). 

Furthermore, a key component of the NDAA mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Beyond that, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

When asked during our interview what, in his opinion, was the most noxious aspect of the NDAA, Delegate Marshall responded, “Within the Constitution, there are all kinds of offsets in the balance of power to prevent the creation of a powerful executive. In fact, our whole legal tradition is built up on not loading the executive with unlimited power, but these guys did it in Washington.”  “How can you does having an all-powerful executive help us fight terrorists?” he continued.

When speaking of the gross usurpation of power on the part of the president accomplished only by the willing complicity of his congressional lictors, Delegate Marshall spoke eloquently and forcefully:

We [the states] needn’t become mere administrative appendages of the federal government. We will not fall for the farce. We don’t have to collaborate in prostituting the Constitution. We will be faithful to the original meaning of the Founders. The federal government is committing political adultery and we will not participate.

Marshal concluded our conversation by telling us his reaction to today's latest action by the Senate:

I am happy about the Senate's action today, but am concerned about the amendments that remove the provisions in my bill that prohibit state and local authorities from participating in the apprehension and interrogation of American citizens under the NDAA. Fortunately, the part preventing any state officer (including the governor, the state police, the sheriffs, and the National Guard) from participating in the detention of American citizens arrested under the NDAA is still in the bill.

The amended version of the bill will now be sent back to the House for its consideration. If the House passes the Senate's amended version, then the measure will be sent to the Governor for his signature.

However, its enactment is still in jeopardy, as according to published reports, Virginia's Governor Bob McDonnell opposes the bill.


Source


watch these videos and read this article

It can be followed more thoroughly through this site, PEOPLE''S Campaign for the Constitution


Well, apparently several state legislators agree with me on this!

....and the awareness is growing.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#78

Posted 07 March 2012 - 03:17 AM

But how is that still relevant when that clause was removed from the bill?

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#79

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:58 AM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 07 March 2012 - 02:54 PM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Mar 6 2012, 22:17)
But how is that still relevant when that clause was removed from the bill?


In polite answer, I suppose, it would be best to say,"That is a logical fallacy to dissuade the argument of the public and blatant lie, the section is still right there in the bill."

-----

Yet, I'm not always polite and have grown tired of the charade, so...

What the Hell are YOU talking about? section 1031

It was not removed, only moved to another section and even THAT depends on which version of the bill you are looking at. (3 versions total, bad enough there was 2 once passed)

1031&1032 was changed to/from 1021&1022 in the 3rd version (depending on who you ask) , yet most of them still have it as is with 1031&1032 as is without the switch ups that move 1021&1022 of the bills listed here elsewhere and moved the "offending sections" in their place. <--Legal Red Herring approach to the matter. It is worse than a game of Three Card Molly.

The Open Congress Version of the bill still has the section 1031&1032 in the same position.

If it is ever absent then the issue is usually the switcheroo with this bill.




Typical.

That is only the start of what is completely wrong with this bill.


The most direct assault on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself.

(Which seems absurd because as supreme law of the land it cannot be contested.)

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#80

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:52 AM

But why are you up in arms about this? The AUMF already gave the authority to detain people indefinitely (passed in 2001 after 9/11). Where were you then?

By the way, I believe someone posted it elsewhere, but regardless -

QUOTE

"the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner thwat ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law. [...] 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.


The President signed the bill and stated clearly that his administration will not use it on suspected Americans. Regardless though, you're wrong on the constitutional argument. Stare decisis holds that people who are working to subvert the government of the United States can be detained until cessation of hostilities. In my opinion, the bill itself as well as the AUMF is shaky and gives the President a little too much in the way of power, but the fact is, this is how it works in times of war. Your civil liberties are eroded. That's it. Since the Civil War they go away and then come back when it's over. In my view the bill would be much better had it granted more accountability to the President when declaring someone an enemy combatant. Historically, these people that were detained were not just ragtag terrorists picked up in the desert, they were people engaged in hostilities against the United States. Further, you have to take this act with a grain of salt. I don't know the extent of your legal knowledge, but Hamdi v Rumsfeld 8-1 held that US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely and they must be afforded due process before an impartial judge. This notion that all our rights are floating away or something is just pure fantasy.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#81

Posted 10 March 2012 - 06:09 AM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 10 March 2012 - 06:20 AM.

