Posted on 12/05/2011 3:46:43 PM PST by STARWISE
The new Martial Law Bill which affirms the detention of American citizens indefinitely without due process of law passed the Senate 93-7.
Habeas corpus just got knifed in full daylight, left to bleed in the cracks of the Capitol commingling with the blood of patriots who died for this country.
The blood drawn like butter by Senate vampires drooling and gurgling with delight, appetites satiated… for now. Their ecstasy whisps through depraved neurons as their spit foams upon the very name of freedom.
And while there are hints Obama may veto it, my opinion is that the bill has been set up with the sole purpose of having him do just that.
This bill is a gift to Obama in that it will allow him to look like a true man of the people after he does veto it. But the bill is simply reflective of alleged powers already granted. So the veto won’t change anything.
It will only make him look more Presidential for when he finally does use the already existing draconian measures to detain or kill anyone he wants.
Please see Empire Burlesque’s article on this, and all of the links:
“We’ve been mourning the death of the American Republic here (and at other venues) for many years now, since Congress surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities with the “Enabling Act” it passed on September 14, 2001, giving Bush a blank check for “all necessary and appropriate force” against any organization or individual that he alone declared was somehow connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. Three days later, Bush then declared that he had the right to kill anyone on earth anytime he felt like it and there wasn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it.”
I see a lot of bitching and whining now, but how many of you were doing the same routine when Bush was President?
MARCO RUBIO’S SLANTED POSITION ON SB 1867.
Rubio erroneously claims that the bill does not deny habeas corpus to US citizens:
“In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.”
This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.
There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store.”
Bunk! Notice Rubio’s qualifier “to detain a law-abiding American citizen”.
What about citizens who break the laws protesting? What about peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience? What if citizens dispute that the conduct even breaks the law? This guy should never get near the White House (and he’s not eligible).
His statement above is so blatantly misleading, I can only wonder if he anticipates being drunk with power should the country continue its ignorance of the natural-born citizen clause and one day elect him.
Acts of Congress are interpreted by the courts directly pertaining to the words used in the act itself, and not by the speeches of big brother doublespeak cheerleaders such as Rubio. Mr. Rubio is an attorney who knows better.
His statements above are not naive, nor are they stupid. They are carefully crafted doublespeak from a rising star in the political scene who knows how to skillfully crap from both sides of his mouth.
Let us examine the relevant provisions:
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
Rest @ link
"Bush then declared that he had the right to kill anyone on earth anytime he felt like it and there wasn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it.”
Nor does it fit his narratives, history, tone and/or speeches at the time.
.. Ping!
bump!
Double bump!
Kill PA II. like RICO it will be used against American Citizens when it supposedly was not intended for that.
Kill PA II. like RICO it will be used against American Citizens when it supposedly was not intended for that.
“...like RICO it will be used against American Citizens when it supposedly was not intended for that.” Of course, RICO was designed to be used against American Citizens. American citizens (and illegals) were Organized Crime. This is a stupid article and confirms my disdain for its author.
and what does ‘belligerent’ mean? Depends on which side your on, eh?
I went to the link to read it all - several links. Precisely when did this pass?
The worst of the worst.
Ah yes. With that, Leo brings the stupid full circle.
I’ll be back. Need to read more of the link. Like you said, the alleged quote from President Bush, doesn’t sound true at all.
Sounding a bit fringy here for sure, IMHO.
12/1/2011 I believe.
I went to Pres. Bush’s EO’s
That was the closest I found to the
date that could be pertinent.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2001-wbush.html
Maybe it’s another one that’s too vaguely
titled I bypassed.
Or maybe they screwed up and are referring
to the Patriot Act
http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/index.html
But it’s not jibing.
I read that Rand Paul got an ammendment in there that specifically says US Citzens are exempt. What happened to that?
He (Rand) was on with Greta talking about that. He did not have an issue with the law applying to “Americans” per say.
His issue was how it applied to American citizens on US soil.
He asked McCain if a citizen inside the US could be stuck in Gitmo, or worse, without due process, and indicated the answer was, yes.
“any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.”
Ok, who gets to determine enemy forces?
Who determines what a beligerent act?
Dept of Homeland considers Tea Party, Right wingers terrorist threats...right?
Repubs just handed Obama a gift.....if he doesn’t veto it, Americans can be arrested even on US soil...if he does Veto it, he still comes out looking like he “saved the US” again...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.