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

[gobiggergoredder]

At first this made sense to me, but then I got to thinking how dangerous this could be. What happens if an American citizen is wrongly accused of terrorism? Are they to be locked up without a trial? Even worse, what happens if someone is set-up? Who decides who is a terrorist?

 

Just curious were the ACLU and those that hate the Patriot Act are hiding.

 

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

 

http://www.guardian....detention-obama

[Sub-Husker]

This "firebagger" believes that Obama was wrong not to veto this.

[Malth]

The media has done a very poor job of reporting on this.

 

I would suggest reading sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill that passed. The President still has the same powers granted in 2001 by the UAMF.

 

http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112s1867es.pdf

 

 

It explicitly states that the requirement does not extend to US citizens, among other things

 

 

 

And do you think I was referring to you as a firebagger in another thread? I was referring to the author of the article you linked.

[Sub-Husker]

It explicitly states that the requirement does not extend to US citizens, among other things.

 

I does give the president the right to apply it to US citizens, if he says that national security is at stake.

 

And do you think I was referring to you as a firebagger in another thread? I was referring to the author of the article you linked.

 

Even if you weren't, it seemed to fit.

 

I voted for Obama in the Dem primary and in the general election, only because the competition was that much worse.

 

I read his Audacity book, and it was clear how much of a wimp he was.

 

Once he started naming his cabinet I had given up on him, before he even took office.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

[carlfense]

At first this made sense to me, but then I got to thinking how dangerous this could be. What happens if an American citizen is wrongly accused of terrorism? Are they to be locked up without a trial? Even worse, what happens if someone is set-up? Who decides who is a terrorist?

 

Just curious were the ACLU and those that hate the Patriot Act are hiding.

 

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

 

http://www.guardian....detention-obama

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

 

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

[gobiggergoredder]

At first this made sense to me, but then I got to thinking how dangerous this could be. What happens if an American citizen is wrongly accused of terrorism? Are they to be locked up without a trial? Even worse, what happens if someone is set-up? Who decides who is a terrorist?

 

Just curious were the ACLU and those that hate the Patriot Act are hiding.

 

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

 

http://www.guardian....detention-obama

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

 

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

 

It is obviously your opinion that the ACLU 'fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms'. It is the opinion of some that they work tirelessly to urinate on our freedoms.

 

I believe they are a front group for their 'private' donors that have made a mockery of the judicial system. Using old school bully tactics, the use their wide open cash spigot to force their opponent into submission. They are probably still waiting for their marching orders on this story which is clearly an instance of a Liberty violation.

 

I don't have your judicial background and I am doing nothing more than providing my opinion. Surprisingly, they have been involved with several issues lately that I actually agree with.

[Cactusboy]

Surprisingly, they have been involved with several issues lately that I actually agree with.

 

That's because they are virtually always consistent and when that's the case at some point it will favor every "group". The ACLU doesn't pick n choose...you pick n choose about the ACLU. It'd be like being mad at the sun because it's up before you when stayed up late the night before, but then praising it on the mornings you woke up early after an early night.

[gobiggergoredder]

Surprisingly, they have been involved with several issues lately that I actually agree with.

 

That's because they are virtually always consistent and when that's the case at some point it will favor every "group". The ACLU doesn't pick n choose...you pick n choose about the ACLU. It'd be like being mad at the sun because it's up before you when stayed up late the night before, but then praising it on the mornings you woke up early after an early night.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I have to respectfully disagree with 'always consistent' and 'ACLU doesn't pick n choose'. Of course they pick and choose. It is their interpretations of liberty violations that dictates their course of action. There isn't a manual for these things.

[Cactusboy]

Surprisingly, they have been involved with several issues lately that I actually agree with.

 

That's because they are virtually always consistent and when that's the case at some point it will favor every "group". The ACLU doesn't pick n choose...you pick n choose about the ACLU. It'd be like being mad at the sun because it's up before you when stayed up late the night before, but then praising it on the mornings you woke up early after an early night.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I have to respectfully disagree with 'always consistent' and 'ACLU doesn't pick n choose'. Of course they pick and choose. It is their interpretations of liberty violations that dictates their course of action. There isn't a manual for these things.

 

They protect everyone's civil liberties. It's just that the majority groups CLs aren't violated as often.

[Sub-Husker]

They protect everyone's civil liberties. It's just that the majority groups CLs aren't violated as often.

 

Except for the War on Christmas!

[carlfense]

At first this made sense to me, but then I got to thinking how dangerous this could be. What happens if an American citizen is wrongly accused of terrorism? Are they to be locked up without a trial? Even worse, what happens if someone is set-up? Who decides who is a terrorist?

 

Just curious were the ACLU and those that hate the Patriot Act are hiding.

 

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

 

http://www.guardian....detention-obama

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

 

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

 

It is obviously your opinion that the ACLU 'fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms'. It is the opinion of some that they work tirelessly to urinate on our freedoms.

 

I believe they are a front group for their 'private' donors that have made a mockery of the judicial system. Using old school bully tactics, the use their wide open cash spigot to force their opponent into submission. They are probably still waiting for their marching orders on this story which is clearly an instance of a Liberty violation.

 

I don't have your judicial background and I am doing nothing more than providing my opinion. Surprisingly, they have been involved with several issues lately that I actually agree with.

I'm glad that you admit this. The people who claim that the ACLU hates christianity might as well have "I don't bother to check facts" tattooed on their foreheads.

