• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

I think by all accounts, if the lazy ass OWS porestors took to arms and fought back against the government and this bill, maybe then there would be some progress and freedom in this nation. Peace and law is worthless when you live under the reigns of oppressive authority.

In all honesty, the U.S. is heading towards a conservative nazi nightmare, it needs to be stopped.
 
Senate backs military custody of terror suspects - Yahoo! News

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

The legislation also would give the government the authority to have the military hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. That provision had no exception for a U.S. citizen.



ok, can someone PLEASE clear this up?

does this new law, as passed today, allow American citizens in the USA to be arrested and held without charge or trial, indefinitely?

if this law does indeed do that, than this law IS AS BAD AS FOLKS HAVE BEEN SAYING. THIS WOULD INDEED BE SIMILAR TO MANY EMERGENCY LAWS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

this..is not good. :(
 
Thunder said:
ok, can someone PLEASE clear this up?

Legalese can be a bit of a stinker at times but here is the pertinent section I came up with:

SEC. 1034.
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.


So... technically it seems as if a person may be detained indefinitely.
 
Legalese can be a bit of a stinker at times but here is the pertinent section I came up with:

SEC. 1034.
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.


So... technically it seems as if a person may be detained indefinitely.

the simple fact that Senator Feinstein tried to add something to the bill to keep American citizens from being arrested in the USA & detained indefinitely, suggests that the bill does indeed say this.

my dad told me that this story was not covered by PBS's News Hour. this better be in the NY Times.
 
I had this same debate a few months ago and came to the same conclusion. My conclusion is essentially the same, it seems that Congress wants to make the so-called War on Terror permanent in order to retain these powers ad infinitum.

It seems to me that Congress should be forced to explain why we are at war before extending war powers.
 
How could those law makers propose to abandon our basic rights?

How can this be "secret" when it's posted here?

If it's true and you are not a terrorist, don't let it bother you. If you are a terrorist, then you might think about leaving...right away.
 
How can this be "secret" when it's posted here?
Reading the link provided by the OP will solve that mystery. Who'd a thunk it? :doh

If it's true and you are not a terrorist, don't let it bother you. If you are a terrorist, then you might think about leaving...right away.
So, if you're innocent, you don't need no stinkin' constitution -- that about sum up your position?
 
Looks like the republicans pushed this one through too. Almost all the of "yeas" for the amendment are democrat. Though, this entire mess is bipartisan idiotry at it's finest.

vote.jpg
 
Reading the link provided by the OP will solve that mystery. Who'd a thunk it? :doh


So, if you're innocent, you don't need no stinkin' constitution -- that about sum up your position?

If you are innocent the Army won't be knocking your door in, but the militant might have a problem. BTW, the first post had (in the box) "Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad" which is to what I was referring.
 
[...] If it's true and you are not a terrorist, don't let it bother you. If you are a terrorist, then you might think about leaving...right away.
[...] So, if you're innocent, you don't need no stinkin' constitution -- that about sum up your position?
If you are innocent the Army won't be knocking your door in, but the militant might have a problem. [...]
So your position is that the innocent do not need a constitution. Thank you for the confirmation :2razz:
 
How can this be "secret" when it's posted here? [...]
Reading the link provided by the OP will solve that mystery. Who'd a thunk it? :doh [...]
[...] BTW, the first post had (in the box) "Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad" which is to what I was referring.
I was already aware of that.

BTW, "Reading the link provided by the OP will solve that mystery" means that the answer to your question can be found by using your mouse or other pointing device to click on the link provided by the OP (in that little 'box' you see). This will open a new window where you can read the story (again, wherein your question will be answered, or at least the terminology that seems to confuse you will be explained). My apologies for not being clearer on that earlier.
 
Last edited:
If the bill is passed the supreme court can strike it down by declaring it unconstitutional. Hopefully that will happen because that bill is going against every single right we have as an american citizen.
 
(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.


regardless of what the chicken-littles and Conspiracy Theorists say, this law is no big deal.

But when they declare that USA is a battle field, they would give themselves the power to arrest US citizens. That's why it's important on the sentence "US is a battle field". It's easy for them to turn US into a battle field.

Protect your own rights.

Quote, “Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for "U.S. is a Battlefield" and to detain U.S. Citizens without trial

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/892/...attlefield-and-to-detain-us-citizens-without/

-----------------------
National Defense Authorization Act. (Liberty end)
congress.org ^ | 11/29/11 | Cathedra

Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:55:39 AM by Broker

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in SECRET by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

-----------------
The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary
David Seaman, Credit Card Outlaw | Nov. 30, 2011,

Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all -- this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons -- without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you "indefinite detention" for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.

Details: There is a scary provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (fiscal year 2012) which is typically passed by Congress each and every year to continue funding our military operations around the world.
 
so.... i think the bill passed. No veto either.
 
How can this be "secret" when it's posted here?

If it's true and you are not a terrorist, don't let it bother you. If you are a terrorist, then you might think about leaving...right away.
i'm sure the jews in nazi germany thought the same thing ie: "i am an honest person that is only happening to the BAD jews and not me."
 
If it's true and you are not a terrorist, don't let it bother you. If you are a terrorist, then you might think about leaving...right away.

Considering the government has the authority to decide who is a terrorist, I find this bill to be quite Anti-Freedom. This is one of those bills that I wouldn't worry about it being abused today, I would worry about it being abused in the future. Should the government ever decide that anyone who doesn't agree with the government is a terrorist, this bill could be used against the citizens.
 
How can this be "secret" when it's posted here?

If it's true and you are not a terrorist, don't let it bother you. If you are a terrorist, then you might think about leaving...right away.

So the government never gets it wrong?

Would you allow a camera to watch your every move, 24/7? Why not - if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
 
This bill must not happen. Whatever happened to basic, human rights?
 
It's sad that our elected officials decided to **** on the Constitution. The courts will remedy this. It will take awhile especially since we will not hold those who voted (or sign) this accountable.
 
so you are saying the terrorist on 9-11 accomplished what the set out to do?

The terrorists hate us for our freedoms so if we take it away...they won't hate us anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom