PDA

View Full Version : So much for that little thing we call the 5th Amendment



AUTaxMan
12-15-2011, 09:34 AM
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/

I am at a loss for words. How did this happen?

mrveggieman
12-15-2011, 09:51 AM
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/

I am at a loss for words. How did this happen?


I am actually a fan of alex jones and often read his writings and visit his websites. However to be perfectly honest it dosen't matter who the president is if the feds have reason to believe that someone is a terrorist do you really believe that they will bend over backwards to enusre that their constitutional rights are met? At least President Obama is being honest about his intentions.

pghin08
12-15-2011, 10:02 AM
I didn't read the bill that way. Allow me to quote the passage which most people had issue with, from Title X, Sec. 1031 Subsections A&B:

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


Pretty vague, right? This would scare me too. Were it not for Subsection E, three paragraphs later:

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Am I the only one that reads that as NOT applying to US citizens?

AUTaxMan
12-15-2011, 10:32 AM
I didn't read the bill that way. Allow me to quote the passage which most people had issue with, from Title X, Sec. 1031 Subsections A&B:

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


Pretty vague, right? This would scare me too. Were it not for Subsection E, three paragraphs later:

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Am I the only one that reads that as NOT applying to US citizens?

What effect does (e) have if the administration believes that it already has the power being codified?

pghin08
12-15-2011, 10:51 AM
What effect does (e) have if the administration believes that it already has the power being codified?

I'm not sure the administration believes what Alex Jones THINKS it believes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192472

"The law will require that the military take custody of terrorism suspects but safeguards the president's ability to prosecute detainees in the civilian justice system.

US citizens would be exempt from this provision, and affirms that the changes would not affect US law enforcement agencies."


I really don't know what else to say. I think it's a poorly worded bill, no doubt, but I don't think this nullifies the 5th Amendment anymore so as killing Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen) did.

AUTaxMan
12-15-2011, 10:58 AM
I'm not sure the administration believes what Alex Jones THINKS it believes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192472

"The law will require that the military take custody of terrorism suspects but safeguards the president's ability to prosecute detainees in the civilian justice system.

US citizens would be exempt from this provision, and affirms that the changes would not affect US law enforcement agencies."


I really don't know what else to say. I think it's a poorly worded bill, no doubt, but I don't think this nullifies the 5th Amendment anymore so as killing Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen) did.

Why would the administration have requested that specific language clarifying that it does not apply to American citizens be removed from the bill?

As for al-Awlaki, he was an enemy combatant and was killed on the battlefield. He forfeited his 5th Amendment rights.

pghin08
12-15-2011, 11:15 AM
Why would the administration have requested that specific language clarifying that it does not apply to American citizens be removed from the bill?

As for al-Awlaki, he was an enemy combatant and was killed on the battlefield. He forfeited his 5th Amendment rights.

I don't think they did ask for that, that's what I'm saying. I don't believe Alex Jones, and those videos are all chopped up. I believe outlets like the BBC, CNN and others who have reported that it DOESN'T apply to American citizens. I don't think this law is any different from what we've been doing at Guantanamo (with non-US citizens) for decades.

To be honest, I don't like it either way. I just don't think it's as apocalyptic as the media is making it out to be.

afewgems
12-15-2011, 11:23 AM
Ron Paul 2012

mrveggieman
12-15-2011, 11:41 AM
Ron Paul 2012


He was sure be an upgrade from all of the garbage the republicans are currently producing.

habsheaven
12-15-2011, 01:13 PM
I am reading that it doesn't apply to anyone captured on US soil.


I didn't read the bill that way. Allow me to quote the passage which most people had issue with, from Title X, Sec. 1031 Subsections A&B:

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


Pretty vague, right? This would scare me too. Were it not for Subsection E, three paragraphs later:

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Am I the only one that reads that as NOT applying to US citizens?

pghin08
12-15-2011, 01:16 PM
I am reading that it doesn't apply to anyone captured on US soil.

Along with US citizens or lawful aliens, as identified earlier in that subsection.

duane1969
12-15-2011, 01:27 PM
Step 1 - Get this law passed
Step 2 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use for illegal aliens
Step 3 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use for American citizens accused of capital crimes
Step 4 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use for American citizens accused of a felony
Step 5 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use if the local law enforcement deems it necessary
Step 6 - Bask in the glory of taking yet another civil liberty away from a nation of people who were too stupid to see it coming

pghin08
12-15-2011, 01:37 PM
Step 1 - Get this law passed
Step 2 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use for illegal aliens
Step 3 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use for American citizens accused of capital crimes
Step 4 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use for American citizens accused of a felony
Step 5 - Wait 1-3 years and pass an addendem that permits it's use if the local law enforcement deems it necessary
Step 6 - Bask in the glory of taking yet another civil liberty away from a nation of people who were too stupid to see it coming

I disagree entirely. This law (which by the way, is WAY bigger than just this particular section) is the same thing we've been doing to non-US terrorism "suspects" for DECADES. Nothing has changed at all. This is a media frenzy over a language misunderstanding. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act takes way more civil liberties away than NDAA ever could.

tsjct
12-15-2011, 01:43 PM
Run ron paul run!! Ron paul for president

AUTaxMan
12-15-2011, 01:44 PM
Along with US citizens or lawful aliens, as identified earlier in that subsection.

What is the meaning of "existing law or authorities"?

pghin08
12-15-2011, 01:51 PM
What is the meaning of "existing law or authorities"?

I take it to mean that nothing in the prior sections affects previous rulings nor those authorities who have rendered them. How do you read it?

duane1969
12-15-2011, 02:30 PM
I disagree entirely. This law (which by the way, is WAY bigger than just this particular section) is the same thing we've been doing to non-US terrorism "suspects" for DECADES. Nothing has changed at all. This is a media frenzy over a language misunderstanding. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act takes way more civil liberties away than NDAA ever could.

Up until now the detainees were not on U.S. soil so laws pertaining to due process did not apply. This law will allow no-trail indefinite detention on U.S. soil.

If a U.S. citizen is deemed a terrorist then their right to a fair and spedy trial is suspended by this new law.

pghin08
12-15-2011, 02:33 PM
Up until now the detainees were not on U.S. soil so laws pertaining to due process did not apply. This law will allow no-trail indefinite detention on U.S. soil.

If a U.S. citizen is deemed a terrorist then their right to a fair and spedy trial is suspended by this new law.

Where are you deriving this from? All I see is that in subsection E, it says that the above sections DO NOT apply to US citizens, so I don't see how this is true.

duane1969
12-15-2011, 02:43 PM
That is where my hypothetical situation comes in. Today it does not apply to US citizens. It takes one small rider on some other law that nobody notices to eliminate section E from the law.

pghin08
12-15-2011, 02:45 PM
That is where my hypothetical situation comes in. Today it does not apply to US citizens. It takes one small rider on some other law that nobody notices to eliminate section E from the law.

I guess you're more of a cynic than I am. No easy feat, mon frere!

andrewhoya
12-15-2011, 05:34 PM
Ron Paul 2012


Run ron paul run!! Ron paul for president

:cheer2: someone who actually follows the constitution on a daily basis.

meuandthelot
12-15-2011, 09:39 PM
In the end,
A little thing called "due process" is being continually diminished.

It is so much more efficient and ultimately safer(for us) to have laws all-inclusive.