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

[TaunTaun]

I just had a thought on this matter.

If it only applies to you if you are "aiding" AQ, or a group that is in support to them...

if the Prez uses the "If you are not with us, then you are against us" theme to apply to an organization, such as say...the Tea Party, or a militia group (I don't agree with a large chunk of them, but I support their right to belong to a militia. In fact I think of most militias as a bunch of weekend warriors that spend their weekends playing soldier, yet not knowing anything about being a soldier. Yet some of them would be most prepared if SHTF.) Any organization that is deemed in opposition of the government, wether violent or not, could be argued to be in support of AQ...

And didnt the DOJ come out with some revised guidelines a few months back about what and who could be considered as Domestic Terrorists? Something about those who stockpile food, are Pro-2nd amendment, etc. (If anyone could provide a relevant link to this, I'd appreciate it.) And OBVIOUSLY if you are in a category to be a domestic terrorist, or even suspected, then obviously you are in suspected to be in support of AQ using the previous reasoning.

I try to use a large grain of salt when talking about theories, possibilities, etc, but this is the sort of thing that can jump quickly from "It's for our own good" to a Police State. I have to assume that this is a big chunk of what people like Ron Paul are looking at. And for the record, I'd have to say that it worries me a bit.

 

[rambone]

I just had a thought on this matter.

If it only applies to you if you are "aiding" AQ, or a group that is in support to them...

if the Prez uses the "If you are not with us, then you are against us" theme to apply to an organization, such as say...the Tea Party, or a militia group (I don't agree with a large chunk of them, but I support their right to belong to a militia. In fact I think of most militias as a bunch of weekend warriors that spend their weekends playing soldier, yet not knowing anything about being a soldier. Yet some of them would be most prepared if SHTF.) Any organization that is deemed in opposition of the government, wether violent or not, could be argued to be in support of AQ...

And didnt the DOJ come out with some revised guidelines a few months back about what and who could be considered as Domestic Terrorists? Something about those who stockpile food, are Pro-2nd amendment, etc. (If anyone could provide a relevant link to this, I'd appreciate it.) And OBVIOUSLY if you are in a category to be a domestic terrorist, or even suspected, then obviously you are in suspected to be in support of AQ using the previous reasoning.

I try to use a large grain of salt when talking about theories, possibilities, etc, but this is the sort of thing that can jump quickly from "It's for our own good" to a Police State. I have to assume that this is a big chunk of what people like Ron Paul are looking at. And for the record, I'd have to say that it worries me a bit.

Police State? Slippery slope? No way! That's crazy talk. We need government to keep us safe. Are you saying you don't want to be safe? Should we just let the enemy kill us? Are you some kind of terror wrist sympathizer? Do you hate America?

/s

 

[cqcn88]

Not to be antagonistic, but who says this is unconstitutional?

Welcome to the constitution.

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[Pocketman]

Welcome to the constitution.

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Still haven't answered my question. Is this YOUR interpretation of this new law and the Constitution?

 

[cqcn88]

The bill makes provision for citizens designated as terrorists to be imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. They don't even have to be accused. And yes, it applies to citizens. Watch this discussion between Rand Paul and John McCain. The proponents of the bill keep alluding to this idea that "well, of course it would only apply to people who were designated as terrorists or enemy combatants." "Designated as a terrorist or enemy combatant" is incredibly ambiguous. I don't see how anyone could interpret this to not be in direct conflict with the fifth and sixth amendments. Ya know, I actually have a really good idea for how to discern whether or not a citizen is actually a terrorist. How about a little due process, maybe a trial by judge and jury?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktGAtHLt2Q&feature=related

 

[Expat]

It seems clear from Senator McCain's answer that any US citizen could be declared an enemy combatant if they are seen to be a danger to the US and held indefinitely. I am forced to assume that Senator McCain knows what the bill says. It also seemed to be the understanding of Senator Paul as well.

 

[cqcn88]

With that admission, that a citizen could indeed be declared an enemy, doesn't the provision for due process seem conspicuously absent? I'm not against arresting a citizen if they are accused of a crime but for crying out loud give them a trial. In my opinion, that right, the right to a trial is what makes us a free people. Without thinking this through carefully, I may even say this right is more fundamental to our freedom than the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[beararms1776]

It seems their acting the same as millions of ordinary citizens do. Your guilty just because somebody says. No facts, just rumors and lies. No facts. I wonder where they got that idea?