What this President, he is not alone in this, and what the bill allows for are two completely different things. He signed it.

On the note of lies, i.e. logical fallacy, he lies in his speeches an average of 9.3 lies per minute.

We have put up with this sort of behavior in government for far too long.

I agree that more accountability is needed for each branch of government.

The biggest problem with the bill is that it circumvents the powers of the court altogether and that alone makes it an outrage. If you continue to reroute authority of the people whom have delegated powers of their own, justice, to the executive branch then the republic, not a democracy either, suffers much and continues to suffer until it eventually will suffer all of what it considers in principal and point of fact survival and fact.

The government using data collected from corporations, because they have no way to do so legally using their own agencies is an added outrage, that compounds the real issues, to this process of government forms decline into something else.

The bill allows for the imperial fascism to root itself with corporate vs public espionage to become so intertwined that the only result possible becomes an imperial corporate fascist state headed up by a dictator with nearly unlimited world power. This has been entirely already made the truth when in violation of his powers Obama was President of the UN during his presidency. This bill just makes his "authority" able to discount the U.S. Constitution entirely.

How so on this last statement?

Easy cheese, if you look at it closely you will see that the parameters for what makes someone arrest and detain able are things that are part of the procedure of finding so called terrorists. The parameters are not listed and rely on the methods of previous and existing standards used by police agencies. The MIAC report for instance which in and of itself has declared more than once in its regular publications that,"Those that declare anything about the U.S. Constitution or the Constitutions of any state are potential terrorists. Anyone with a Ron Paul sticker on their car is a potential terrorist.

"Potential Terrorist", is listed in the bill because it allows for complete discrimination without due process. The word and whim of those of position.

You know what that is?

That is a direct violation of the oaths of every person that signed that bill, because of the oaths they take to uphold the documents that state, set up and allow their offices. Thus, sedition and treason. The statements about Ron Paul are also a direct violation of the electoral process amongst several other federal offenses. There are many other things as well such as, VETERANS, FIREARM OWNERSHIP and many other such things.

Any one of these things make anyone a "potential terrorist", according to the parameters in use today by law enforcement. The might as well add the ability to defend against foreign and domestic takeover of government by the paymasters behind the scenes, undoubtedly. After all, they already included the people that take the oath to defend against that sort of takeover as being potential terrorists.


When a bill is written it has to work in accordance with the laws and processes already in place, else you find yourselves in such a position.

Rand Paul even stated that he would not sign it because it was blatantly seditious and treasonous. His dad taught him never to sign such a bill and look, they try and through Ron on the fire as well thinking no one the wiser.


Really doesn't leave much to wonder why over 70 percent of the US Military are Ron Paul supporters that have announced that he is the only one to vote for....

...now, does it?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#82

Posted 10 March 2012 - 10:16 AM

I think much of the rest of your statement has been covered elsewhere in the topic, and I'm sure that Ivirding will respond (and based on much of the discussion amongst legal practitioners and members of the military, I'm not entirely sure many of the statements you make are accurate in the slightest- more sensationalist hyperbole than realistic practice, but I digress), can I just respond to this one?

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Saturday, Mar 10 2012, 07:09)
Really doesn't leave much to wonder why over 70 percent of the US Military are Ron Paul supporters that have announced that he is the only one to vote for....

This has been covered elsewhere and I'm pretty sure that it's complete rubbish. There are approximately 3 million active or reservist service personnel in the US, plus another million or so civilian military employees working in the DoD and its various off-shoots. There are 21.8 million veterans (as of 2010) in the US; combined with active service personnel that makes up around 10% of the entire US population; now the views shared by members of the military are generally held by veterans too- once a soldier, always a soldier- so you can quite realistically estimate that if RP is supported by 70% of current service personnel, then he's going to receive a roughly similar amount of support from veterans- that's only logical.

