While it's known that the US has used indefinite detention of suspects in its "war on terror", Congress has voted to make the same treatment legal for US citizens apprehended within the US.
The House of Representatives passed the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act (or NDAA) on Wednesday and Senate approved it (86 to 13) on Thursday. But the Senate had already passed one version of the bill on December 1, with 93 votes in favour of and seven against - a remarkable margin.
The NDAA, which includes the 2012 $662bn military budget and more. But civil liberties advocates are concerned over a section in the legislation that deals with the detention of civilians by the military.
Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul - one of seven who voted against the bill - questions the bill's constitutionality [C-Span]
Provisions in the bill codify an approach that allows for endless detention of US citizens and non-citizens picked up anywhere in the world. They also gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely.
A person can be detained "under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities", the bill states. The hostility in question here is the "war on terror", and at the moment, it seems to have no end.
Attempts were made by several senators to strip the bill of that provision, but those attempts failed. Indeed, most of those who fought to have the provision removed from the bill - such as California's Senator Diane Feinstein and Colorado's Senator Mark Udall (both Democrats) ultimately ended up voting in favour of the bill.
Al Jazeera tried to contact nearly 30 senators from both sides of the vote (including co-sponsors senators John McCain and Carl Levin) but none seemed to be willing to talk or to answer questions about why they either voted against the provisions or, alternately, why they feel they are necessary and why the US justice system is inadequate to deal with terrorist suspects.
serious business
Senator Rand Paul Detained by TSA
I actually had a better link on this but it "disappeared"
For those of you interested in SOPA and PIPA laws...
More Laws That will Limit or control information on Internet.
You tube video for people interested in voting for Mitt Romney..
WEED AND DETAINMENT
smoke weed, do you? Well maybe you should think again..
could you be detained for smoking? Accused of being a Terrorist for smoking weed? Maybe.
Read Above.
Reposting this because i love it. but topics above deemed more important than single image of baby polar bear.
also:
occupy
The House of Representatives passed the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act (or NDAA) on Wednesday and Senate approved it (86 to 13) on Thursday. But the Senate had already passed one version of the bill on December 1, with 93 votes in favour of and seven against - a remarkable margin.
The NDAA, which includes the 2012 $662bn military budget and more. But civil liberties advocates are concerned over a section in the legislation that deals with the detention of civilians by the military.
Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul - one of seven who voted against the bill - questions the bill's constitutionality [C-Span]
Provisions in the bill codify an approach that allows for endless detention of US citizens and non-citizens picked up anywhere in the world. They also gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely.
A person can be detained "under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities", the bill states. The hostility in question here is the "war on terror", and at the moment, it seems to have no end.
Attempts were made by several senators to strip the bill of that provision, but those attempts failed. Indeed, most of those who fought to have the provision removed from the bill - such as California's Senator Diane Feinstein and Colorado's Senator Mark Udall (both Democrats) ultimately ended up voting in favour of the bill.
Al Jazeera tried to contact nearly 30 senators from both sides of the vote (including co-sponsors senators John McCain and Carl Levin) but none seemed to be willing to talk or to answer questions about why they either voted against the provisions or, alternately, why they feel they are necessary and why the US justice system is inadequate to deal with terrorist suspects.
serious business
Senator Rand Paul Detained by TSA
I actually had a better link on this but it "disappeared"
For those of you interested in SOPA and PIPA laws...
More Laws That will Limit or control information on Internet.
You tube video for people interested in voting for Mitt Romney..
WEED AND DETAINMENT
smoke weed, do you? Well maybe you should think again..
could you be detained for smoking? Accused of being a Terrorist for smoking weed? Maybe.
Read Above.
Reposting this because i love it. but topics above deemed more important than single image of baby polar bear.
also:
occupy
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
HI NAMASTE!!!
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY IS THE IDEA THAT GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND MUST BE BASED ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!!!
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "*A JUST GOVERNMENT MUST DERIVE ITS POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE IT GOVERNS!*" "*GOVERNMENTS AND LAWS DERIVE THEIR LEGITIMACY FROM THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE!*"
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CLEARLY ESTABLISHES GOVERNMENT IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE!!! THE PREAMBLE SAYS: "*WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES....DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!*"
WHEN CONTROL IS PRACTICED PREDOMINATELY BY MILITARY OR POLICE FORCE IT IS CONSIDERED COERCIVE!!!
THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE CLEARLY STATES: "*WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED...*"
NAMASTE, THANK YOU FOR THIS EXTENDED BLOG ON THE RIGHTS OF WE THE PEOPLE, AND HOW OUR GOVERNMENT IS ERODING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!
BOTH THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS PROHIBIT GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE "*ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!*"!!! BUT DUE PROCESS HAS SEVERAL QUITE DISTINCT MEANINGS!!! DUE PROCESS RESTRICTS THE WAYS IN WHICH LEGISLATURES MAY LIMIT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!!! THIS SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS MAY PROTECT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR VOID ARBITRARY LIMITATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF ACTIONS!!! PART OF THE SUBSTANTIVE IMPART OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS THE INCORPORATION OF CERTAIN GUARANTEES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES ALSO HAVE A PROCEDURAL ASPECT IN THAT THEY GUARANTEE THAT EACH PERSON SHALL BE ACCORDED A CERTAIN "*PROCESS!*" IF THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY!!! WHEN THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE USED AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS A RIGHT TO A FAIR PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR, AND LEGALITY OF, SUCH ACTION!!! BUT THERE IS NO GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE A PROCEDURE PIOR TO TAKING ACTS WHICH ARE UNFAVORABLE TO SOME INDIVIDUALS!!! IT IS ONLY WHEN SOMEONE'S "*LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY!*" IS TO BE IMPAIRED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWES HER/HIM SOME TYPE OF PROCESS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF HER/HIS INTERESTS!!! BUT, TODAY THESE CONCEPTS ARE BEING DEFINED SO AS TO EXCLUDE A VARIETY OF PERSONAL INTERESTS FROM THEIR SCOPE AND PROTECTION EVEN THOUGH EARLIER CASES HAD RECOGNIZED THE PHRASE AS VIRTUALLY "*ALL-ENCOMPASSING!*"!!!
TREKKA, QUOTE:"*I GUESS I JUST WISH THAT IN A COUNTRY WHERE OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT FOR OUR RIGHT AS AMERICANS TO HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS AND EXPRESS THEM; HELL EVEN CELEBRATE THEM - THAT PEOPLE COULD FEEL THAT FREEDOM. IT'S HEALTHY FOR US TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND NO ONE SHOULD EVER FEEL AFRAID OR JUST UNEASY ABOUT SHARING THEIR THOUGHTS, HOWEVER POPULAR (OR UNPOPULAR), THEY MAY BE. I PERSONALLY AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT CUTS SOMEONE OUT OF MY LIFE JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS OR CHRISTIANS OR PRO-LIFE. bUT IT'S BECAUSE I ACCEPT THAT WE ALL ARE ALLOWED TO FOLLOW OUR HEARTS AND BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT. I JUST WISH MORE PEOPLE COULD BE THAT WAY SO PEOPLE COULD FEEL THE FREEDOM WE HAVE TO HARBOR THOSE OPINIONS!*" "*AHHHH...IN A PERFECT WORLD RIGHT!?!*"
"*SO MY DAD AND I HAD AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION LATE LAST NIGHT ABOUT PEOPLE TODAY AND THEIR SEEMINGLY NON-EXISTENT CONCERN ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD AROUND THEM, PARTICULARLY IN THIS COUNTRY (USA). I HONESTLY THINK IT'S A REGIONAL THING, BECAUSE SOME AREAS OF THE COUNTRY ARE MAYBE MORE JUDGMENTAL TOWARDS PEOPLE AND THEIR BELIEFS!*"...."*I WAS RAISED TO APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S OPINION, WHETHER I AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. BECAUSE HERE IN AMERICA, WE HAE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUR MINDS FREELY AND AS HUMAN BEINGS, WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THING. BUT WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE, WE STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT. I REJOICE OTHER OPINIONS, TO BE HONEST! I AM VERY FASCINATED WITH HUMAN BEINGS AND THE IDEA THAT WE ALL COME FROM THE SAME PLACE AND YET WE ALL ARE SO DIFFERENT. IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND I GENUINELY APPRECIATE THAT ABOUT OUR HUMAN RACE!*"!!!!