[HSKR]

I sure hope the ALCU is defending those high school kids who got in trouble for tebowing in the hallway!!

 

On a serious note, I do as well think the ALCU does a pretty good job in general for what they defend.

[Malth]

It explicitly states that the requirement does not extend to US citizens, among other things.

 

I does give the president the right to apply it to US citizens, if he says that national security is at stake. It's still basically the exact same thing that has been in place for over 10 years now. And we still have a Constitution. The issue is being sensationalized and it's kind of ridiculous.

 

And do you think I was referring to you as a firebagger in another thread? I was referring to the author of the article you linked.

 

Even if you weren't, it seemed to fit.

 

I voted for Obama in the Dem primary and in the general election, only because the competition was that much worse.

 

I read his Audacity book, and it was clear how much of a wimp he was.

 

Once he started naming his cabinet I had given up on him, before he even took office.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

 

So what exactly should he have done to make you happy? Keeping in mind that Congress controls most of what gets passed and not, and that the Republicans over the past 4 years have been completely uncooperative, and have no problem busting out the filibuster over basically everything.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

 

Also, regardless of your thoughts on Obama, saying we'd be better off with someone worse than him is just no. Have you been paying attention to the Republican candidates? Are you aware of their views on economics? I'm sorry, but no thanks to the economic black hole their ridiculous policies would put us in. Hold your nose if you have to while you're in the voting booth, because the alternative is f'ing terrible. Do you really think that "teaching him a lesson" or whatever is going to benefit anyone? I'm sorry you're upset with Obama, but let's be realistic here.

[Sub-Husker]

So what exactly should he have done to make you happy? Keeping in mind that Congress controls most of what gets passed and not, and that the Republicans over the past 4 years have been completely uncooperative, and have no problem busting out the filibuster over basically everything.

 

He should have appointed some progressives to key cabinet posts, rather than the conservative "team of rivals" that was lauded by the media in 2009.

His finance and foreign policy teams changed very little from the Bush administration.

He refused to go after the Bush teams for crimes against the Constitution.

He should have used the power of his office to scrap the USA PATRIOT Act, renditions, Gitmo, and other related issues.

He did not send his attack dog Rahm after congress to approve ObomneyCare... until every last shred of government option was removed from it.

He should have drew down Iraq sooner.

He should not have escalated the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

he should not have supported the NATO war crime in Libya, and the Saudi covert war in Syria.

he shhould have eased tensions with Iran.

We should have had more transparency with the bank bailout.

His stimulus plan was a joke, it was severely underfunded.

The Dodd/Franks bank regulations was little more than a big loophole.

He should have used the power of his office to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Also, regardless of your thoughts on Obama, saying we'd be better off with someone worse than him is just no. Have you been paying attention to the Republican candidates? Are you aware of their views on economics? I'm sorry, but no thanks to the economic black hole their ridiculous policies would put us in. Hold your nose if you have to while you're in the voting booth, because the alternative is f'ing terrible. Do you really think that "teaching him a lesson" or whatever is going to benefit anyone? I'm sorry you're upset with Obama, but let's be realistic here.

 

Ron Paul would not be worse, and I don't believe that Jon Huntsman would be either.

 

But perhaps if we got a President Gingrinch, it would finally push the people of this nation into action to scrap our two-party duopoly... where both stand for the same things. The only difference is that Republicans are social conservatives and some are way nuttier.

[HSKR]

So what exactly should he have done to make you happy? Keeping in mind that Congress controls most of what gets passed and not, and that the Republicans over the past 4 years have been completely uncooperative, and have no problem busting out the filibuster over basically everything.

 

He should have appointed some progressives to key cabinet posts, rather than the conservative "team of rivals" that was lauded by the media in 2009.

His finance and foreign policy teams changed very little from the Bush administration.

He refused to go after the Bush teams for crimes against the Constitution.

He should have used the power of his office to scrap the USA PATRIOT Act, renditions, Gitmo, and other related issues.

He did not send his attack dog Rahm after congress to approve ObomneyCare... until every last shred of government option was removed from it.

He should have drew down Iraq sooner.

He should not have escalated the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

he should not have supported the NATO war crime in Libya, and the Saudi covert war in Syria.

he shhould have eased tensions with Iran.

We should have had more transparency with the bank bailout.

His stimulus plan was a joke, it was severely underfunded.

The Dodd/Franks bank regulations was little more than a big loophole.

He should have used the power of his office to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Also, regardless of your thoughts on Obama, saying we'd be better off with someone worse than him is just no. Have you been paying attention to the Republican candidates? Are you aware of their views on economics? I'm sorry, but no thanks to the economic black hole their ridiculous policies would put us in. Hold your nose if you have to while you're in the voting booth, because the alternative is f'ing terrible. Do you really think that "teaching him a lesson" or whatever is going to benefit anyone? I'm sorry you're upset with Obama, but let's be realistic here.

 

Ron Paul would not be worse, and I don't believe that Jon Huntsman would be either.

 

But perhaps if we got a President Gingrinch, it would finally push the people of this nation into action to scrap our two-party duopoly... where both stand for the same things. The only difference is that Republicans are social conservatives and some are way nuttier.

You know Sub, I agree with on the two party system. I have never understood why our country can't be like others with multiple party systems. Have Democrats and Republicans, but also have Tea Party, Progressive, Libertarian, Christian Conservative, etc. and make them all give and take to get things passed. I would think that have smaller more focused parties would be much harder for Corporate American to buy off as well.