Notices
Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 3, 2011 | 01:23 PM
  #21  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

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)
Old Dec 3, 2011 | 01:27 PM
  #22  
JasonC SBB's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Default

Why was the Senate hell bent on passing this turd anyway?
Old Dec 4, 2011 | 08:04 AM
  #23  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

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?
Old Dec 4, 2011 | 11:58 AM
  #24  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Originally Posted by jared8783
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?
Old Dec 6, 2011 | 05:56 PM
  #25  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

Originally Posted by hustler
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
Old Dec 7, 2011 | 10:57 AM
  #26  
Seefo's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,961
Total Cats: 48
From: Raleigh, NC
Default

Originally Posted by jared8783
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.
Old Dec 7, 2011 | 06:21 PM
  #27  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

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.
Old Dec 12, 2011 | 08:39 PM
  #28  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

Old Dec 15, 2011 | 09:00 AM
  #29  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

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"
Old Dec 15, 2011 | 01:29 PM
  #30  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

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
Old Dec 15, 2011 | 02:40 PM
  #31  
blaen99's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
From: Seattle, WA
Default

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.
Old Dec 15, 2011 | 02:43 PM
  #32  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

one thing congress cna always agree on is how to **** you.
Old Dec 16, 2011 | 10:20 AM
  #33  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

Old Dec 31, 2011 | 07:40 PM
  #34  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

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
Old Jan 15, 2012 | 01:59 AM
  #35  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

i like this guy
his attitude is hilarious
and he usually has a very good point
and he is a big RP supporter
Old Jan 18, 2012 | 12:03 PM
  #36  
1slowna's Avatar
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 328
Total Cats: 4
From: Palm Harbor FL
Default

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.
Old Jan 18, 2012 | 12:06 PM
  #37  
redturbomiata's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,139
Total Cats: 13
From: London,OH
Default

i propose we all move to canada, and start a massive canadian miata club.
Old Jan 18, 2012 | 01:45 PM
  #38  
gearhead_318's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,966
Total Cats: 21
From: SoCal
Default

Originally Posted by redturbomiata
i propose we all move to canada, and start a massive canadian miata club.
Technically isn't this already a Canadian miata club?
Old Jan 18, 2012 | 05:58 PM
  #39  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

Originally Posted by 1slowna
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.


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

patriot act
Old Feb 21, 2012 | 06:51 PM
  #40  
jared8783's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 4
Default

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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 PM.