Rome Is Burning, Now Where's My Fiddle?

While we argue over Obama, Gingrich, Romney, et. al. and numerous other nonsensical matters, our Republic has been destroyed by the very people who took an oath to protect it. Each one who voted for this monstrosity should be put on trial for treason. If the President signs it, and he has indicated that he will veto it, he should join them. If however, the President vetoes this bill, I may vote for him.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterr...etention-bill/

Where do the Republican candidates stand on this issue?

One answer might be building more courtrooms, and of course more prisons to hold the accused. Yet, Guantanamo is already the most expensive prison on earth – it currently costs the US taxpayer $800,000 per prisoner per year to run – even a former deputy commander calls it “expensive” and “inefficient”.



Who is pushing for this bill? If this is the same thing I read about the other day, I remember 9 Dems joining the Repubs to vote for and like 4 Repubs going the Dems to vote no. Maybe a different shitty bill.

I do finally agree with you on something COG!

The problem is that the bill allows the government to hold an American citizen, in the United States, without bond or trial, based on the suspicion of terrorist activities. AYFKM? In America? If this bill is signed, we can kiss whatever was left of freedom goodbye, and reminisce about how this used to be a free country. At least until the military comes and places us in camps.

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU7
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author9
ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per13
sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com18
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon20
sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
360
•S 1867 PCS
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.
3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis4
position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis11
sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

This means courts can be used also.

15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun17
try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.
22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).

I don't have a problem with any of this, only with the way it is characterized. It has not been used to extremes.
Kinetic weapons (all weapons are kinetic, they transfer energy. Here (in the article) kinetic is used to describe motion of the projectile turned to energy as opposed to a chemical explosion accelerating gases' motion to energy) have yet to be used (at least not publicly admitted).

The bill is over 600 pages long and there are 4500+ sections.

Not sign because of this section?

Sorry.

The problem is that the bill allows the government to hold an American citizen, in the United States, without bond or trial, based on the suspicion of terrorist activities. AYFKM? In America? If this bill is signed, we can kiss whatever was left of freedom goodbye, and reminisce about how this used to be a free country. At least until the military comes and places us in camps. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It is already in effect.

Read the part about covered people. If you are in the US and you fall in that group, tough titties for you.

The US military can't operate in the US unless specific conditions are met.

Shiver in your boots. They'll come for you first because you "warned" everyone.
Or something like that.

Munch, I'm sorry, but you are a fool. This is an enormous power grab, and is antithetical to everything our country was based on. You are what Benjamin Franklin described as one who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security. Soon, that is, now, we will have neither.

My gut feel is that he'll veto it. But we'll see. He's been so fucking gutless on other civil liberties issues.

As for the Republicans, I can't imagine that any of them oppose the law except Ron Paul.

anyone have the link to the bill itself? I want to know who voted for it.

I think that all Republicans voted for it except Rand Paul. 16 Democrats voted for it. Mostly the usual suspects on the Democratic side, with a few surprising exceptions, most notably Sheldon Whitehouse.

What I don't understand is why the media black out on this? Something like this should be on every news channel yet you hear blip from Fox, CNN, Msnbc. I think Dylan Ratigan had a very short clip on it and that was it.

Heres a list of senators who voted 4 this bill

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/...ors-who-voted-
for-s1867.html

Heres a list of senators who voted 4 this bill

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/...ors-who-voted-
for-s1867.html Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Linkie no workie.

Linkie no workie. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

gnadfly will be all over that!

Munch, I'm sorry, but you are a fool. This is an enormous power grab, and is antithetical to everything our country was based on. You are what Benjamin Franklin described as one who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security. Soon, that is, now, we will have neither. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What parts are a new power grab? What changes? Let's have some specifics.