# PATRIOT Act x10



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bye bye rights, I hardly knew ye.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the...thorization-act-is-ridiculously-scary-2011-11


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Article~Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay _for life_.

So what you are trying to tell me is that the same authority that lets in 20 million undocumented illegal aliens is goin to come into my house and chopper my innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay _for life??

_Have you given this absurd proposition the critical analysis it deserves??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Small procedural question: is it ok if they do it abroad to non-Americans?

Isn't it more fair if we all share the risk of being mil-choppered down to Guantanamo Clancy style?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Who cares about stuff like this,...I want a new big screen 3D T.V.!:icon_jokercolor: Although this doesn't have a snow ball's chance in He*l of passing it is an indication of the direction things are going.

Americans would be up in arms and taking to the streets if something like this actually passed right? I think not.

In the history of mankind every time a government takes civil rights or weapons away form it's citizens it eventually leads to that same government committing atrocities against them.

In order for this to happen a population must be weak, undereducated, and complacent.

*com·pla·cent*

  /kəmˈpleɪsənt/ Show Spelled[kuhm-pley-suhnt]

adjective 1. pleased, especially with oneself or one's merits, advantages, situation, etc., often without awareness of some potential danger or defect; self-satisfied: The voters are too complacent to change the government.

Do you think this applies to Americans?

This was a good thread to start Jovan.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I am admittedly a little scared since this already passed in the Senate. Congress needs to hear from the people about this. I'll be contacting my representative. The writer is correct in saying that it's shameful there's been no media coverage of this.

WouldaShoulda: Um, have you seen the anti-immigrant policies put in place by the Obama administration? They are pretty scary too.

Bjorn: FWIW, no, I do not think that is okay either.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I am admittedly a little scared since this already passed in the Senate.


Who is scaring you and why are they doing it. Isn't this the bi-partisanship people wanted??

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, 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.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be--

(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and

(B) a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.C

(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that date.

I'm a beleiver in the Big Government Bogeyman but I don't see any there, there.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I am admittedly a little scared since this already passed in the Senate. Congress needs to hear from the people about this. I'll be contacting my representative. The writer is correct in saying that it's shameful there's been no media coverage of this.
> 
> WouldaShoulda: Um, have you seen the anti-immigrant policies put in place by the Obama administration? They are pretty scary too.
> 
> Bjorn: FWIW, no, I do not think that is okay either.


I've been following this for a while. I'm half tempted to find out what it would take to bring McCain & his co-Authur up on Treason charges (violation of multiple Oath's of Office). These are people who swore to defend, uphold, and protect the Constitution. If introducing legislation like this isn't a violation of that oath, I don't know what is.

If you think this one is scary.. there's a follow on bill that would deny American's legal representation as well.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ Who cares about stuff like this,...I want a new big screen 3D T.V.!:icon_jokercolor: Although this doesn't have a snow ball's chance in He*l of passing it is an indication of the direction things are going.
> 
> Americans would be up in arms and taking to the streets if something like this actually passed right? I think not.
> 
> ...


American's weak (check), undereducated (check), and complacent (check).

The Mayor of the Capitol of the Free World is a Convicted Felon! But that's ok, we give away $2 waffle makers on Black Friday!!!!!!


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Who is scaring you and why are they doing it. Isn't this the bi-partisanship people wanted??
> 
> Subtitle D--Detainee Matters
> 
> ...


I don't get it. What is so scary about this?


----------



## Lookingforaclue (Nov 10, 2005)

Jovan,

Dude you are way over- reading this.

