Homeland Security Gets Brigade for Domestic Use

[Crystalship1]

Time to breakout the aluminum foil hats!!!!

 

[JcJ]

If the government refuses to represent the people under it's rule is the day that the citizens answer to no authority.

That is one hell of a post brother...

This is starting a very dangerous trend. I think I just lost all my firearms.

Damn boating accident..

Time to breakout the aluminum foil hats!!!!

2 layers of "NO-STICK FOIL", one under and one over the spaghetti strainer. I'm considering an additional layer or two of copper just in case..




It's only a matter of time, 2 weeks, 2 year, 20 years? Who knows?
How many .223 rounds should I have before it's considered excessive?

 

[SavageEagle]

No amount is excessive passed what you can carry and what you can bury. Besides, you only need so much until you start picking up their weapons and ammo anyway!

 

[Jerry]

Besides, you only need so much until you start picking up their weapons and ammo anyway!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I disagree. The post 911 period has been an acceleration of power and intrusion on the rights of individuals unlike any time before in my lifetime (37 years). Given the "war on drugs" that is impressive.

I beg to differ.
SECRET U.S.COURT VIOLATES RIGHTS

The aftershock of the Oklahoma City bombing sent Congress scurrying to trade off civil liberties for an illusion of public safety. A good ten weeks before that terrible attack, however with a barely noticed pen stroke President Bill Clinton virtually killed off the Fourth Amendment when he approved a law to expand the already extraordinary powers of the strangest creation in the history of the federal judiciary. Since its founding in 1978, a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA rhymes with ice -a) has received 7,539 applications to authorize electronic surveillance within the U.S. In the name of national security, the court has approved all but one of these requests from the Justice Department on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. Each of these decisions was reached in secret, with no published orders, opinions, or public record. The people, organizations, or embassies spied on were not notified of either the hearing or the surveillance itself. The American Civil Liberties Union was not able to unearth a single instance in which the target of a FISA wiretap was allowed to review the initial application. Nor would the targets be offered any opportunity to see transcripts of the conversations taped by the government and explain their side of the story.

When Clinton signed Executive Order 12949 on February 9, the frightening mandate of the FISA, court was greatly expanded: It now has legal authority to approve black-bag operations to authorize Department of Justice (DoJ) requests to conduct physical as well as electronic searches, without obtaining a warrant in open court, without notifying the subject, without providing an inventory of items seized. The targets need not be under suspicion of committing a crime, but may be investigated when probable cause results solely from their associations or status: for example, belonging to, or aiding and abetting organizations deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. Furthermore, despite a lowered standard for applying the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure than is necessary in other U.S. courts, under the 1995 expansion, evidence gathered by the FISA court may now be used in criminal trials. Previously, evidence was collected and stockpiled solely for intelligence purposes.

Clinton also gave us Rendition.
American Civil Liberties Union : Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation.

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Also in this time frame what examples do we have of abuses?
No Ruby Ridge. No Waco.
While any intrusion into American Citizens rights is unacceptable, those rights should not be granted to non citizens.

 

[flagtag]

Bull, river boat annie is not in office and Republicans (conservative) are screaming

Agreed. If Kerry were in office, we would have had something like this long ago. Only, it would have been his North Viet Nam Communist buddies pulling the strings. And we would have learned a new language by now.

And, yes, this does make me VERY nervous for many reasons. These troops can be abused by our local leaders as well as the Fed. gov. (Think Chicago and their anti-gun agenda, and the fact that they want a new Constututional Convention. Why? I think that they want to extend their "socialist" agenda to the rest of the state.

Another reason I'm worried about this is that there might be trouble after the November elections and I beleive the gov. believes it also. (Added to the financial problems)

 

[scully]

Palin 2012. At least I have a little hope. Why do I feel she may be the last chance for America, is everyone one else that bad?????

 

[SavageEagle]

Bill Of Rights for President 2012!!!!

 

[flagtag]

Palin 2012. At least I have a little hope. Why do I feel she may be the last chance for America, is everyone one else that bad?????

Yes!

 

[turnandshoot4]

But Blood Eclipse Bush trampled those rights not even a year ago. Again. What damage was done by Clinton was made worse by Bush. Besides, I VOTED REPUBLICAN SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS DEMOCRAT BS!

Why is this happening then? From a republican!?

 

[turnandshoot4]

Link to back up the death of the 4th amendment by Bush.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXj_HzG0pJU]YouTube - Senate Votes to Abolish 4th Amendment (HR6304 UPDATE)[/ame]

 

[SavageEagle]

Why is this happening? Because those with the money on capitol hill want power. More power. Which equals more money. Remember the pharohs of Eqypt? The had mountains of wealth with mountains of disarmed slaves. This is what the power plays are all about. Make the masses live powerless in fear and the depend on us to help them live their lives. Tell me why the people of this Country puts up with it? It takes 2/3's of the PEOPLE to stand up and say FU get out of office. My mom who works for the teamsters said it best. "We can't get 2/3's of a company to vote yes or no for a union. What makes you think 2/3's of the American people will stand up against the government?" And she's right. There are 80 million or so legal firearms owners that have our concerns. That's not even 1/3 of the voting public. How can we stop this tyranny? We can't "go guns" against the government and we sure can't run for office and it's harder than hell to get someone to stand up against people they see as far superior to them. So how can we change things? Just surviving this isn't an option because if we resist we will be arrested or worse. So what do we do?

 

[BloodEclipse]

But Blood Eclipse Bush trampled those rights not even a year ago. Again. What damage was done by Clinton was made worse by Bush. Besides, I VOTED REPUBLICAN SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS DEMOCRAT BS!

Why is this happening then? From a republican!?

