McCain's Terror Bill: American citizens will be sent to military prisons

[Kirk Freeman]

McCarthy, McCarthy, why does that name sound so familiar ;-)

You're talking about the guy that pointed out the Communists working in the federal government? What does that have to do with anything?

They could be filling up the internment camps once again, and the same people would be trying to calm us down.

There's reason for concern and then there is just being silly. Let's save the hyperbole for L. Neil Smith novels.

The mishmash of DiFi's amendment needs to be corrected as the SCOTUS will unlikely find it constitutional (which is why Jose Padilla's case turned out as it did). The Lee-Kirk-DiFi amendment to 1867 will ensure that 1867 is clear.

 

[thebishopp]

You're talking about the guy that pointed out the Communists working in the federal government? What does that have to do with anything?

It was in response to what former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy said about what the bill supposedly meant and how the government has being doing it since WWII and to whom it may apply (as mentioned by Blackhawk2001).

Of course while, purely for patriotic reasons, everyone Senator McCarthy pointed out was in fact a "communist" and "un-american"...

He did more than just "point out", he organized what amounted to a witch hunt."witch hunt".

Fortunately for us the country came to it's senses with McCarthy and the Senate voted 67-22 in 1954 to condemn McCarthy for "conduct contrary to senatorial traditions" for abuse of his powers. It was only the third time in 165 years that a senator had been condemned.

It seems to me that there is a remarkable correlation between this rather ambiguous definition for what exactly is a "terrorist" (much more vague than what a "communist" was) and what might be a bill signed into law giving the government much more power to deal with this new "communist"...excuse me I mean "terrorist" threat. The only difference is that this new terminology is much easier to apply to just about anyone.

 

[cqcn88]

The mishmash of DiFi's amendment needs to be corrected as the SCOTUS will unlikely find it constitutional (which is why Jose Padilla's case turned out as it did). The Lee-Kirk-DiFi amendment to 1867 will ensure that 1867 is clear.

Kirk voted yea on this one after giving a speech filled with good reasons to vote against it.

 

[thebishopp]

The mishmash of DiFi's amendment needs to be corrected as the SCOTUS will unlikely find it constitutional (which is why Jose Padilla's case turned out as it did). The Lee-Kirk-DiFi amendment to 1867 will ensure that 1867 is clear.

Interesting little bit of info regarding one of our founders opinions on the Supreme Court being the final decider on whether a law is in line with the Constitution or not. Sadly I do not think his opinion of the voters being the one's to decide via their actions at the ballot box would actually work these days.

In a letter to Spencer Roane (1762–1822), a judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, Thomas Jefferson cautions that the Supreme Court’s power to determine constitutionality must be curbed or it will continue to consolidate the power of the federal government. Jefferson argued that the judiciary’s independence from the will of the people upsets the checks and balances established by the Constitution.'


http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/18/are-supreme-court-decisions-really-the-law-of-the-land/

"Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers realized they did not include strong enough protection against an out of control Supreme Court in the Constitution. Jefferson proposed an amendment that never went anywhere that would have restrained the Supreme Court. He feared an out of control Supreme Court could weaken all of the provisions that chained down the federal government, preventing it from concentrating all power in Washington DC. He knew this would lead to an out of control federal government that would be very destructive to our individual liberty and our nations prosperity."

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1030.htm

-----

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Of course while, purely for patriotic reasons, everyone Senator McCarthy pointed out was in fact a "communist" and "un-american"...

He did more than just "point out", he organized what amounted to a witch hunt."witch hunt".

It was no witch hunt as the Venona Project confirms.

There were communists working inside the the United States government and McCarthy wanted them fired.

Fortunately for us the country came to it's senses with McCarthy and the Senate voted 67-22 in 1954 to condemn McCarthy for "conduct contrary to senatorial traditions" for abuse of his powers. It was only the third time in 165 years that a senator had been condemned.

The Democrat powers that be condemned him because McCarthy wanted to fire their communist friends in federal sincecures. McCarthy wouldn't back off and he angered the powerful Democrats in the Senate and their weak soup Republican allies.

There's nothing wrong with wanting traitors in the federal government fired. I don't think it is an apt analogy.

It seems to me that there is a remarkable correlation between this rather ambiguous definition for what exactly is a "terrorist" (much more vague than what a "communist" was) and what might be a bill signed into law giving the government much more power to deal with this new "communist"...excuse me I mean "terrorist" threat.

Terrorist is defined by United State Code. It is not ambiguous.

This country has enemies and we should work to kill them. I do agree that what is unsettling is the discretion that the President is now given and the at least argument that American citizens could be subject to these provisions.

 

[thebishopp]

It was no witch hunt as the Venona Project confirms.

There were communists working inside the the United States government and McCarthy wanted them fired.



The Democrat powers that be condemned him because McCarthy wanted to fire their communist friends in federal sincecures. McCarthy wouldn't back off and he angered the powerful Democrats in the Senate and their weak soup Republican allies.

There's nothing wrong with wanting traitors in the federal government fired. I don't think it is an apt analogy.



Terrorist is defined by United State Code. It is not ambiguous.

This country has enemies and we should work to kill them. I do agree that what is unsettling is the discretion that the President is now given and the at least argument that American citizens could be subject to these provisions.

While I do not doubt that McCarthy named individuals who were members or had been of the communist party (as well as any other group he felt was "subversive") I also believed he used the "fear" of communism to further his own political agenda. Prior to his "war on communism" there was speculation that he would lose the upcoming election. He was being investigated for tax offences and "allegedly" taking bribes from Pepsi Cola. It is said that one of his closest advisers (Edmund Walsh) came up with the idea of campaigning against "communist subversives" in the democratic administration. In fact his "list of names" was actually published in 46 by the Secretary of State from a screening of some 3000 federal employees. some were or had been communists but the list also contained fascists, alcoholics, and sexual deviants. Note that he also went after people not in the government such as entertainers, writers, filmmakers, members of the lawyers guild, etc. etc.

It's a simple distraction technique that usually works pretty well. In McCarthy's case I believe it backfired with the public viewing of the live hearings where he attempted to take on the U.S. Army and Army Secretary Robert Stevens in 54.

I believe that the current administration seeks to increase the powers of the federal government and is using the "fear of terrorism" to accomplish this goal much like I believe McCarthy used the "fear of communism" to attempt to save his political future.

As far as the definition of terrorist.

I may be missing it but there is no exact definition for "terrorist". It defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" So I will assume that a "terrorist" is someone who makes premeditated, politically motivated attacks (of a violent nature) against noncombatants. So attacks against "combatants" would not count as acts of "terrorism" nor could individuals conducting attacks against "combatants" be called "terrorists". On a side note It is my understanding that we do not accord Geneva Convention "rights" to "terrorists" caught attacking or planning attacks against "soldiers" (who would be "combatants") because we say they are "terrorists". However according to the U.S. Code definition they are not "terrorists".

This makes me think that "terrorist" is whatever the government decides a "terrorist" is for the purpose of doing whatever it wants to do. It is the "goto" accusation for justifying whatever action they feel like taking at the time.

In addition it is my understanding that this bill allows action against "suspected terrorists" which among the various criteria to be "suspected" it includes things like "7 days of food in your house", "ownership of guns", etc. etc. Which does disturb me.

I of course have no disagreement with your last statement.

 

[rambone]

Another Democrat speaks out against this tyranny

Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) tells us that the Bill of Rights, that was ratified on this day 220 years ago, has been gutted by the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.

He even quotes "First they came for the Jews."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFLHTz53FA0

 

[rambone]

Congressman Amash speaks out

Justin Amash makes a lot of sense. One of the few voices from the Red Team who defend civil liberties. Refreshing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FDw_QBgsyU

 

[rambone]

NDAA Set To Become Law: The Terror Is Nearer Than Ever

Combined, NDAA and SOPA simply destroy American democracy. That isn't hype. That isn't exaggeration. Within a few days, your freedom of speech will be gone -- post something controversial online, and the government can legally "disappear" it. Annoy the government too much, or criticize Congress' infinite wisdom and mercy, and you may find yourself in military prison for the remainder of your life, without access to a trial or attorney. Even if you're an American citizen on US soil.
This is a brave new world. Watch what you say. Be mindful of who you associate with. You may criticize your government within the privacy of your own home, amongst close family or friends, but do not post negative comments online. Do not assemble. Do not protest. Do not agitate. Do not give "comfort" to the "enemy."

 

[rambone]

Obama reverses his decision to veto... our fates are sealed

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

 

[bingley]

I believe you may want to double check this stat you made. There were close to 130,000 Japanese US citizens imprisoned by FDR. Their homes taken, land taken, possessions taken, business taken, everything they had taken.

For the benefit of those who misread the paragraph above, we are talking about AMERICAN CITIZENS of Japanese descent. That's right, these are Americans we're talking about - American citizens whose parents immigrated, naturalized legally, and found gainful employment in their new homeland. The irony is that many young men from these unjustly incarcerated families fought for America in WW2.

