• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

so this bill passed



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shadow Key

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
702
Location
stasis
I'm going with fake. I don't see a single other message board on the whole internet talking about it. No amount of media blackout can shut everyone up.

That you all are buying this at face value shows just how easy it is to fake something like this.
So, I'm afraid to ask. Have the Senators said why exactly they want to legalize this?


[video=youtube;rN-6Bmw_UIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN-6Bmw_UIA&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 

MATGSY

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
6,508
Awards
8
Oh wait, here's something about it on reddit
Reddit has been over this several billion bonking times in the last 2 weeks, and this is the point at which things are insanely inflammatory. This post's title is "to remove the Bill of Rights" which in turn is a contraction of the ridiculous hyperbole of the article's "effectively remove the Bill of Rights."

Anyone actually read what the bill says? It's here and says quite clearly in section 1032:

"(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien 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."

And I'm afraid the Constitution says quite clearly at Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So:

A. It's up to Congress to decide whether to suspend habeas corpus, and all the constitution has to say about it is that it is appropriate at times of "rebellion" or "invasion". Rebellion may be easy enough to say is not relevant here, but "invasion" is a ludicrously broad word that doesn't help. Whatever you personally think, someone else can argue otherwise. And particularly as nowadays war doesn't mean two states fighting each other anymore (more on that below, and what I object to in all this).

B. The bill explicitly restricts this posse comitatus power to not include US citizens, and whether you think it's a bad idea or not (I happen to think the whole thing IS a bad idea, but that's not the point) this in no way can be defined as an attack on the constitution.

C. A great deal of this hinges on something which is outside the purview of United States law, the international customary law of war. This bill explicitly uses that to hinge this power in section 1031:

"(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. (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) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by 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) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (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."

Notice that this all hinges on the law of war, and what I find objectionable about it, being that international customary law nowadays allows war to mean something other than two states clearly declaring war. That's how this gets really messy, and yet it still has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the scaremongering fantasy presented in this travesty of a news piece.

Now for the love of bonking God, know what you're talking about before you bitch and moan in future.
In other words, sensationalist headline that simplifies/misinterprets the actual news either due to laziness or simply for the sake of getting hits for their site.

Research beyond the headlines, folks.
 

Hamster Lord

Atrocity Exhibition
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,662
Awards
4
Age
25
Location
Neo Kobe City
so people wont be plucked off the streets and murdered for freedom???

but the bestiality thing is still there right
 

Nutari

The Scotsman
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,855
Awards
7
Location
Milwaukee
Why does this remind me of the Red Scare of the 1940s?.....

NOw that you mention it yes. This likely has something to do with the growing threat in the middle east. and their ties to Russia. Don't get me wrong this is essentially bad, but the censoring I can live with. Though if they move to books again, I'll be knocking some heads. Sometimes I wish the bad sites would be shut down but thats taking away our freedom of expression so, basically we are going to be screwed here in a few years. *Sulks into room. Slams door, and begins to hate this bill with a passion*
 

DarkRiku-12

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
918
Age
26
Well who knows, mabye Hamster Lord's ballsack is incredibly large for his body size also.
 

Nutari

The Scotsman
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,855
Awards
7
Location
Milwaukee
or the hamster would bite the dudes dong in self defense. Its a lose lose situation really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top