SRW

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

*Does the NDAA Authorize Detention of US Citizens?*

by I gather that there has been some confusion as to whether S. 1867, the NDAA bill currently pending in the Senate, should be read as (i) requiring the use of military detention for US citizens in some circumstances, (ii) authorizing it but not requiring it, or (iii) precluding it. The best reading of the language currently in the bill is (ii): Section 1031 and 1032 when read in conjunction suggest that US citizens are included in the grant of detention authority contained in section 1031, while being expressly _excluded _from the language in section 1032 that appears on the surface to affirmatively requires resort to detention for a subset of the persons made detainable by section 1031.
Here is why this is confusing:
S. 1867 originally contained language to the effect that citizens are _not _subject to detention _solely _to the extent forbidden by the Constitution. Put simply, that was a backwards way of saying that citizens _are _subject to detention, except of course where the constitution forbids it. That drew lots of heat, and the language was altered. things work as follows:
First, section 1031 is the explicit grant of detention authority. It no longer says anything about US citizenship, one way or the other. It is just like the AUMF in that respect. Of course, we need to recall that the Supreme Court in _Hamdi _had no trouble concluding that insofar as the AUMF provided detention authority for persons captured in combat in Afghanistan, that authority extended to US citizens (_Hamdi _left open the question whether the AUMF provided detention authority to other contexts, and if so whether citizenship would remain irrelevant in those other contexts). In any event, against this backdrop, section 1031 as currently written-and if examined in isolation-would not alter the somewhat uncertain status quo regarding the availability of detention for citizens. But 1031 does not stand in isolation. Consider section 1032.
*Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision-i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons ("covered persons" in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this "mandatory detention" requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).*
*This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens*. But note that it tends to rule _in _the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category.
So how does this compare to the status quo? Well, here we should probably distinguish between captures inside the US and captures abroad. Only the former, in my view, was still an open question (vis-a-vis the relevance of citizenship) under the AUMF.
----------------------------------------------
Note: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.

So the bill *does not* authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. As always; when dealing with legal matters; be sure to read _every word of the fine print; _else you can be misled into thinking it says one thing when it actually says another.:icon_study:​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Lookingforaclue said:


> Jovan,
> 
> Dude you are way over- reading this.
> 
> ...


You had my name right the first time. Not sure where you got "Dude" from.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Note: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.
> 
> So the bill *does not* authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. As always; when dealing with legal matters; be sure to read _every word of the fine print; _else you can be misled into thinking it says one thing when it actually says another.:icon_study:


Now that this has been clearly established, we should go further and find out why this legislation has been demonized, who is behind it, and why they find it necessary to pollute young minds with thier distortions.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Bye bye rights, I hardly knew ye.


This is the second time you have been misled.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?110542-Redefining-rape


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that this has been clearly established, we should go further and find out why this legislation has been demonized, who is behind it, and why they find it necessary to pollute young minds with thier distortions.


LOL. And then we need to snatch them up and lock them away, incommunicado, at Guantanamo!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Along with anyone who is not a US citizen, apparently.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. And then we need to snatch them up and lock them away, incommunicado, at Guantanamo!


Clearly, the NDAA would make that OK!! 

In fact, I suspect that will be today's headline in HuffPo!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that this has been clearly established, we should go further and find out why this legislation has been demonized, who is behind it, and why they find it necessary to pollute young minds with thier distortions.


Because it is completely unnecessary & currently illegal.

All persons currently in the US are afforded the same 5th Amendment Rights as citizens of the US. The worst we can do is deport them (essentially make them persona non-grata). The bill gives the President expanded "Gitmo" holding power.

Here's the deal.

Police are NOT military.

Military are NOT police.

There's a reason each has specialized subsets (SWAT & PMO resp.) to deal with issues that cross into gray areas.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

For those not familiar with what a PMO is (Provost Marshal's Office; see above post):
From Wikipedia:
In the United States Army and United States Marine Corps, the senior military police officer is the Provost Marshal General (PMG) (Army) or Provost Marshal (USMC). The PMG was a post that was reinstated in 2003, having being abolished for 29 years. The PMG is in charge the United States Army Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and United States Army Corrections Command (ACC) policy and procedures from an office in The Pentagon.
The senior MP officer at the theater, corps, division, and brigade level and for each garrison is known as a provost marshal. In many US Army garrisons, a provost marshal is at times also responsible for the provision of fire and physical security as well as law enforcement services and thus is also referred to as the Director of Emergency Services.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Thank's Regillus. Forgot that wasn't a common acronym outside military.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Because it is completely unnecessary & currently illegal.
> 
> All persons currently in the US are afforded the same 5th Amendment Rights as citizens of the US. The worst we can do is deport them (essentially make them persona non-grata). The bill gives the President expanded "Gitmo" holding power.
> 
> ...