I'm not saying what Bush has done is good, quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that all this stuff has not been done under Bush.

I'm also suggesting under this administration that abuse has been close to nonexistent.

But we the people do hold some of the responsibility as well. We found our voice when it came to illegal immigration and Amnesty, but it seems that same voice was not found for the Patriot Act.

 

[turnandshoot4]

What kind of abuse has been close to nonexistent?

From all I can tell our 1st and 4th amendment rights have been trampled by the current administration.

 

[Windwalker]

Rhino, you are right about we, the citizens and voters are responsible for a lot of this mess. Not because of whom we elected but because we did not vote out those who violated their Oath to support and protect the Constitution of the United States.

 

[BloodEclipse]

What kind of abuse has been close to nonexistent?

From all I can tell our 1st and 4th amendment rights have been tramples by the current administration.

Examples please. Just because they have granted themselves the power, show me instances where they have used and abused that power. I don't like the fact the powers are in place and under another administration they could be exercised more and abused.

 

[techres]

Examples please. Just because they have granted themselves the power, show me instances where they have used and abused that power. I don't like the fact the powers are in place and under another administration they could be exercised more and abused.

I'll play!

1. José Padilla - American Citizen. Detained in Chicago and held in confinement for 3.5 years without basic legal recourse. Why? Because in order to strip him of his AMERICAN rights (not to mention - God given rights), the Bush administration simply reclassified him as a "enemy combantant". I.E. your rights count until you are reclassified.

2. Presidential Signing Agreements - Congress passes a law. President has to sign since he cannot override a veto-proof majority. No problem, just put in a signing agreement that says you will do what you "understand the law to mean" and thereby evicerate the actual law. See torture act.

3. NSA wiretapping. President has admitted to it. Congress has protected him from litigation, but I cannot name whom it has been used on. NONE OF US CAN. Why? Because we traded a Constitutional right for a "trust us, we aren't using it for evil" from Bush & co. It was even found illegal by a review judge, but that is not enough I guess.

AS FOR NAMED VICTIMS - THE KEY ELEMENT IS THAT THEY ADMIT TO DOING IT BUT KEEP ALL OVERSIGHT FROM HAPPENING. THEREFORE EXAMPLES ARE RARE BY DEFINITION!

 

[SavageEagle]

AMEN Techres, Amen.

Back to my question above. What are we suppose to do about it?

 

[BloodEclipse]

I'll play!

1. José Padilla - American Citizen. Detained in Chicago and held in confinement for 3.5 years without basic legal recourse. Why? Because in order to strip him of his AMERICAN rights (not to mention - God given rights), the Bush administration simply reclassified him as a "enemy combantant". I.E. your rights count until you are reclassified.

2. Presidential Signing Agreements - Congress passes a law. President has to sign since he cannot override a veto-proof majority. No problem, just put in a signing agreement that says you will do what you "understand the law to mean" and thereby evicerate the actual law. See torture act.

3. NSA wiretapping. President has admitted to it. Congress has protected him from litigation, but I cannot name whom it has been used on. NONE OF US CAN. Why? Because we traded a Constitutional right for a "trust us, we aren't using it for evil" from Bush & co. It was even found illegal by a review judge, but that is not enough I guess.

AS FOR NAMED VICTIMS - THE KEY ELEMENT IS THAT THEY ADMIT TO DOING IT BUT KEEP ALL OVERSIGHT FROM HAPPENING. THEREFORE EXAMPLES ARE RARE BY DEFINITION!

On the Presidential signing statements, not all signing statements are much more than a reason why the bill will be signed into law. Here is a list of all Signing statements from 2001- present.

List of All Presidential Signing Statements 2001-2008

Here is a good info source as well.

Presidential Signing Statements

Q: What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?
A: In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

As Far as Jose goes he was convicted and I'm guessing this helped get him classified as an enemy combatant.

The key piece of physical evidence against Padilla was a "mujahideen data form" -- basically, a personnel form that a CIA witness testified had been recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. Although defense lawyers attacked its authenticity, it bore Padilla's fingerprints and some of his personal information.

Jury Convicts Jose Padilla of Terror Charges - washingtonpost.com

NSA wiretapping
Found this on Mother Jones.
A three-member federal appeals court ruled very narrowly yesterday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program should remain in place until a plaintiff comes along who can prove s/he was spied on, resulting in concrete harm. The decision suggests that the program might be illegal, but states clearly that the lawyers and journalists who brought the suit had no standing to do so.

Again I am concerned about these powers being granted in the first place, but some claim, as does Bush that he has the power and the responsibility to act.
Ticker - NSA Wiretapping Program: Legal or not?

As a matter of fact, the president has a constitutional right as the Commander-in-Chief to break any US law in the name of national security. Also, the Bush administration was authorized to wiretap without warrants by Congress, when Congress adopted the 2001 resolution authorizing military force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

In regard to the parameters of the program being subject to FISA laws, my answer is yes because no one is above the law. However, if the law prevents the executive branch from bolstering national security, the President has the constitutional rights vested in him as Commander-in-Chief to override it.

 

[techres]

1. Does the President get to decide what laws are consistent with the unified executive rights? If so, how is he bound by law?

2. Padilla was convicted on terrorism charges, but not on the dirty bomb charge that was the excuse given for 3.5 years for his incarceration without habeus corpus. Furthermore, does any conviction excuse the violation of a right? Does the ends justify the means?

3. If the President gets to do anything because he was "granted the right" as the President and has a "responsibility to act", then how is he not the King? And how, exactly, are there then, still three branches of government? And how, praytel, are we expecting to keep our firearm longer than some guy's decision that he "has to act" to protect us? Is the President granted the power to ignore the Constitution in the Constitution?