Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1651
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus
    Posted: 26 November 2011 at 1:10am
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 November 2011 at 2:11am

That's nothing. More worried about this :

Ban Skyrim

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
Brian Fellows View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
That’s MISTER Fellows to you...

Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 3489
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian Fellows Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 November 2011 at 11:18am
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:


That's nothing. More worried about this :

Ban Skyrim

KBK

It's satire.
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 November 2011 at 4:06pm
I can't imagine this bill or anything like it ever being passed, but it deeply worries me that the possibility even exists.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Online
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 November 2011 at 7:10pm
The problem with it, is that its attached to the DOD spending bill. Heres what the Administration has to say about it:
Originally posted by U.S. Administration U.S. Administration wrote:

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.

Sauce: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1867
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Online
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 December 2011 at 9:59pm
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Okay so the bill passed 93-7. May draw a Presidential vito.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2011 at 3:27am
The comments section of that article annoyed me.

"93 out 100 US senators approved this, it must be good."

/facepalm

And this is coming from the anti-"big government" conservatives? Giving the government an even broader scope to work with?
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2011 at 10:01am
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Okay so the bill passed 93-7. May draw a Presidential vito.
I've not checked, but I can't imagine that the supreme court would be okay with this. Confused
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Online
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 December 2011 at 9:00am
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/893

Ayes: 406 (Democrat: 171; Republican: 235)
Nays: 17 (Democrat: 15; Republican: 2)
Abstained: 9 (Democrat: 6; Republican: 3)

Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1651
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 December 2011 at 1:51am

Republicans Voting 'Nay'


NameVoted


Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Nay
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 December 2011 at 10:44am
Oh good. Ermm
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Online
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2011 at 7:38am
I still don't know why this isn't showing up in the news. This should be the top story for the American people.


Wheres that Ben Franklin quote that Bri had/has in his sig? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

This is blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.



Edit: Spelling
Edit edit: quotation added


Edited by Rofl_Mao - 14 December 2011 at 7:42am
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2011 at 7:59am
It's a common tactic to throw unpopular lines into a popular bill to force things through (especially when it comes to military funding). It's dangerous for a politician's career to vote against a military budget unless that's what the politician's constituents specifically expect from him/her. Don't want to be known as the anti-military representative/senator, they'll never hear the end of it. It's likely everyone knew about the constitutional violation but are letting it through with the hopes of a line item veto.

It also seems like a loaded thing to throw into a bill to lower the President's approval. If Obama lets it go through, he looks anti-constitution. Vetoing the bill will look strongly anti-military. A line-item veto would be the best bet, but it's a difficult power for the President to get. In any case, the damage to Obama's Presidential campaign is already done.
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2011 at 9:05am
Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

It's a common tactic to throw unpopular lines into a popular bill to force things through (especially when it comes to military funding). It's dangerous for a politician's career to vote against a military budget unless that's what the politician's constituents specifically expect from him/her. Don't want to be known as the anti-military representative/senator, they'll never hear the end of it.


This is what ticks me off about Defense spending. It isn't that it's such a big part of our debt that irks me, but rather the fact that the Military Industrial Complex passes R&D and pet-project spending off as "necessary for the safety of the common soldier" to the American people to get it pushed through. The reality is that not passing this bill would have simply made the writers go back and re-submit it without the anti-constitutional items which would have taken a day at most to do. But others would seize upon the fact that it didn't pass to paint their opponents as "un-American" or "uncaring for the safety of our soldiers."

Ike warned us about this kind of thing. But I doubt even he understood the extent to which the M.I.C. would eventually control the nation.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1651
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2011 at 8:18pm
Dead
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.