I see.

So when German spies landed on American shores in WWII they were arrested by local police and tried by the local municipality??

The intent of NDAA is to apply clarity so that non-citizen terrorists are treated the same way. (turned over to the military)

I'm surprised YOU got caught up in the hysteria.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> All persons currently in the US are afforded the same 5th Amendment Rights as citizens of the US.



Unless they are captured enemy belligerents (Al-Queda, Taliban, etc as designated above)

The USA executed German spies during WWII. No civilian "rights" just a military commission then a firing squad for six of the eight. What about the US citizens executed during the Civil War as spies (My great x 6 grandfather was tried by military and hanged).

US citizen or not, if you are the enemy you forfeit your civil rights and fall under military jurisdiction.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

dks202 said:


> Unless they are captured enemy belligerents (Al-Queda, Taliban, etc as designated above)
> 
> The USA executed German spies during WWII. No civilian "rights" just a military commission then a firing squad for six of the eight. What about the US citizens executed during the Civil War as spies (My great x 6 grandfather was tried by military and hanged).
> 
> US citizen or not, if you are the enemy you forfeit your civil rights and fall under military jurisdiction.


Who gets to say who the enemy is?

I kinda like the notion of due process as a human rights, no matter who you are.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Who gets to say who the enemy is?
> 
> I kinda like the notion of due process as a human rights, no matter who you are.


1) The law does. It always has.

2) There is due process. Military due process.

In the future, Blind Sheiks, shoe bombers and underwear bombers will be remanded to the military as it should be.

So please, find something else to get hysterical over!!


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) The law does. It always has.
> 
> 2) There is due process. Military due process.


Agreed !!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I see.
> 
> So when German spies landed on American shores in WWII they were arrested by local police and tried by the local municipality??
> 
> ...


Sure, let's go with WWII. Let's gather up all the Japanese descended people and shove them in camps.

The Military is NOT a police organization. The Military is NOT an investigative organization. The Military is NOT an organization design to detain people for long term. The FBI (Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION) & Dept of Corrections (Bureau of Prisons) does this, under the Deptartment of JUSTICE. Why would we delegate activities, which the military is ill suited to perform to the military? It's asinine. The sole purpose is to bypass basic human Rights.

But Spies during WWII (on US soil) would be caught & tried by the Federal government. Spies in a Battlefield fall under Military purview. That's the difference. US soil is not a Battlefield. That's where you have to make the difference.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

dks202 said:


> Unless they are captured enemy belligerents (Al-Queda, Taliban, etc as designated above)
> 
> The USA executed German spies during WWII. No civilian "rights" just a military commission then a firing squad for six of the eight. What about the US citizens executed during the Civil War as spies (My great x 6 grandfather was tried by military and hanged).
> 
> US citizen or not, if you are the enemy you forfeit your civil rights and fall under military jurisdiction.


You don't forfeit civil Rights. That's a common misconception. You forfeit specific privileges. That's why we have war crimes commissions at the end of wars. Just because someone is a "Hostile" (the use of the term "enemy" is from a bygone era) doesn't mean they don't have Rights.

Using that logic, any American combatant has no Rights anywhere. We are someones' enemy when we fight somewhere.

Espionage is a crime punishable by death during war, and in warzones. Every spy knows this, and this is a risk they take. Being behind enemy lines out of uniform means you are either spy, or a deserter (also punishable by death). I'm not saying it's fair, but it is understandable. It is also part of Due Process.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> But Spies during WWII (on US soil) would be caught & tried by the Federal government. Spies in a Battlefield fall under Military purview. That's the difference. US soil is not a Battlefield. That's where you have to make the difference.


_*US soil became a battlefield on Sept 11, 2001. 'nuf said..*_


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

dks202 said:


> _*US soil became a battlefield on Sept 11, 2001. 'nuf said..*_


Not under international law as far as I understand it.

Al Qaida does not conform to basic laws of war, such as the requirement to wear a uniform. As such, they are terrorists and criminals, not soldiers.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

dks202 said:


> _*US soil became a battlefield on Sept 11, 2001. 'nuf said..*_


Really? Who are the combatants?