If 10% of the potential electorate is made up of armed forces personnel, then it would be logical to assume that 10% of those eligible to vote in the 2012 republican primaries would be serving or ex-military personnel (the real figure is likely to be a bit higher if anything because, historically, the Republican party has had a friendlier relationship with the military hierarchy than the Democrats have). With Ron Paul only averaging approximately 9% of the vote, that leads to two possible outcomes- either Ron Paul is nowhere near as popular amongst the military as people like to claim he is, or he's about as popular as Saddam Hussein everywhere else.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#83

Posted 11 March 2012 - 08:00 AM Edited by Irviding, 11 March 2012 - 08:02 AM.

Your post is mostly sensationalist nonsense, but I'll address a few things.

Sivis more than took care of the military support for Paul part, but regardless I have a few things to add onto it - Ron Paul is not supported by the intelligence community, nor is he supported by military officers. Officers and members of the intelligence community, people who are educated and understand how politics and foreign policy work, recognize that he is a complete lunatic. Go look up his support amongst enlisted personnel vs. officers, you'll confirm what I said.

He signed it and added a signing statement stating that it will not be enforced upon US citizens, infact, as the court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, it is unconstitutional to use it that way, and the court will step in should it be enforced upon US citizens. Your concerns are certainly noted, but they are unfounded.

QUOTE


The biggest problem with the bill is that it circumvents the powers of the court altogether and that alone makes it an outrage.  If you continue to reroute authority of the people whom have delegated powers of their own, justice, to the executive branch then the republic, not a democracy either, suffers much and continues to suffer until it eventually will suffer all of what it considers in principal and point of fact survival and fact. 

How exactly does it do that? Could you show me specific parts of it (you don't have to quote the sections, but at least tell me some provisions which you think circumvent the power of the other branches) that do that? I only ask because I don't really see much in there that does that. You have to understand that, when Congress passes a bill like this, they cede a lot of their authority to the President. For example, say Congress passes a bill calling for the abolishing of 4 cabinet departments, and charges the President to come up with one new department to take the job of the abolished 4. It might say "The President shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this bill". What that says it that, we the Congress, are telling the President he can erase those agencies and replace them with a new one, all within his purview. The same occurs with this bill; congress cedes what authority it has on these matters to the executive by passing it.
As for the judiciary, you have a point. I'm actually currently in the process of writing a paper on the constitutionality of the Protect America Act and its successor, the FISA Amendments Act. One of the points I make clearly is that the bill is inherently unconstitutional because it circumvents the FISA courts by allowing the AG and the DNI to grant search warrants. That is an example of a branch of government being circumvented. Not sure I see such an occurrence in this NDAA.

QUOTE


Easy cheese, if you look at it closely you will see that the parameters for what makes someone arrest and detain able are things that are part of the procedure of finding so called terrorists.  The parameters are not listed and rely on the methods of previous and existing standards used by police agencies.  The MIAC report for instance which in and of itself has declared more than once in its regular publications that,"Those that declare anything about the U.S. Constitution or the Constitutions of any state are potential terrorists.  Anyone with a Ron Paul sticker on their car is a potential terrorist. 


I've read the MIAC report as well as the entire OIA report from DHS about right wing extremism. Read them yourself instead of reading little snipits from your Ron Paul/anti federal reserve conspiracy websites. Ron Paul does not appear in either report, and the word constitution appears only when talking about DC v. Heller and the fact that right wing conspiracy groups advocate that Obama is trying to suspend the constitution. That's it. Please find me the respective report you're talking about. Also, keep in mind if it does exist, MIAC is not an official government agency.

QUOTE

That is a direct violation of the oaths of every person that signed that bill, because of the oaths they take to uphold the documents that state, set up and allow their offices. Thus, sedition and treason. The statements about Ron Paul are also a direct violation of the electoral process amongst several other federal offenses.  There are many other things as well such as, VETERANS, FIREARM OWNERSHIP and many other such things.

That's just nonsense. That means that anytime a Congressperson or Senator voted for a bill, or a President signed one, that was later ruled unconstitutional, he/she is guilty of treason? Are you out of your mind? The Line Item Veto Act was declared unconstitutional; does that mean the whole House and Senate are treasonous? Bill Clinton treasonous? What about the various members of Congress who were founding fathers, as well as George Washington himself, the signer of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was the first bill ever declared unconstitutional; are they treasonous? Really, come on man.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#84

Posted 13 March 2012 - 12:20 AM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 13 March 2012 - 12:46 AM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Mar 11 2012, 03:00)
Your post is mostly sensationalist nonsense, but I'll address a few things.

You start your post with the use of, Appeal to Ridicule, a logical fallacy.

Then you expect me to hold any respect for what else you have to say?

Really?

No, I will continue as I have been without recognizing those whom use lies to manipulate and then beg that I show them things which allow for more and more use of logical fallacy and play the Inquisitor Approach, which denies everything against them and pokes holes with lies and deceptive angles to prevent the most basic, honest logic from being able to present itself.

Such methods have convicted bologna sandwiches of murder.

-------Yet, I'm glad to see you hear me out. The Congressional Pass on things is not over yet and it is doubtful whether they truly realize what they have done, and those that do could care less until they get their due payment......More on that in a bit.

Sure, I could point of fact and walk you through the mess. Yet the funny thing to me is that you REALLY have no idea to whom you are speaking, and currently I like it that way.

--------side rant------related only as a question of accountability and demonstration of the character of those in positions of power in our country from the executive branch side of things, with two hands in the air, like a level for weight on both hands of a scale, and an serious eyebrow raised at Congress as well. (If they are this uncertain of powers given and permission, then the NDAA is worse than ever expected.)

More recently, Obama was quoted, on record, saying that he would do whatever he deemed necessary with US Citizens and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

But I digress, because he has said that several times before

Of course, that is not as bad as what else went on last week with Congress and the US Military.



But....Is it?

It is one and the same. This is all just a small part of moving toward the goal of very speciic individuals.

The S 1867 bill is to be used, and has already started being used, exactly as I have said.

Go ahead and roll your eyes, that is what the unsuspecting public so often does at times like this. Although, I am attempting to leave another option for the understanding of those largely unaware.

-------

But don't worry, there is so much that the majority don't know about things and the what of it.

Take The President for instance.



Not to mention that a very influential man died in February, right before he was to come out with video of Obama at Communists meetings on schedule of March 1st, along with complete descriptions of what was being planned for the USA.

Coincidence?

Yeah, right!


QUOTE
QUOTE
That is a direct violation of the oaths of every person that signed that bill, because of the oaths they take to uphold the documents that state, set up and allow their offices. Thus, sedition and treason. The statements about Ron Paul are also a direct violation of the electoral process amongst several other federal offenses.  There are many other things as well such as, VETERANS, FIREARM OWNERSHIP and many other such things.


That's just nonsense. That means that anytime a Congressperson or Senator voted for a bill, or a President signed one, that was later ruled unconstitutional, he/she is guilty of treason? Are you out of your mind? The Line Item Veto Act was declared unconstitutional; does that mean the whole House and Senate are treasonous? Bill Clinton treasonous? What about the various members of Congress who were founding fathers, as well as George Washington himself, the signer of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was the first bill ever declared [/quot]unconstitutional; are they treasonous? Really, come on man.


The bill is far worse that Unconstitutional, it is AntiConstitution, because of the process accepted by US law enforcement for investigating "potential terrorists" has allowed for anyone that cites the US Constitution to be considered a threat on merit.

It is completely freaking backwards!

Heavily edited.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#85

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:45 AM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Mar 13 2012, 00:20)
The bill is far worse that Unconstitutional, it is AntiConstitution, because of the process accepted by US law enforcement for investigating "potential terrorists" has allowed for anyone that cites the US Constitution to be considered a threat on merit.