The government did not restore seized property to the rightful owners at the end of the war. We can't let this happen again.

 

[thebishopp]

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

You are just being paranoid. Only "terrorists" and "suspected terrorists" (whatever that happens to be at any given moment) have any reason to fear. The government has never overstepped their bounds and if they tried the military would simply refuse to comply with orders. I have no idea what you guys are so worried about... any true law abiding patriot would understand this.

 

[thebishopp]

For the benefit of those who misread the paragraph above, we are talking about AMERICAN CITIZENS of Japanese descent. That's right, these are Americans we're talking about - American citizens whose parents immigrated, naturalized legally, and found gainful employment in their new homeland. The irony is that many young men from these unjustly incarcerated families fought for America in WW2.

The government did not restore seized property to the rightful owners at the end of the war. We can't let this happen again.

Sorry but there was a lot of misinformation about this. It really wasn't as bad as some people claimed. In any case even if it did happen there is no indication that it would happen again. Military and law enforcement would simply all refuse to follow such orders. The only people who have cause to fear are enemies of the government and I for one think its a great idea to hunt down and imprison them. You can't make an omelet if you don't break a few eggs.

 

[Super Bee]

Sorry but there was a lot of misinformation about this. It really wasn't as bad as some people claimed. In any case even if it did happen there is no indication that it would happen again. Military and law enforcement would simply all refuse to follow such orders. The only people who have cause to fear are enemies of the government and I for one think its a great idea to hunt down and imprison them. You can't make an omelet if you don't break a few eggs.

When I read your initial response to my post I thought you were being sarcastic, I now know this is not the case. I assure you this is not mis-information and was as bad as many say it was. My minor in collage was history and I did a great deal of reading on this subject.

Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar During World War II

Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps

World War Two - Japanese internment camps in the US

It is not like this is a isolated incident either, our government has done this before several times.

1. Lincoln- Well known he imprisoned US citizens without trial during the civil war.

2. Wilson- This guy was a monster. He had tens of thousands of US citizens arrested without trial for speaking out against his administration.

3. FDR- Another monster, see links above.

For one to think this is mis-information, a isolated incident, and will never happen again is either not familiar with US history or living in denial. What sticks out most is your line

You can't make an omelet if you don't break a few eggs

I mean really? This has to be a joke. . right?

 

[cqcn88]

Purple indicates sarcasm on this forum. Re-read his post but when you hear it in your head, add a touch of indignant sarcasm, maybe a haughty flair of self righteousness, and it will sound better. In fact, try a british accent like some twit from "The Patriot". That should do it.

 

[Super Bee]

Purple indicates sarcasm on this forum. Re-read his post but when you hear it in your head, add a touch of indignant sarcasm, maybe a haughty flair of self righteousness, and it will sound better. In fact, try a british accent like some twit from "The Patriot". That should do it.

I am sorry, being new to this forum I had no idea.

Well that makes me feel so much better about thebishopp. I was hoping Ashton Kutcher would come out and say you been punked.

Now I know. Thank you.

**hangs head down and slinks away**

 

[bigg cheese]

Sorry, a bit late to the game .

The thing is that unless we have laws that are razor sharp and clear as to what is and is not authorized, it will be misinterpreted and misconstrued. Even if it is sharp, the attempt to misinterpret is still there. I bet that someone shushed the farmer who worried about the commerce clause being directed at their own sustenance milk production, or selling to neighbors in the same state or what have you.

Ambiguity + willful ignorance + corrupt politicians = Perfect Storm

 

[cqcn88]

I bet 99.9% of the population, even many of the more informed population, don't even realize it is illegal for a farmer to simply sell his milk to a neighbor. It has to be marked "not for human consumption". The government has decided that you are not intelligent enough to choose to drink perfectly good milk as farmers have been doing for hundreds of years.

 

[TaunTaun]

I bet 99.9% of the population, even many of the more informed population, don't even realize it is illegal for a farmer to simply sell his milk to a neighbor. It has to be marked "not for human consumption". The government has decided that you are not intelligent enough to choose to drink perfectly good milk as farmers have been doing for hundreds of years.

Yeah, ya gotta love it when the FDA comes swooping in with helicopters, black vans, and a SWAT team to raid an amish farm that sells milk across a state line.

 

[cqcn88]

Yeah, ya gotta love it when the FDA comes swooping in with helicopters, black vans, and a SWAT team to raid an amish farm that sells milk across a state line.

Unless I'm mistaken, they can't even sell in-state unless it is marked as animal feed or as not for humans. If you go to a farmer's market that's what you'll see. It's ridiculous.