US Government seeking legal power to target US citizens for being "terrorists".
 

There is a bill that has been introduced to give the military legal authority to take action against "terrorists", more specifically domestic terrorists
edit: Basically this bill will make US soil part of the battlefield so the government can take these actions against US citizens on US soil


Keeping in mind that the Patriot Act defines terrorism as
"(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—
‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;"
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ubl056.107.pdf
seriously now aren't there a shit ton of people in prision that dont have anything remotely to do with terrorism that would quite literally fit this definition perfectly?

Ok yeah you could say something reasonable like "oh no they would never target anyone who wasn't truly a terrorist" and i would say to you, Is this not a system prime for abuse? Was this country not founded with keeping the system as least abusable as possible? Not to mention that this is a direct conflict of our constitutional right to due process.

excessive speed could fall under that? Your under arrest for domestic terrorism, for going 85 in a 55. wtf?

terrorizing the streets, aw yeah

I forsee a civil war in the USA's near future.

Why does the white house treat illegal aliens better than citizens? If you run accross the board and get caught, the white house protects you "from states", and now we have this. Policies and lows like this are why I forgo reproductive rights, my atheist purity, and whatever else the GOP stands for and vote for them because I fear for my personal safety when it comes to the Democrats.

I hear that they are voting on the military action against us citizens on us soil thing on monday
but dont quote me

the ACLU has set something up to make it easy to contact your representatives if you do so wish
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocac...subsrc=fixNDAA

and Hustler when it comes to "terrorism" i see no difference between repub and dem
though i do lean more repub than dem
the only party who is clear, upfront, and honest are the libertarians
and we have one running as a repub
while i dont think he will win it actually looks like he has a chance

how long until its 1984 again?

Well it looks like they are still in the process of shaping the bill with amendments

i have tried linking others to the bill on thomas.loc.gov and for some reason that wont work so if you want to read the bill for yourself just google national defense act S 1867 and you will find it

though here is a link to the status of the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&
it looks like they are still shaping the bill with amendments and what not

here is another rather informative video on this topic
idk why the title on the video is talking about martial law as this law has little if anything to do with martial law.

Okay Hustler, I found it necessary to call you out on this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1119473.html

I'm linking to Huffpo to make it clear how insane this statement is. Two republicans voted against it, 16 Democrats voted for it (Well, two republicans voted for and 16 dems voted against an amendment that would have killed what people in here have a problem with specifically.). The democrats that voted for it are having the leftist voters call for their blood, see even Huffpolol calling out the dem votes. At best, this bill and the associated bullshit can be called bipartisan. At worst, it's a Republican clusterfuck considering this has widespread GOP support (See previous numbers as for proof), with scattered Dem support.

Shit, Obama's said flat out he's going to veto it if they don't strip it of the language people are bitching about in here. Where's the props for Obama on that, guys? Or is it because he's a "demoncrat"?

Obama also promised to bring the troops home first thing when he got into office
he said we could take that to the bank

I am in no way defending bush here but
Obama called bush unpatriotic and irresponsible for adding 4 tril in debt in 8 years, more than any previous president
Obama matched bush's 4tril in 2.5 years

Props WILL be given to Obama if such a veto is made
not until
I am not capable of taking a sellout, lying, politicians promises seriously

the problem is, language is just that, language. Whats the difference between forest thinning and opening up national parks for logging? Nothing, but the language is different.

I don't know the bill in particular, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just change the language rather than the bill.

Two points: First, I only supported Obama due to some very specific promises that he made, of which he promptly broke when he hit office. But the same could be said for every presidential candidate that's been elected for the past...2 decades? Obama's a disappointment, but so was Bush. ...Ironically, I also supported Bush for some promises he made, but he broke when he took office as I think about it. Perhaps I should start supporting the candidate that I don't want in office? It couldn't turn out any worse.

Secondly, considering Bushes final budgetary year is the highest deficit we've ever ran (2009, remember, the budget is passed the previous year*), and it was "only" 1.4trillion...I find it extremely hard to believe Obama's budgets in '10 and '11 were 2 trillion or more a year. People would be harping about those being "record-setting years" instead of 2009 being the biggest deficit ever. This argument is inherently fallacious, as you are repeating something someone else told you, and it started based on a "lie via omission" (I've gone off on these on another thread, I'll save the angst here) that someone started harping on to score political points. It's a classical political half-truth in America - yeah, there's a grain of truth in it. Obama -was- president in 2009, and the 2009 budget set records, but the 2009 budget was budgeted in 2008 by the Bush admin. Same as the 2000 Bush budget was budgeted by Clinton in 1999. The current years budget is done in the previous year.

* Although I'm being disingenuous myself here as certain supplemental and emergency spending was Obama's - but Obama's contribution to the deficit for that is attributed at between 100 to 140 billion vs. the Bush budgets ~1.3trillion - ~1/10th of the deficit in 2009. Even if you add the supplemental and emergency spending from 2009 to the '10 and '11 budgets, Obama hasn't came close to Bush's deficit after 8 years as you claim.

So, you are tired of all of our politicians, regardless of their political affiliation? Hell, I'm in the same boat as you then.

Regardless, Obama, or McCain, or Bush, or Kerry, or whoever the fuck...we would still be in the same place we are now.

They are all the same. democrat, republican, whatever. We haven't had a real president in a while.

