US senate declares the entire usa to be a battleground-The US constitution is gone

[Deleted]

but if there were already fast warrant courts, then how can you make them faster without circumventing the process?

By bending time.

I.e. You let the agents issue the warrants and you submit them to judges later. LOL.

[Catta]

By bending time.

I.e. You let the agents issue the warrants and you submit them to judges later. LOL.

would be like Minority Report... Like in the scenes where they do the actual finding they have a judge just looking, just proforma...

incidentally i wrote my final report of gymnasium... about the overextending of surveillance and the patriot act

[Deleted]

would be like Minority Report... Like in the scenes where they do the actual finding they have a judge just looking, just proforma...

incidentally i wrote my final report of gymnasium... about the overextending of surveillance and the patriot act

Umm, what I'm describing is how it works today afaik. The agents write their warrants themselves but have tot submit them to judges later to make sure that what they did had probable cause. Of course simultaneously undermining the whole point of a warrant.

[Catta]

Umm, what I'm describing is how it works today afaik. The agents write their warrants themselves but have tot submit them to judges later to make sure that what they did had probable cause. Of course simultaneously undermining the whole point of a warrant.

this is only concerning when its "terrorism" right? Not regular?

[YoungRider]

I'm finding it very hard to believe this. Because CNN, MCNBC and Yahoo new's have not reported "Anything" and also if you look at the youtube clip closely it says "Fox New's Broadcasting" I think right now they are still fighting over payroll and how they are going fight it. This wasn't even mentioned. I'm afraid I'm going need at least two links to confirm this.

[Deleted]

this is only concerning when its "terrorism" right? Not regular?

As far as I know, ye.

---------- Post added 2011-12-03 at 12:57 AM ----------

I'm finding it very hard to believe this. Because CNN, MCNBC and Yahoo new's have not reported "Anything" and also if you look at the youtube clip closely it says "Fox New's Broadcasting" I think right now they are still fighting over payroll and how they are going fight it. This wasn't even mentioned. I'm afraid I'm going need at least two links to confirm this.

Just go to the house.gov site and look it up yourself. Or CSPAN.

[Gudder]

Well, to those people questioning the Bill of Rights, when it comes to personal rights and equality Sweden actually is kind of the foremost authority on change, and there are legal scholars saying the American system needs to be more like their system in a lot of areas. With that said, there are tons of bad laws that pass one side and not the other, and there are a ton of loopholes in preexisting laws amongst other things. Fun fact: there is no such thing as first amendment rights anyway. Nice to see it links to Fox News anyway, surely the most accurate source in news reporting today. If anything one of the biggest travesties of all is the funding being put into a lot of these things that probably should be going elsewhere when the state of the nation is crumbling.

Side note: The article is from an avid Ron Paul supporter. It's almost like he is trying to say THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD VOTE RON PAUL - by doing the very things it's accused of doing. Really it's cute. Read a book, stop believing everything you see on the internet people, and free your minds. It really is a lovely thing.

[YoungRider]

Well, to those people questioning the Bill of Rights, when it comes to personal rights and equality Sweden actually is kind of the foremost authority on change, and there are legal scholars saying the American system needs to be more like their system in a lot of areas. With that said, there are tons of bad laws that pass one side and not the other, and there are a ton of loopholes in preexisting laws amongst other things. Fun fact: there is no such thing as first amendment rights anyway. Nice to see it links to Fox News anyway, surely the most accurate source in news reporting today. If anything one of the biggest travesties of all is the funding being put into a lot of these things that probably should be going elsewhere when the state of the nation is crumbling.

Side note: The article is from an avid Ron Paul supporter. It's almost like he is trying to say THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD VOTE RON PAUL - by doing the very things it's accused of doing. Really it's cute. Read a book, stop believing everything you see on the internet people, and free your minds. It really is a lovely thing.

]

OT: I suppose this over when Obama sent that strike team and one of the foe's was born in America bringing up all kind's of questions. But really this is going a bit too far. Their is a picture in the watch men and I think it accurely reflects this situation. In it the people are rioting and the guy's say "What happened to the American dream, and the guy respond's "your looking at it. It came true" scary but true.


According to a new Fairleigh Dickinson University study, people who watch Fox News are less likely to know about important news events than people who do not watch news at all.


In one instance, the study found that Fox News watchers were 18 percent less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all.

[Catta]

]

OT: I suppose this over when Obama sent that strike team and one of the foe's was born in America bringing up all kind's of questions. But really this is going a bit too far. Their is a picture in the watch men and I think it accurely reflects this situation. In it the people are rioting and the guy's say "What happened to the American dream, and the guy respond's "your looking at it. It came true" scary but true.


According to a new Fairleigh Dickinson University study, people who watch Fox News are less likely to know about important news events than people who do not watch news at all.


In one instance, the study found that Fox News watchers were 18 percent less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all.

Ann Coulter thought the US bombed Egypt to overthrow the government... And shes someone that gets a staggering amount of screen time for some reason

[Deleted]

Well, to those people questioning the Bill of Rights, when it comes to personal rights and equality Sweden actually is kind of the foremost authority on change, and there are legal scholars saying the American system needs to be more like their system in a lot of areas. With that said, there are tons of bad laws that pass one side and not the other, and there are a ton of loopholes in preexisting laws amongst other things. Fun fact: there is no such thing as first amendment rights anyway. Nice to see it links to Fox News anyway, surely the most accurate source in news reporting today. If anything one of the biggest travesties of all is the funding being put into a lot of these things that probably should be going elsewhere when the state of the nation is crumbling.

Side note: The article is from an avid Ron Paul supporter. It's almost like he is trying to say THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD VOTE RON PAUL - by doing the very things it's accused of doing. Really it's cute. Read a book, stop believing everything you see on the internet people, and free your minds. It really is a lovely thing.

Or maybe you should just check the content of the bill and realize that Fox Business =/= Fox News.

[Wells]

but if there were already fast warrant courts, then how can you make them faster without circumventing the process?

How about better, which was the point....

You know if neither of you guys know how this works, as you say you don't, maybe some reading is in order.

[Zyzzyx]

The best part? Not one person here is actually going to read the entire text of the bill. It's huge. They'll read the obviously heavily biased "fanzine" and make uninformed decisions based entirely on someone else's opinion.

[Powerogue]

What an overwhelming and painful exaggeration. Must've really wanted a scary headline.

i hope exaggeration is what I'm seeing, it's sensational, I'll say that much. If I'm interpreting this correctly, it basically gives the US a military dictatorship control over its citizens.

and you make it sound like it's just breezing through the stages of being written into law, that's intimidating stuff.

The best part? Not one person here is actually going to read the entire text of the bill. It's huge. They'll read the obviously heavily biased "fanzine" and make uninformed decisions based entirely on someone else's opinion.

can you blame me if the bills lately have been the size of the entire harry potter series written entirely in legalese? They could really use a TL;DR at the bottom with a short paragraph-long summary :P

[Caiada]

i hope exaggeration is what I'm seeing, it's sensational, I'll say that much. If I'm interpreting this correctly, it basically gives the US a military dictatorship control over its citizens.

and you make it sound like it's just breezing through the stages of being written into law, that's intimidating stuff.

The Reddit link tells all.

[Falrinn]

I do see some serious abuse potential in this law. I might not go as far as to say the US constitution is now meaningless, but it still is rather troubling.

These sorts of laws are written to deal with very real threats to the security of the American people. However because "terrorism" is such a difficult to define concept, it can be applied to a lot of things that aren't actually serious threats. In time, they could be used against any organization or person that likes to "make waves" so to speak, regardless of whether or not they've ever seriously threatened to kill anyone.


Whenever I look into the future of the country, I see something big going down within the next couple of decades if certain trends aren't reversed. It could be a Civil War, except one divided on political lines rather then regional. Who wins, what the country will be like after the fact, or even if there will be a single country are all up in the air. Things like this bill and an ever-increasing focus on security over freedom in general is simply going to bring that day ever closer. Although it's just one of many factors.

And when I all goes down, I plan to get as far away as humanely possible (New Zealand if by some miracle I can manage it, Canada or a sparsely populated region in the US more realistically). Why? Because even though I wish my country the best, I am not a fighter in any capacity. I would much rather be refugee #125,089 rather then casualty #72,457.

[starlord]

The best part? Not one person here is actually going to read the entire text of the bill. It's huge. They'll read the obviously heavily biased "fanzine" and make uninformed decisions based entirely on someone else's opinion.