 

[.45 Dave]

I just had a thought on this matter.

If it only applies to you if you are "aiding" AQ, or a group that is in support to them...

if the Prez uses the "If you are not with us, then you are against us" theme to apply to an organization, such as say...the Tea Party, or a militia group (I don't agree with a large chunk of them, but I support their right to belong to a militia. In fact I think of most militias as a bunch of weekend warriors that spend their weekends playing soldier, yet not knowing anything about being a soldier. Yet some of them would be most prepared if SHTF.) Any organization that is deemed in opposition of the government, wether violent or not, could be argued to be in support of AQ...

And didnt the DOJ come out with some revised guidelines a few months back about what and who could be considered as Domestic Terrorists? Something about those who stockpile food, are Pro-2nd amendment, etc. (If anyone could provide a relevant link to this, I'd appreciate it.) And OBVIOUSLY if you are in a category to be a domestic terrorist, or even suspected, then obviously you are in suspected to be in support of AQ using the previous reasoning.

I try to use a large grain of salt when talking about theories, possibilities, etc, but this is the sort of thing that can jump quickly from "It's for our own good" to a Police State. I have to assume that this is a big chunk of what people like Ron Paul are looking at. And for the record, I'd have to say that it worries me a bit.

^ This!

What is next? How is "enemy combatant" defined? Waco, for example?
This is scary stuff and soon anyone who crosses the regime in power could be considered an enemy of the state and imprisoned. This is the kind of stuff that causes CW in many countries.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I listened to Andy McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who prosecuted the first Twin Towers bombing plot, on Garrison yesterday talking about what this document actually says and to whom it might apply. McCarthy said it just specified what has already been done since WWII when President Roosevelt had Nazi saboteurs (including a couple of US citizens) held over in military custody, tried by courts-martial, and executed by the military.

SO FAR, this law limits such actions to battlefields. Until the US is declared a "battlefield" with "enemy combatants" we shouldn't need to be overly concerned about this.

 

[cqcn88]

SO FAR, this law limits such actions to battlefields. Until the US is declared a "battlefield" with "enemy combatants" we shouldn't need to be overly concerned about this.

This bill declares the whole world as the battlefield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

 

[TaunTaun]

But doesn't this bill also imply that now the United States IS now also considered a part of the battlefield?

 

[Bond 281]

This bill declares the whole world as the battlefield.

Yeah that's exactly why we are so concerned.

 

[cqcn88]

Yeah that's exactly why we are so concerned.

Indeed. It seems a few people don't get it.

 

[Super Bee]

I listened to Andy McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who prosecuted the first Twin Towers bombing plot, on Garrison yesterday talking about what this document actually says and to whom it might apply. McCarthy said it just specified what has already been done since WWII when President Roosevelt had Nazi saboteurs (including a couple of US citizens) held over in military custody, tried by courts-martial, and executed by the military.

SO FAR, this law limits such actions to battlefields. Until the US is declared a "battlefield" with "enemy combatants" we shouldn't need to be overly concerned about this.

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. This does not include German and Italian US citizens, they were treated the same way. Remember, these were all US citizens. Not really our finest hour.

Just my opinion, but I do not think I would be so cavalier about the new law. Sooner or later this will affect you or someone you care about.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Gee, I didn't realize the Japanese were Nazi saboteurs...

George John Dasch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rambone]

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

"Wake me when the next infringement happens."

 

[cqcn88]

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

Very true. Sheeple. Seemingly hellbent on not seeing the obvious. Just sit quiet and try to not draw attention.

 

[thebishopp]

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. This does not include German and Italian US citizens, they were treated the same way. Remember, these were all US citizens. Not really our finest hour.

Just my opinion, but I do not think I would be so cavalier about the new law. Sooner or later this will affect you or someone you care about.

That was merely an isolated incident. It is not indicative of a trend and is probably unlikely to every occur again so we can just forget it ever happened. Also I am sure that most of that information was "MISinformation" no doubt exaggerated by the media..

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

 

[Super Bee]

Gee, I didn't realize the Japanese were Nazi saboteurs...

George John Dasch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are referring to my comment, I know the Japanese were not Nazi saboteurs. I was simply referring to his comment that only a couple US citizens were rounded up and detained when this was not the case.