Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus - Page 3

Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus

This is a discussion on Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The link at the OP is to Americans For Freedom. Americans For Freedom tells us about the FEMA internment camps. That awful president will ship ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 79
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Bill passes allowing govt' to imprison American citizens without the right of Habeus

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The link at the OP is to Americans For Freedom. Americans For Freedom tells us about the FEMA internment camps. That awful president will ship gun owners to an internment camp near Black Mesa in north western, OK. Yep. it's there alright, i saw it while hunting nearby. The guards are all voluptuous females who wear lingere. They almost caught me.

    http://americansforfreedom.org/videos/11/2097
    Hopyard likes this.


  2. #32
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    It is like Ron Paul says The Patriot Act should be called REPEAL THE 4TH AMENDMENT ACT.

    The government can pretty mush do what ever they want to NOW.
    They can stop & retain you without arrest or warrant.

    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 1
    theblogprof: Video: CA Fruit Nazis Repeal 4th Amendment
    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 2
    4409 -- FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 2 - YouTube
    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 3
    4409 -- FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 3 - YouTube

  3. #33
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullet1234 View Post
    It is like Ron Paul says The Patriot Act should be called REPEAL THE 4TH AMENDMENT ACT.

    The government can pretty mush do what ever they want to NOW.
    They can stop & retain you without arrest or warrant.

    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 1
    theblogprof: Video: CA Fruit Nazis Repeal 4th Amendment
    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 2
    4409 -- FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 2 - YouTube
    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 3
    4409 -- FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 3 - YouTube
    They have only started doing it "NOW?" They have been doing it since 9/11. Why do you think it is just starting "NOW?"
    Sig 210 likes this.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Exactly...I wish folks would look at the bill itself, not what the press or ACLU put together.

    This came out earlier in the week through the ACLU. First problem with the ACLU assertions--they didn't publish which section of the bill they were referring to. After I looked the bill up at the thomas.gov site, I saw NOTHING what the ACLU asserted and what the rest of the press lied about.

    Folks--don't feed the hysteria...read the bill yourself and then post the offending section and your commentary as to why this is bad. Right now, AS WRITTEN, there is nothing about arresting U.S. citizens by the military, in fact, U.S. citizens cannot be arrested by the U.S. military (see Section 1032, para (b) of S.1253, which reads:
    I watched the debate and heard the argument between Rand Paul and an angry Carl Levin and Lindsay Graham. There were two contradictory sections. Paul and others, from across the aisle, wanted the sections removed because they do leave open the option to arrest US citizens on US soil. The amendment to remove that language was defeated.

    That is my understanding based on watching it unfold on C-Span, but maybe I've missed something and something got changed along the way.

    It isn't hysteria to react to the bill as proposed by the Armed Services Committee, filled with the unwanted language.

    If it happens that that language is now no longer in there (I think not the case) they still all should be deeply ashamed at the fact they gave ZERO consideration to maintaining OUR rights under the BOR.
    ksholder likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGiant View Post
    Ok I am confused I need to see what passed the senate and who voted for it.
    Being a strict Constitutionalist and having sworn and oath to defend it I want know my enemies.
    Read post 25 for your answer.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #36
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    If the President and the Congress had legally declared war would any of the measures be necessary? In a legal war spies are shot and POW's are kept until the end of hostilities.
    Some of out politicians want it both ways. They do not want to be on the record voting to declare war. But they want to use the rules that would be allowed had they voted to do it.

    Michael
    IMO, this really has nothing to do with declaring war or not. It has to do with honoring or not honoring the fundamental law of the land as embodied in the 5th and 6th amendments of the Bill of Rights. The idea of arresting US citizens on US soil and holding them without trial, indefinitely, on only the say so of The Executive is perverse. We have gone this route to some extent before with the Japanese Internment. It was a shameful moment in our history.

    The language in the Defense Authorization bill is really really bad. It means that someone like Brandon Mayfield could just disappear with no right to defend himself. (See Wiki if you don't recall that mess up.)

    It means that same thing could happen to anyone on a whim.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #37
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    IMO, this really has nothing to do with declaring war or not. It has to do with honoring or not honoring the fundamental law of the land as embodied in the 5th and 6th amendments of the Bill of Rights. The idea of arresting US citizens on US soil and holding them without trial, indefinitely, on only the say so of The Executive is perverse. We have gone this route to some extent before with the Japanese Internment. It was a shameful moment in our history.

    The language in the Defense Authorization bill is really really bad. It means that someone like Brandon Mayfield could just disappear with no right to defend himself. (See Wiki if you don't recall that mess up.)

    It means that same thing could happen to anyone on a whim.
    IIRC, Lincoln suspended HC as well when he was in office.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    IIRC, Lincoln suspended HC as well when he was in office.
    I just read something about that, but I can't recall if it was an Executive decision alone or if Congress authorized it. And, that was a rather unique situation.

