say whaaaaat? i think i read something about this the other day. the president will be able to sign off on denying due process to suspected terrorists and such?
Exactly when has the law ever really meant something to these people they, hold all the power they have the fancy attorneys the appoint the people who decide what the law is. They have all the power. They trick people everyday by setting up situations where they can claim more power under the guise of helping the people. Perfect example Barrack Obama's healthcare plan. He claimed he wanted to help people afford health insurance but what he actually did was the biggest betrayal of the American people in his presidency. He is setting a precedent that the US Congress can force the American people to buy products from Big Business. Today its health care tomorrow who the hell knows?
[quote name='"James2912"'] Exactly when has the law ever really meant something to these people they, hold all the power they have the fancy attorneys the appoint the people who decide what the law is. They have all the power. They trick people everyday by setting up situations where they can claim more power under the guise of helping the people. Perfect example Barrack Obama's healthcare plan. He claimed he wanted to help people afford health insurance but what he actually did was the biggest betrayal of the American people in his presidency. He is setting a precedent that the US Congress can force the American people to buy products from Big Business. Today its health care tomorrow who the hell knows?[/quote] don't even get me started on the healthcare plan... now you HAVE to buy something if your an American citizen. home of the free? not anymore
Aww I can't see it, I thought I saw this on the local news and they claimed the white house said they wouldn't pass it.
Here is the response I received from one of my Senators that I wrote on this subject: Dear Friend: Thank you for contacting me regarding the new provisions for detainees proposed in Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. I welcome your thoughts and comments. Section 1031 of the NDAA establishes guidelines to allow U.S. Armed Forces to detain “covered persons” captured during hostilities as unprivileged enemy combatants, pending disposition under the laws of war. The provision defines a “covered person” as a person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This provision also applies to individuals who support al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Section 1032 requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody as an unprivileged enemy combatant any person who is a member or part of al Qaeda or an affiliated entity, and who participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. The requirement does not extend to citizens of the United States. Also, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to waive required detention. As the Senate considers S. 1253, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you. Sincerely, Kay Bailey Hutchison United States Senator
You're right. old english is closer to Latin than modern English. But fine, you win on default by technicality.
I wasn't implying this. I'm not exactly a cheerleader for the whole defense, patriot act bullshit. It was a criticism of media, not government. I was just pointing out an obvious spelling error. Sensationalism over fact checking.
[quote name='"mushroomsatsuji"']2012 - The suspension of the Declaration of Independence?[/quote] Only time will tell but i wouldn't be surprised
This is not the first time the US has suspended Habeas Corpus: Habeas corpus in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, it depends what the TRUE intentions are. If it is to get a step ahead of Al Qaeda in the US, then yea its good because they can target suspects and charge them if they believe they are a threat to the US. Al Qaeda members can live in the US right now and plot attacks and stay safe because the US protects them. Now if the intentions are to capture US citizens that try to revolt against a corrupt government then yes it is a bad idea. But out of all the times the US suspended Habeas Corpus, they never targeted innocent civilians because if they did, there would have certainly been protests against the government. I understand how it is unconstitutional, but how else could we get a step ahead of terrorist without bending the rules a little bit.