It is completely freaking backwards!

Technically, if the bill is unconstitutional, we have the right to overthrow the government and reform. Just know that the Union of Shyguy Socialist Republics will prevail.

On a more serious note, this is a violation of basic human rights, and is unacceptable. We are being run by idiots, and the only people campaigning to replace these idiots are even worse. The only people I would vote for are Obama and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is just in it for the inspiration. I would seriously suggest a rebellion against this league of retards called the American government before they set the world on fire. You can't trust republicans anyways, all they will do is start oil wars and drop nukes. It's just like 2004, there is nobody to vote for, so we will have to vote for the least retarded canidate. Hopefully the Democratic Primaries aren't this horrible.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#86

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:11 AM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Tuesday, Mar 27 2012, 07:45)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Mar 13 2012, 00:20)
The bill is far worse that Unconstitutional, it is AntiConstitution, because of the process accepted by US law enforcement for investigating "potential terrorists" has allowed for anyone that cites the US Constitution to be considered a threat on merit.

It is completely freaking backwards!

Technically, if the bill is unconstitutional, we have the right to overthrow the government and reform. Just know that the Union of Shyguy Socialist Republics will prevail.

On a more serious note, this is a violation of basic human rights, and is unacceptable. We are being run by idiots, and the only people campaigning to replace these idiots are even worse. The only people I would vote for are Obama and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is just in it for the inspiration. I would seriously suggest a rebellion against this league of retards called the American government before they set the world on fire. You can't trust republicans anyways, all they will do is start oil wars and drop nukes. It's just like 2004, there is nobody to vote for, so we will have to vote for the least retarded canidate. Hopefully the Democratic Primaries aren't this horrible.


[Supreme]

Please demonstrate when a Republican has "dropped nukes" in the last 50 years. In fact, the only US president to rubber-stamp the tactical or strategic use of nuclear weapons, Harry Truman, was a democrat. Also, whilst I agree on one level with regards to violation of human rights if it was proposing indefinite detention of civilian non combatants, it sort of isn't. A detention is not indefinite if you have clauses indicating time limits, even if these are fluid.

MarkC9
  • MarkC9

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2011

#87

Posted 04 April 2012 - 02:28 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Mar 11 2012, 08:00)
Ron Paul is not supported by the intelligence community, nor is he supported by military officers. Officers and members of the intelligence community, people who are educated and understand how politics and foreign policy work, recognize that he is a complete lunatic. Go look up his support amongst enlisted personnel vs. officers, you'll confirm what I said.

Your avatar shows you support someone that equates rape with possession of marijuana. Someone that thinks the new testament should be a mandatory part of the curriculum in the public schooling system.

You're right though. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Rick Santorum is not. lol.gif

.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#88

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:39 PM

QUOTE (MarkC9 @ Wednesday, Apr 4 2012, 15:28)
Your avatar shows you support someone that equates rape with possession of marijuana. Someone that thinks the new testament should be a mandatory part of the curriculum in the public schooling system.

You're right though. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Rick Santorum is not. lol.gif

.

I guess irony isn't your strong point?

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#89

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:18 PM

You're just dumb if you think me of all people support Santorum tounge.gif

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#90

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:56 PM Edited by sivispacem, 24 June 2012 - 12:07 AM.

I choose this for the theme-song for such matters.



out in the open they aint gonna hide police state upon us prepare to collide theyre gonna keep you down step on your neck cant move no more the weapon of their choosing is censorship and war and i can see the line up now everyone is just partisan you see one side claims victory but its just a zero sum liberty and freedom in quotations spray painted on the wall verbalized explosion we will come back some day if your ideas are suspect now your in contempt report to the committee no one is exempt and the zealots and crusaders they cant justify with threats and intimidation designed to terrify

liberty and freedom in quotations spray painted on the wall verbalized explosion we will come back some day

-Thread locked due to HGF's pointless spamming. Next time, if you are going to disappear for three months, don;t announce your return with such stupidity-




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users