Anyone remember all those comment I made during the last presidential election about McCain being the "Manchurian Candidate"??? 
Senate Bill Demands the Military Lock Up American Citizens without due process of LAW
- Thread starter okyite
- Start Date
If McCain had won, we would have lost the freedom of personal sales and transfers of a firearm determined by States(he would have closed the supposed "gun show loophole"), likely an "assault weapons ban" and probably more severe curtailing of our liberties as americans, as this current senate Bill suggests.Anyone remember all those comment I made during the last presidential election about McCain being the "Manchurian Candidate"???
All passed by republicans and democrats, because the Prez would be a GOP guy and dems love all these issues.
In a way, it's good we have Obama, because people's eyes have been opened to what unchecked progressivism can do to an economy, and also because everyone has been keeping a watchful eye on him and the demo congress, so that they are too scared to pass any gun bans, though of course they would love to.
This is why it may be better not to have a liberal like Romney as the next president. The only thing I fear more than four more years of Obama is 4 years of a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing, i.e. a progressive GOP president who will pass all sorts of bills with the enthusisatic support of the RINOs in both houses.
And how do we know that the people they accuse are in fact actually involved in terror? That's the whole point.
We have to take the .gov word for it and there is no trial where the accused can present evidence to defend himself.
The .gov accused Steven Hatfill of orchestrating the 2001 anthrax attacks and later paid him millions in damages for ruining his life with false accusations.
The .gov then said Bruce Edwards Ivins was the mad scientist who was behind the anthrax attacks.
NOW, it looks like Ivins may not have been behind the attacks either.
See a pattern here?
If you are an American citizen you are entitled to a trial to defend yourself. This bill chips away at that right.
Last edited:
That's my opinion as well. Sometimes the enemy you know is better than the one you think you know.
Same here. The .gov should not have carte blanc to do as they wish. They're often wrong. Would you want to get caught up in their net without any hope of getting out?
Two votes that everyone should be aware of:
An amendment was proposed to strike the section authorizing detainment of US citizens, and at least replace it with a request for a review of if such power would be Constitutional. It was defeated soundly, with the "conservative" Republican vote tally being 2 Ayes (Kirk and Paul) to 44 Nays to 1 Abstain (Murkowski). So be sure to let Coburn and Inhofe know that you don't appreciate their on-going support of shredding the United States Constitution. Overall vote was 37-61-2.
Perhaps this is an attempt to gauge public backlash by the Senate? The House passed a companion bill with similar language back in May (not near as vague, but my reading says that it could still be interpreted in an extremely broad manner as the AUMF of 2001 has) that is still alive and able to be considered in the Senate. That bill passed 322-96-13, with the "conservatives" voting 227-6-6 for this bill that also includes provisions to allow the military to be paid directly by the private sector and explicitly gives special preference to certain contractors.
An amendment was proposed to strike the section authorizing detainment of US citizens, and at least replace it with a request for a review of if such power would be Constitutional. It was defeated soundly, with the "conservative" Republican vote tally being 2 Ayes (Kirk and Paul) to 44 Nays to 1 Abstain (Murkowski). So be sure to let Coburn and Inhofe know that you don't appreciate their on-going support of shredding the United States Constitution. Overall vote was 37-61-2.
Perhaps this is an attempt to gauge public backlash by the Senate? The House passed a companion bill with similar language back in May (not near as vague, but my reading says that it could still be interpreted in an extremely broad manner as the AUMF of 2001 has) that is still alive and able to be considered in the Senate. That bill passed 322-96-13, with the "conservatives" voting 227-6-6 for this bill that also includes provisions to allow the military to be paid directly by the private sector and explicitly gives special preference to certain contractors.
Please, take a few minutes of your time...sign up & sign the petition to VETO this ridiculous and embarrassing loss of our beloved freedom.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/we-people-demand-obama-veto-s-1867-bill-which-views-all-american-citizens-terroristic-threat/S6dkZrsh#thank-you=p
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/we-people-demand-obama-veto-s-1867-bill-which-views-all-american-citizens-terroristic-threat/S6dkZrsh#thank-you=p
Our nation was intended to be a nation of laws and not men.That is to say that our rights are guaranteed under law and not entrusted to the good will of those who hold power. This legislation needs to be overturned.
Interesting that Lincoln did the same thing:
FYI
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody.
The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
But to take the other side for a minute: We do not know what security briefings the senators have been given. Consider that perhaps there are plots underway to carry out major attacks against us in this country a la September 11th. We arrest the leader of that plot. Do we allow him access to a lawyer? If we do and he uses his lawyer to pass the code word for "attack now" on to his as yet unarrested team members, then something very bad happens.
Also interesting to consider if this is going to come into play in the case of those Tulsa used car dealers accused of funneling money to terrorists.
Interesting that Lincoln did the same thing:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm
FYI
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody.
The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
But to take the other side for a minute: We do not know what security briefings the senators have been given. Consider that perhaps there are plots underway to carry out major attacks against us in this country a la September 11th. We arrest the leader of that plot. Do we allow him access to a lawyer? If we do and he uses his lawyer to pass the code word for "attack now" on to his as yet unarrested team members, then something very bad happens.
Also interesting to consider if this is going to come into play in the case of those Tulsa used car dealers accused of funneling money to terrorists.
To live in such a constant state of fear is to let the terrorists win.
Is it better to be unafraid and dead?
At least you and your family will rest easy knowing you never let them intimidate you...
Similar threads