Terrorists are not combatants. They are CRIMINALS. They commit acts of CRIME on behalf of small organizations with or without government aid. The attacks of September 11, were done without Government Aid (almost completely sponsored by a single individual, who is now dead), meaning they were not an act of war. They were not even a precursor to war.

The US government used the event as an excuse to activate Executive powers that are only available during WARTIME (such as the ability to use troops on foreign land in excess of 90 days without congressional approval). Hence, why call it the War on Terror. It's cunning, devious, and downright scary. And it cannot end.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Not under international law as far as I understand it.
> 
> Al Qaida does not conform to basic laws of war, such as the requirement to wear a uniform. As such, they are terrorists and criminals, not soldiers.


Exactly. This is why so much effort is expended trying to show "government" backing. If you can show a clear link to a government you can treat them as soldier, or an irregular military force.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Sure, let's go with WWII. Let's gather up all the Japanese descended people and shove them in camps.
> 
> But Spies during WWII (on US soil) would be caught & tried by the Federal government. Spies in a Battlefield fall under Military purview. That's the difference. US soil is not a Battlefield. That's where you have to make the difference.


1) That policy, though unpopular, was effective.

2) This statement is contradictory. When spies or combatents are on US soil, that makes US soil a battlefield in WWII as well as today.

Did you mean to say something else??


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

My God man. You actually agree with the internment camps? Most reasonable people, no matter their political views, see that as one of the worst decisions ever made during wartime.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> My God man. You actually agree with the internment camps?
> 
> Most reasonable people, no matter their political views, see that as one of the worst decisions ever made during wartime.


1) By todays sensibilities, of course not. I didn't say I did. I said they were effective. They prevented sabotage as well as protected the detained from angry mobs.

2) A worse decision would have been for FDR to completely integrate the Army. Now don't get all excited; I shouldn't have to say so but I must. I DO NOT SUPPORT A SEGREGATED ARMY!! But to have segregated it before the conclusion of WWII would have been a poor decision.

Now, back to the original topic.

Have you critically analyzed why wacko's from Mother Jones to the Tea Party are holding hands on this subject??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) That policy, though unpopular, was effective.
> 
> 2) This statement is contradictory. When spies or combatents are on US soil, that makes US soil a battlefield in WWII as well as today.
> 
> Did you mean to say something else??


Allow me to elaborate.

There is a difference between MILITARY Spies (Battlefield), and GOVERNMENT Spies (Operating within a country).

A military member (uniformed service member) who removes his uniform (or wears another country's) to conduct intelligence gathering activities across "enemy lines" is conducting MILITARY espionage.

A member of a foreign government (military or not) who conducts intelligence gathering activities within another country is conducting GOVERNMENT espionage.

Military spies being arrested by the Military. Legit.

Government spies being arrested by the Government. Legit.

Government spies being arrested by the Military..... Not so much.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) By todays sensibilities, of course not. I didn't say I did. I said they were effective. They prevented sabotage as well as protected the detained from angry mobs.
> 
> 2) A worse decision would have been for FDR to completely integrate the Army. Now don't get all excited; I shouldn't have to say so but I must. I DO NOT SUPPORT A SEGREGATED ARMY!! But to have segregated it before the conclusion of WWII would have been a poor decision.
> 
> ...


1. Um.. We only did it with the Japanese. Not Germans, and not the Italians. If people don't look "British'ish" in nature shove them in a camp for "National Security" purposes. I think the Germans "detained" the Jews for their own protection too. Their nice little "ghettos" which became little camps, which became graves.....

2. Absolute BS. We just proved it with the repeal of DADT (while fighting another 2 front war). It was a complete non-issue. Bigotry is never the right decision, not even in hindsight,


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Allow me to elaborate.
> 
> Military spies being arrested by the Military. Legit.
> 
> ...


Don't you mean "tried."

If Barney Fife arrests a spy or a terrorist, I presume they are not put on trial by the County of Mayberry.

NDAA specifies that they will be remanded to the military for due process. Did you find the tenor of the artical misleading??