    As pointed out in the debate on the Senate floor, of all the many Al Quida figures captured, ca. 300 have had civilian trials; only 6 have had military tribunals. In short, the civil courts work quite well. That is one of the reasons the Prez doesn't want the
    perfidious provisions in the bill; there is no need for them.

    I personally do not like Rand Paul or Libertarianism, but when someone is correct on an issue I am going to give them credit.
    He deserves credit. He spoke up forcefully for preserving our Constitution including the provisions of the Bill of Rights; some of the rest were just interested in boxing the president into a corner with two bad choices. And a few, were just misguided.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,482
    Ya know, I don't care what the vote was or who voted fer or agin it... we need to find a different way to wage this "war on terrer." Don't tell me the gubmint won't put the wrong person into the hoosegow, or ship 'em off to gitmo... like that's never happened before... Ya got the TSA goons (Division of DHS) fondling just-beyond-infant "terrerists," and now they're strip searching 84 year old grannys....

    Story on the granny here

    Now mebbe "strip searching" is a relative term... but if they'd a done it to my granny I'da called it strip searchin', too.

    And, yes, I do know the proper spelling of the words I used... It's just that this stuff gets my "red neck" up, and I jes cain't hep mehself.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  10. #40
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Ya know, I don't care what the vote was or who voted fer or agin it... we need to find a different way to wage this "war on terrer." Don't tell me the gubmint won't put the wrong person into the hoosegow, or ship 'em off to gitmo... like that's never happened before... Ya got the TSA goons (Division of DHS) fondling just-beyond-infant "terrerists," and now they're strip searching 84 year old grannys....

    Story on the granny here

    Now mebbe "strip searching" is a relative term... but if they'd a done it to my granny I'da called it strip searchin', too.

    And, yes, I do know the proper spelling of the words I used... It's just that this stuff gets my "red neck" up, and I jes cain't hep mehself.
    LOL!!!


    I had to read it a couple times but thats fine!

    I can tell you a different way to wage war on terror. It is not a full-on assault, storming the beaches, dropping bombs, and "shock-n-all" with a ton of grieving mothers and widows with newborn baby's in its wake. Its just like your recent example how we killed Osama....a planned surgical strike affected by carefully planning and great trustworthy intelligence.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    They didn't whack al-Awlaki fast enough for my liking.

  12. #42
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,742
    Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?

    Answer: No

    Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus?

    Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862

    Was Habeas Corpus ever restored?

    Answer: Yes, in 1866.


    Here's the story:


    As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

    Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

    Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

    Copyright, 1999
    American Patriot Network


    some of the rest were just interested in boxing the president into a corner with two bad choices
    This happens way too much these days.
    Hopyard likes this.

  13. #43
    B94
    B94 is offline
    Member Array B94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    42
    PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    I posted about this at noon today... Of course it passed... There are those who will say "if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."

    Bull puckey.

    We have gotten along with the patriot act since 9/11. But at some point or another, they're going to get the wrong person... my hope is that it happens to be a senator, or a high ranking official in the administration... but my hopes rarely come to fruition...

    sigh.

    My post
    I'd say the "No Fly List" is a prime example of Patriot Act FUBAR (among many). There is no recourse. It is a huge list, mostly US citizens. I would not say that we have gotten along with it [Patriot Act], we had no choice. More US citizens have been detained, arrested, and tried under the PA than any other nationality combined...No I do not have exact numbers or sources for that statement, It's been a few years and many hits to the head since that was mainstream.

    Granted, flying is not a right, it's a privileged means of transportation. You can still drive, bus, train, or boat.

    Data mining by the Govt is also getting extreme. I am going to be uninstalling the few apps that I have on my phone because of the interesting Terms and Conditions that I have read. Why Angry Birds need to know when I am on a call, what my phone ESN, and phone number is, and who I am calling and what their detailed phone info is, is beyond me. There is enough data mining going on as it is. That one pushed me over the edge.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullet1234 View Post
    It is like Ron Paul says The Patriot Act should be called REPEAL THE 4TH AMENDMENT ACT.

    The government can pretty mush do what ever they want to NOW.
    They can stop & retain you without arrest or warrant.

    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 1
    theblogprof: Video: CA Fruit Nazis Repeal 4th Amendment
    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 2
    4409 -- FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 2 - YouTube
    FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 3
    4409 -- FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN - PART 3 - YouTube
    I would literally vote for Barack Obama before I would vote for Ron Paul.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amendment 1274

,

bill to imprison american citizens

,

bill to imprison americans

,

bill to imprison us citizens

,
congress passes bill to imprison
,
imprisoning american citizens
,
law passed to imprison americans
,

law that allows govt to imprison citizens

,
law to imprison americans
,
new law to imprison americans
,
the right to imprison
,
what law was passed to imprison us citizens without recourse to the law in 2012
Click on a term to search for related topics.