"*ANYHOW, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT I AM SURPRISED BY THE FACT THAT NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 'OCCUPY WALL STREET' MOVEMENT THAT IS GOING ON....BUT I'M NOT SEEING A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVEMENT EVEN COMMENTING ON IT'S BIZARRE TO ME SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS COULD VERY WELL BE THE MOVEMENT OF OUR GENERATION AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE PAYING ATTENTION. I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SUGGESTING THAT I ONLY WANT PEOPLE TO AGREE WITH IT. I JUST WISH THERE WAS MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT!*" TREKKA!
"*THE ONLY REALLY SELF-GOVERNING PEOPLE IS THAT PEOPLE WHICH DISCUSSES AND INTERROGATES ITS ADMINISTRATION...!*" BY PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON!!!
A GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOT RESPECT YOUR LIBERTY WILL NOT RESPECT YOUR LIFE, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR RELIGION, OR YOUR MORALITY!!! BEFORE A GOVERNMENT CAN BEGIN MARCHING PEOPLE OFF TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS, IT HAS TO DESTROY THE FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF LIBERTY IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF ITS CITIZENS!!! THE PATRIOT ACT, THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT, THE NATIONAL DEFENCE AUTHORISATION ACT, THE ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT, AND WHAT IS NEXT IN STORE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND PROTECTION AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL DRACONIAN LAWS!!!
THE DRACONIAN LAW; THE NATIONAL DEFENCE AUTHORISATION ACT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY!!! MY PREMISE FOR THIS POSITION IS THAT ANY LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY LIMITED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORISATION ACT IS TAKEN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION NEVER GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT THE ABILITY TO PASS SUCH A DRACONIAN LAW, AND THIS LAW IS PASSED BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS!!!
PART A
(THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: THE "*G8!*;" "*G20!*;" THE "BRUSSELS FORUM 2011*"!!!
"*I GUESS I JUST WISH THAT IN A COUNTRY WHERE OUR ANCESTORS FOUGHT FOR OUR RIGHT AS AMERICANS TO HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS AND EXPRESS THEM; HELL EVEN CELEBRATE THEM - THAT PEOPLE COULD FEEL THAT FREEDOM. IT'S HEALTHY FOR US TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND NO ONE SHOULD EVER FEEL '*AFRAID!*' OR JUST UNEASY ABOUT SHARING THEIR THOUGHTS, HOWEVER POPULAR (OR UNPOPULAR), THEY MAY BE. I PERSONALLY AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT CUTS SOMEONE OUT OF MY LIFE JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS OF CHRISTIANS OR PRO-LIFE. BUT IT'S BECAUSE I ACCEPT THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO FOLLOW OUR HEARTS AND BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT. I JUST WISH MORE PEOPLE COULD BE THAT WAY SO PEOPLE COULD FEEL THE FREEDOM WE HAVE TO HARBOR THOSE OPINIONS!*" "*AHHHH...IN A PERFECT WORLD RIGHT!?!*" TREKKA!!!
PURSUANT TO THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE AND THE ENABLING CLAUSES OF THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS (WHICH EMPOWER CONGRESS TO ENFORCE THOSE AMENDMENTS BY "*APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION!!!*"), CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO PROTECT THE EXERCISE OF (AND REMEDY INTERFERENCE WITH), CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!! TO SOME EXTENT, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO LEGISLATE AGAINST POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF WOULD NOT FIND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
SEE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, AND ARTICLE VI; 31 UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED, SECTION 204!!! THE OATH OF OFFICE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TAKES ON ENTERING OFFICE!!! THE OATH OF OFFICE EACH UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER TAKES EVERY TWO YEARS ON ENTERING OFFICE!!! THE OATH OF OFFICE EACH UNITED STATES SENTATOR TAKES EVERY SIX YEARS ON ENTERING OFFICE!!! THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS CONSIST OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (435 MEMBERS), AND THE SENATE (100 MEMBERS)!!! THE OATH TAKEN, QUOTE: "*I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER; SO HELP ME GOD.*"
CONGRESS CANNOT REVOKE CITIZENSHIP OF A NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZATION CITIZEN WITHOUT HIS CONSENT; BUT CONGRESS CAN PROVIDE FOR REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION OBTAINED WRONGFULLY OR BY FRAUD!!!