It's OK to think terrorists should be tried in civilian courts, that's why we have elections. What I objected to was the mischaracterization, demonization and ginned up hyperbole.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> 1. Um.. We only did it with the Japanese. Not Germans, and not the Italians.
> 
> 2. Bigotry is never the right decision, not even in hindsight,


1.) January 14, 2009 · 82-year old Eberhard Fuhr says he has lived the American dream. Growing up in Cincinnati, Fuhr was called "Eb" by his friends and spent much of his time playing sports, including high school football."We had a rotten team. We lost every game," he reminisces.
While Fuhr described his childhood as idyllic, a dark shadow was cast on his own personal history.
One day in March of 1943, 17-year-old Fuhr was arrested. He was just six weeks shy of graduating.
"I was in my classroom at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The principal came in and asked me to step into the hallway. I was arrested by two FBI agents," he said.
As he was being led away, Fuhr was aware that he might never see his friends at school again.
"They didn't cuff me inside the school, but the minute we left the front door I was cuffed," he said.
Fuhr was charged with being an enemy alien for the German government and put in detention.
He came to the United States with his parents when he was 3-years-old and was still a nationalized German. His parents had already been arrested and put in a internment camp 8 months earlier. Now Eb and his U.S. born little brother were joining them in Crystal City, Texas.

2) I agree that bigotry is never the "right" decision. Sometimes, in very specific circumstances, it has been the most effective and expedient.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ;
> 
> It's OK to think terrorists should be tried in civilian courts, that's why we have elections. What I objected to was the mischaracterization, demonization and ginned up hyperbole.


No, that's why we have human rights and international law.

This whole 'war on x' will only mean that the law on war gets distorted to the point where there will be no legality to war whatsoever.

American soldiers might end up POW:s in the future. At that point, having preserved the little civilised conduct (based on honour, human rights and chivalry) that we have commonly agreed on might have been better.

Some things shouldn't be thrown away for short term 'operational efficiency'.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) I agree that bigotry is never the "right" decision. Sometimes, in very specific circumstances, it has been the most effective and expedient.


Killing prisoners is much more effective and expedient in specific circumstances as well.

If you know something isn't right. Don't F$%^&$%^ing do it. I'm assuming your parents told you that, just like mine did.

Effective, Expedient, and even Efficient, and just buzzwords for *Lazy*. Another word parents use. Normally when they were giving the "Don't F$%^$%^&%$&^ing do it. You know it ain't Right speech."


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't you mean "tried."
> 
> If Barney Fife arrests a spy or a terrorist, I presume they are not put on trial by the County of Mayberry.
> 
> ...


Actually it says they will be "detained." That's the trick. The military has no Due Process burden for persons. That's why they are keeping Gitmo alive.

I'd have little issue if they actually Tried people. Gave them a day in court. But that doesn't happen. The military has very specific rules about who can and cannot be Tried by the military. It has significantly more lenient rules about who can be *detained* by the military. _Illegal combatants_ is a great term. _Insurgents_ is another. _Terrorists_ is a third. When you start adding _Intelligence Asset_, I have a real issue with that. It is a hugely vague term. Trust me I know. I was Intelligence Analyst, and I could consider ANYONE an Intelligence Asset.

I agree that much mischaracterization, demonization, and hyperbole could exist if not read properly. However. I have read it. The expansive capability of this legislation, combined with simple Executive Order could make this exceptionally dangerous.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> No, that's why we have human rights and international law.


Free Men govern themselves.

"International Law" is anathema to Freedom and should be avoided.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Killing prisoners is much more effective and expedient in specific circumstances as well.


You could have asked me if killing prisoners was one of the very specific circumstances to which I was referring.

I would have replied "no" then you could have avoided the whole silly speech!!



Apatheticviews said:


> Effective, Expedient, and even Efficient, and just buzzwords for *Lazy*. Another word parents use. Normally when they were giving the "Don't F$%^$%^&%$&^ing do it. You know it ain't Right speech."


Integrating the American Army at the outbreak of WWII would have been a poor decision at that time and place. Any intelligent student of the human condition can accept that fact without being racist or lazy.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Free Men govern themselves.
> 
> "International Law" is anathema to Freedom and should be avoided.


Please...


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Free Men govern themselves.
> 
> "International Law" is anathema to Freedom and should be avoided.


"Free Men govern themselves?" Elaborate, please. We have police and judges and prisons because men don't always govern themselves. Do you mean free men individually or free men as a group?

"International Law".... What about Crimes against Humanity and the Nuremberg Trials?

From Massviolence.org:

The first "official" international use of the concept of crime against humanity dates back to May 24, 1915. On that day, the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia issued a joint declaration condemning the deportation and systematic extermination of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire and denouncing these acts as constituting "new crimes against humanity and civilization" for which all members of the Turkish government would be held responsible together with its agents implicated in the massacres.
*
The Definition of Crime Against Humanity in the Nuremberg Law*

The concept of crime against humanity was finally defined by the Allies in article 6 (c) of the Nuremberg Charter (August 8, 1945) as follows: "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated" - be it noted that article 5 (c) of the Tokyo Charter (January 19, 1946) is modeled on article 6 (c) of the Nuremberg Charter. This historical definition is nevertheless disappointing since it considerably narrows the scope of a crime against humanity, connecting it to a war crime or a crime against peace. The Nuremberg judges ended up narrowing the concept even more, hence limiting its application exclusively to acts committed after September 1, 1939 and refusing to take into consideration inhumane acts or persecutions committed against German Jews before World War II.
-----------------------------------------------
The Nuremberg Trials were very much in defense of freedom. Particularly the freedom to be Jewish without being murdered just because you were Jewish.
----------------------------------------------
"'International Law' is anathema to *Freedom*...." Supporting evidence; please.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> "Free Men govern themselves?" Elaborate, please.
> 
> "International Law".... What about Crimes against Humanity and the Nuremberg Trials?


1) I'm glad you asked. Free Men govern themselves collectively in Nations, States or City-States with defendable boarders, a distinct language, history and culture.

2) Intenational Law should be avoided I said, but should be persued for the betterment of a Free State in matters of trade and defense.

NAFTA, while flawed, falls into this catagory as does NATO.

The UN is definately an organization worth avoiding, however!!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The UN is definately an organization worth avoiding, however!!


What's wrong with the U.N.? It's purpose is to make it easier for gov'ts spread far around the world to communicate with each other - or are you afraid that it's the first step on the slippery slope to a world government?

Oh! I see black helicopters flying over my house!:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> What's wrong with the U.N.? It's purpose is to make it easier for gov'ts spread far around the world to communicate with each other...
> 
> ...or are you afraid that it's the first step on the slippery slope to a world government?


1) Oh, do people still travel in carriages and by ship??

2) Any reasonable person can see that it has become a costly, unecessary joke of a platform for Isalamists and other tyrants.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

By "any reasonable person" you're of course referring to the same people who protest the show _All-American Muslim_ because it doesn't depict radical, cartoonish Muslim stereotypes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> By "any reasonable person" you're of course referring to the same people who protest the show _All-American Muslim_ because it doesn't depict radical, cartoonish Muslim stereotypes.


I doubt it.

Do you know any??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Oh, do people still travel in carriages and by ship??
> 
> 2) Any reasonable person can see that it has become a costly, unecessary joke of a platform for Isalamists and other tyrants.


It's just a platform. The success a country has in it and the responses they illicit there are somewhat up to themselves...

I am hesitant about people who wish for the removal of the most prominent organisation of international cooperation because there are other countries in it, just because they disagree with those countries.

It is a platform for whomever is a part of the organisation, that is a type of freedom as well.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> It's just a platform. The success a country has in it and the responses they illicit there are somewhat up to themselves...
> 
> I am hesitant about people who wish for the removal of the most prominent organisation of international cooperation because there are other countries in it, just because they disagree with those countries.
> 
> It is a platform for whomever is a part of the organisation, that is a type of freedom as well.


The issue with the UN is people mistake a world platform (a place to get together and talk & air grievances) with a world government (or a federated state like the EU or the USA).