Congressmen dont read bills either, they just have an assisstant make a summary for them.

[darkwarrior42]

can you blame me if the bills lately have been the size of the entire harry potter series written entirely in legalese? They could really use a TL;DR at the bottom with a short paragraph-long summary :P

I understand what you're saying, but I'm still not particularly inclined to take seriously anyone who gets their opinion from a biased source.

I would like to point out that the full name of the bill is "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012", of which the debated portion is a very small aspect. Still, let's break down the section of that bill as it applies to military detainees. Anything in italics is taken verbatim from congressional bills, or related laws.

(Warning: This will be long, and I"m not going to provide a tl;dr of my reasoning, though I will provide my conclusion. I'm not interested in debating sensationalized opinion from random websites, I will be debating only the actual text of the bill itself. If you have no interest in reading, that's fine, just a heads up.)

"Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. 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) 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."

Public Law 107-40 may be read in full here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-107publ40.htm

The most relevant paragraph: "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It then goes on to say that nothing in public law 107-40 constitutes "specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution", but that no part of the law supercedes the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. In other words, Public Law 107-40 extends to the President the authority to act against those he deems responsible for the attacks that took place on 9/11 as if he were acting against an enemy nation, under the War Powers Resolution.

Now, looking back on subsection (a) of the original bill being debated in this thread, we can clearly see that it's not extending any new powers to the President, simply clarifying that the powers extended to him already by Public Law 107-40 include the authority of the Armed Forces to detain "covered persons". Remember, the President of the United States of America is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, so Public Law 107-40's authority extends to the military so long as the President says it does (it gives him the authority to act, and he has the authority to order the military to act).

So, that said, let us move on to subsection (b) to see who is covered:
" (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."

Here, we clearly see that the bill extends to those who were part of the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda, the Talabian, and similar forces. Still possibly vague, but far more defined than the OP would have us believe. Moving on, we come to a *very* important part of this section:

"(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."

So, keeping in mind that "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" is the name of Public Law 107-40, we clearly see that this entire section does not actually extend any new powers or priveleges to the President, only clarifies those he has had since September 18th, 2001.


Now, what about section 1032?

"SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

Subsection (c), which I did not post here, contains no actual rules, only directions that the President is to come up with policies/procedures for implementing this requirements of this part of the bill within 60 days of the bill's passage.

What about the rest? Basically, Subsection (a) states that any covered person captured under authority of Public Law 107-40 is to be held in military detention, unless they fall into one of three categories:
1) The secretaries of Defense and State, together with the Director of National Intelligence, say it's not necessary
2) They're a US citizen
3) They're a lawful resident alien, and the conduct that would prompt their detention took place within the United States.



Conclusion: As far as I can tell, this bill does not extend *any* new powers to the president; its entire wording is based upon the execution of a bill signed into law over 10 years ago, which serves as the basis for all powers discussed in the bill. This bill simply serves as clarification for what powers the Public Law 107-40 actually grants the President, not an authorization of new powers.

[Deleted]

Hooray. We have utterly affirmed that the Internet does not understand either basic law or the US military, both of which are far more troubling than this supposedly evil bill that doesn't really do anything and probably won't pass.

Good to know.

[Electroso]

At the rate things are going with Obama Sweden will be better at American Civil Rights than our current President, and he's supposedly a "Constitutional Scholar"

Ummm it was Senate who passed the law and Obama can sign it or Veto it, so now you need to wait and see instead of right away flaming someone for doing nothing. If you have issue about it take it with your Congressmen or Senators.

[Hughes]

You don't have rights in cases CONNECTED WITH TERRORISM. Here, I'll bold it for you. Thanks for playing Fail-Anarchist of the Week, with your excellently moderated host, MMO-Champion! /applause

In that case, let's look at it this way. I'll give you a scenaro; all hell breaks loose. The government pisses off it's people enough to incite massive amounts of retalliation. Now, looking at that bill, lets say a few of these people cause riots, destroy stuff, etc. etc. Could that be labeled as terrorism? Yes, there are laws stating 'this' is indeed 'that.' But couldn't this just bypass those laws, thus allowing the government to claim any sort of rebellion is an act of terrorism? It leaves too much wiggle room to determine what is a terrorist act and what isn't (ignoring all common sense, mind you). The constitution was set up so the people have the power (which definately is NOT the case today).