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 3, QUOTE: "*NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR "*EX POST FACTO LAW!*" SHALL BE PASSED!!!!!!!!
"*EX POST FACTO LAW!!!*" IS DEFINED IN PART AS LAW WHICH CHANGES THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND RECEIVES LESS OR DIFFERENT TESTIMONY THAN WAS REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IN ORDER TO CONVICT THE OFFENDER; A LAW WHICH DEPRIVES PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME OF SOME LAWFUL PROTECTION TO WHICH THEY HAVE BECOME ENTITLED; EVERY LAW WHICH, IN RELATION TO THE OFFENSE OR ITS CONSEQUENCES, ALTERS THE SITUATION OF A PERSON TO HIS DISADVANTAGE!!!!!
"*BILL OF ATTAINDER!*;" IS DEFINED IN PART AS; SUCH SPECIAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE AS INFLICT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT UPON PERSONS SUPPOSED TO BE GUILTY OF HIGH OFFENSES, SUCH AS TREASON AND FELONY, WITHOUT ANY CONVICTION IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS!!! LEGISLATIVE ACTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR FORM, THAT APPLY EITHER TO NAMED INDIVIDUALS OR TO EASILY ASCERTAINABLE MEMBERS OF A GROUP IN SUCH A WAY AS TO INFLICT PUNISHMENT ON THEM WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL, AND FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION!!!!!!!!!
"*DUE PROCESS!*:" BOTH THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS PROTECT AGAINST THE DEPRIVATION OF "*LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!*"!!! DUE PROCESS IS USED TO PROTECT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS NOT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! INFRINGEMENT OF SUCH RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY!!!
THE SUPREME COURT MAY PERMIT REGULATIONS TO BE CHALLENGED ON THEIR FACE IF THEY ARE OVERBROAD OR VAGUE BECAUSE SUCH REGULATIONS MAY "*CHILL!*" THE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTED RIGHTS!!! AN OVERBROAD LAW IS ONE WHICH REGULATES CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CONDUCT ALONG WITH UNPROTECTED CONDUCT!!! WHERE VAGUENESS IN A REGULATION MAY BE INTERPRETED AS PROSCRIBING PROTECTED AS WELL AS UNPROTECTED CONDUCT, IT MAY BE OVERBROAD!!! IF A LAW IS VAGUE ON ITS FACE, IT IS TOTALLY INVALID!!! THUS, PERSONS ARE IMMUNE FROM REGULATION UNDER A VAGUE LAW, EVEN IF THEIR CONDUCT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED!!!
AS LONG AS "*CIVIL!*" COURTS ARE OPERATING, MILITARY TRIBUNALS ARE DENIED JURISDICTION OVER CIVILIANS!!! "*MARTIAL RULE CAN NEVER EXIST WHERE THE COURTS ARE OPEN, AND IN THE PROPER AND UNOBSTRUCTED EXERCISE OF THEIR JURISDICTION!*"!!! AUTHORIZING THE TRIAL OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS BEFORE A MILITARY TRIBUNAL INVALIDATES PROVISION OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE!!!
UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONGRESS DOES "*NOT!*" HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE AWAY THE CITIZENSHIP OF A CITIZEN BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, THAT THE CITIZEN INTENDED TO RELINQUISH CITIZENSHIP!!! SUCH INTENT CAN BE EXPRESSED IN WORDS OR FOUND AS A FAIR INFERENCE FROM PROVEN CONDUCT!!! THE GOVERNMENT MUST "*PROVE!*" THAT THE ACT WAS PERFORMED WITH NECESSARY INTENT TO RELINQUISH CITIZENSHIP!!!
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY IS THE IDEA THAT GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND MUST BE BASED ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!!!: "*!!
PART B
(THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: "*THE G8!*;" "*THE G20!*;" AND "*THE BRUSSELS FORUM 2011!*")
"*WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES...DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!*"