It's OK to come to an accord about external policies in the UN, criticizing actions, etc. But honestly UN inspectors.... that's a violation of a nations sovereignty and everyone knows it. The US wouldn't stand for UN inspectors coming in, nor would Britain, France, USSR (when it existed), or any power with enough might to prevent it. The only reason this flagrant violation of "state rights" (sovereign state rights) is allowed is because you have these massive bully states forcing the issue.

Now don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein, was an evil bastard. He deserved what he got. But he (Iraq) also got screwed three ways to Sunday by the UN for over a decade, over an action of one sovereign state (Iraq) against another sovereign state (Kuwait). I don't see the US getting the same kind of sanctions for our actions.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> He deserved what he got. But he (Iraq) also got screwed three ways to Sunday by the UN for over a decade, over an action of one sovereign state (Iraq) against another sovereign state (Kuwait).


I'm not defending the UN, but how can getting what one deserves be considered a screwing??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm not defending the UN, but how can getting what one deserves be considered a screwing??


Hung by the neck until dead (what he got) for being an evil F$%^&$&^%$%& bastard who killed countless people. HE (Saddam Hussein) deserved it. Not discounting that.

The UN screwed the Iraqi People (Iraq, a sovereign nation, who just happened to have him in charge), by imposing trade sanctions (many of which were technological in nature). Essentially, the "Man" kept them "Down" for a decade.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> The UN screwed the Iraqi People (Iraq, a sovereign nation, who just happened to have him in charge), by imposing trade sanctions (many of which were technological in nature). Essentially, the "Man" kept them "Down" for a decade.


Thanks for the clarification.

Removing him from power in '91 could have changed a lot in the world.

Friggin UN.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Removing him from power in '91 could have changed a lot in the world.
> 
> Friggin UN.


Imagine if you could travel back in time to 1938 Germany to steal Hitlers wallet. It will not affect the outcome of WWII at all. It will however ruin his evening.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That being said; the sky was falling when public library internet accounts were being snooped.

The sky was falling when, as it turned out, exactly three 911 co-conspiritors (allegedly) were waterboarded.

The sky was falling when an American citizen went abroad, conspired with AQ and wound up getting smoked by a drone. 

Please notify me when any significant abuse accurs so I can join you protest. (The abuse at Abu Ghraib for instance) 

Otherwise, I'm just not feeling it.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That being said; the sky was falling when public library internet accounts were being snooped.
> 
> The sky was falling when, as it turned out, exactly three 911 co-conspiritors (allegedly) were waterboarded.
> 
> ...


Does it have to be a significant abuse? Or a series of little ones that add up to a major one?

Slow but steady grabs for powers that are not listed in the Constitution are a direct violation of their oaths of office. They swore to protect and defend it. Powers not listed, do not belong to them. Using foreign lands, even though we control them to exercise loopholes against the Constitution, like indefinite detention, violates the intent of the founders. It's like having a mighty oak that every one has whittled their name in. Eventually the tree falls over and no one realizes why until it's too late.

Freedom of assembly... except at national parks, and landmarks, and public schools, or without a permit.....

Freedom of the press, unless it's video taping a public official (or police officer in Illinois) then they slap you with an 80 year old eavesdropping felony, even though cops can videotape you without your consent. (I'm not joking about this one, look it up).

Freedom from search and seizure unless you want to travel in the US. It's not just planes, anymore. TSA wants to do trains too. They already ask if you have any illegal fruit when you cross state lines.....

No, the sky isn't falling. But there sure as hell is a landslide happening, and we're seeing the first rocks.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

For once, I think we agree on something, Apatheticviews.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Food for thoughts....

https://rt.com/news/terrorism-credit-cards-government-613/


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

One more for giggles...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...okay-federal-government-to-lie-to-court.shtml


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> Food for thoughts....
> 
> https://rt.com/news/terrorism-credit-cards-government-613/


And after the next terrorist attack you'll be the first to call the government, FBI, CIA, and the other "letters" incompetent and inept, that they had intelligence in advance and should have prevented the attack......

:icon_headagainstwal:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not necessarily anti-government, nor do I always love it, but there is such a thing as being _too_ cautious. That DHS video and the assertion that they're allowed to lie in court is worrying to say the least.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

dks202 said:


> And after the next terrorist attack you'll be the first to call the government, FBI, CIA, and the other "letters" incompetent and inept, that they had intelligence in advance and should have prevented the attack......
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal:icon_headagainstwal


Actually no. I was a member of an Intelligence organization when 9/11 happened. I read Tom Clancy before 9/11, which predicted a plane running into a government building killing hundreds. Should we have predicted a terrorist attack? Sure. Should we have been able to predict when and where? Not a chance. That's the burden of fighting terrorism. You only need one attack to slip through. It causes everyone to react like chickens with their heads cut off. That's what makes it so effective compared to conventional warfare. You can't fight it. Constant vigilance is impossible. Eventually another terrorist will find a way through. All they need is patience and willingness.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I'm not necessarily anti-government, nor do I always love it, but there is such a thing as being _too_ cautious. That DHS video and the assertion that they're allowed to lie in court is worrying to say the least.


I'm not anti-government either, though I generally come off that way when discussing political issues. I get riled up about fraud, waste, and abuse (of authority/power). For the most part, I'm willing to ignore Police, emergency Medical service, and the vast majority of people doing their jobs.

It's when we start seeing political agendas being pushed through apolitical organizations.... I get really concerned. Justice is supposed to be blind, yet the Dept of Justice (FBI) is pulling stunts like this..... Protestors are being defined as "low level terrorists" by the DHS, the very people designated to protect us from terrorists....

These are the things that worry me.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually no. I was a member of an Intelligence organization when 9/11 happened. I read Tom Clancy before 9/11, which predicted a plane running into a government building killing hundreds. Should we have predicted a terrorist attack? Sure. Should we have been able to predict when and where? Not a chance. That's the burden of fighting terrorism. You only need one attack to slip through. It causes everyone to react like chickens with their heads cut off. That's what makes it so effective compared to conventional warfare. You can't fight it. Constant vigilance is impossible. Eventually another terrorist will find a way through. All they need is patience and willingness.


Good point. Generally we seem unable to accept that we can only have a certain amount of security without ending up in a police state that doesn't really prevent terrorism.

But it's easier for people who are in the business of fighting terrorism to redefine terrorists so that they are a little easier to find. No one wants to get stuck going after the real deal, because it's so hard. Much easier to 'improve' airport security, catch political activists, detain people who get turned in by their neighbors etc.

As for getting at the root of terrorism, which is the only efficient way to deal with it, our experts seem at a loss. Not that I have any great ideas, but still...


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Good point. Generally we seem unable to accept that we can only have a certain amount of security without ending up in a police state that doesn't really prevent terrorism.
> 
> But it's easier for people who are in the business of fighting terrorism to redefine terrorists so that they are a little easier to find. No one wants to get stuck going after the real deal, because it's so hard. Much easier to 'improve' airport security, catch political activists, detain people who get turned in by their neighbors etc.
> 
> As for getting at the root of terrorism, which is the only efficient way to deal with it, our experts seem at a loss. Not that I have any great ideas, but still...


Exactly. And that's what I'm worried about. Pepper spraying protesters. Arresting citizens for filming police officers. Airport security who can essentially strip search anyone without warrant. Ask people to report others for paying in cash. If this isn't a police state.... what is.

On Terrorism. The problem is that we're stuck in a Hard Target vs Soft Target mentality. Capitalists (the US, it's Allies, and generally the victims of terrorism) are Soft Targets. Anyone is fair game, whether it's civilians or military. Terrorists (people committing acts of violence for political gain) however are Hard Targets. The US and it's allies, and most governments will not generally go after civilians to get to them. Collateral damage is not considered acceptable. Essentially conventional warfare versus guerrilla troops in an urban environment, which we do not fully control, and cannot control, since we do have the will of the people (locals) behind us.

You can't weed out a terrorist. Any more than you can weed out a politician. War is nothing more than politics through force of arms. Terrorism, unfortunately is also a form of politics. Dirty politics. But politics all the same. It doesn't work well on the US/UK mentality, however that doesn't mean it isn't effective ever. Sometimes making a battle to expensive to fight is the easiest way to win it.


----------