We need revolution!
#OccupyWhiteHouse
#OccupyCongress

;)

^Mothertrucking THIS

Big mistake. You should always check voting records, and the group behind him. The vast majority of presidential candidates since about 1910 have been vetted by various factions of the Establishment.

A lot of people feel this way, and yet when the time comes to vote, by some twisted logic the media has conditioned them to believe, they will support one of the mainstream candidates of the Demopublican party, because "voting for Ron Paul / Gary Johnson" is "a vote for the other guy". And then we get same old, same old.

Is anyone here who is sick of the same old shit, gonna register Republican and vote for Ron Paul?
Or are you gonna whine and bitch and then vote for McRomPerryCain because he's "the lesser evil"?
Don't you see that that is exactly how the media gets you to vote for a Republicrat?

I'm voting for Ron Paul this election, Jason.

Good for you.

IMO it is very important for Ron Paul to get a lot of votes in the PRIMARIES - (the Republican nomination). Even if he doesn't win, getting him in the top 3 of the nomination will help spread his message:



In several "closed" states you have to register Republican EARLY to be able to vote in the primaries.

Look up your state here:
http://forum.grasscity.com/us-presid...l#post10708184


http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-..._b_897405.html

yeah jason i saw a statistic somewhere of a poll result
i wish i would have saved the link
but for the last election it was something like 70% of Ron Paul supporters didn't even vote for him because they didn't think he could win

yup
im votin for him
Attachment 186449

it passed
12-1-11
93-7

sec 1044 makes this exempt from the freedom of information act
so basically they can take people off the street
and they are allowed to be secretive about it

the white house apparently renewed its threat to veto it
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...f2afd82ee878c7
lets see if that happens
i somehow doubt it will
but will be greatful if it does

Rand Paul voted against it
http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/R...8.html?ref=128

instead of listing all those who betrayed us i will list those who have stood by us
Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Why was the Senate hell bent on passing this turd anyway?

because they want more power to do whatever they want
take out political enemies or whatever
who knows
certainly not actual terrorist
considering the definition of a terrorist according to the patriot act it is clearly a law prime for abuse

what i am wondering is why would these men not want more power?

So, when is "owning a firearm" going to get me prosecuted with this law?

who said anything about owning a firearm?
it is when you commit any crime that could be considered dangerous to human life that one could legally consider you a terrorist

and since these new powers are exempt from the freedom of information act then what is to stop them from abusing their power and detaining someone who hasn't fit the legal definition of a terrorist

oh i almost forgot
the reason this is being made into a big deal is because there will be NO PROSECUTION
so no your not gonna get prosecuted
just simply locked away til they feel like lettin ya out
that is if they ever feel like it

when terrorist is defined as anyone causing fear or disturbance to the population, it can be as easy as walking with one on your hip.

He doesn't need to threaten anyone with it.

i think this is a definition that the vast majority of us could agree that our law should use to define terrorism


The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-d...o-obamas-desk/

Looks like they as passing a law that allows the us govt to imprision you indefinitely if they subjectively decide you are an "enemy"

blaen99 be sure to check out brains link ^^
it now seems obama no longer intends (that is if he even did in the first place) on vetoing this

i heard lars larson on the radio the other day talking saying to someone that only four americans have met this definition before
he said he had an expert,former prosecuter talk about it on his show
here is the clip
http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsons...ccarthy-on-the
he says only four americans in ten years fit the definition of enemy combatant
and not all terrorists fit the definition

first of all lars
can you seriously clarify something like this in 1:09? wtf
second i can't take anyone seriously when they don't reference specific sections of the bill

i skimmed the bill but did not find it
when i get some time i will look some more but from what i understand the definition of enemy combatant is somewhere else
but first i gotta look at the bill and see if it truly only applies to enemy combatants
and if being a domestic terrorist according to sec.802 of the patriot act makes you an enemy combatant
then yeah this bill is fucked up

and regardless of everything i just typed
even if the definition is extremely as it is claimed to be
it is still in direct violation of the constitution
and that is disgusting

Yeah, don't start me on that.

Intellectually, I know there's no point in Obama veto'ing it except for political theatre purposes due to how many votes it passed in the Senate (92-7 IIRC?!?), so...

But emotionally it's like "EFF YOU OBAMA". Ugh.

one thing congress cna always agree on is how to fuck you.

well it is official now
obama has signed the law
one more thing we can add to his list of lies
imo this is one of the worst ones

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

i like this guy
his attitude is hilarious
and he usually has a very good point
and he is a big RP supporter

Actually the NDAA is null and void, not that this will keep them from using it. Any law or act which opposes the constitution or the bill of rights is null and void. This has been won in supreme court over and over and over.

i propose we all move to canada, and start a massive canadian miata club.

Technically isn't this already a Canadian miata club?

:bowrofl:

not saying you are wrong
but there are obviously other things that violate the constitution that are in place

patriot act

Well apparently some states are fightin back on this NDAA pile of crap
here is an article about what virginia did about it

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...tes-join-fight

http://www.itworld.com/security/2515...cent-americans

---- you Texas. Get that piece of ---- out of Congress.

Yes, the replacement bill by (R) Lamar Smith goes FURTHER THAN his old SOPA bill!

this is the NDAA thread
there is also a SOPA thread
i think u posted in the wrong thread

Does anybody else wonder what goes through the people's minds that actually put these things into these bills?

"Hey, I think I am going to make it legal to detain US citizens indefinitely. Take that terrorists!"

So much fail... :facepalm: