Yep, we saw it coming.
Imagine how much damage will done during a second term.
Ping to an old friend.
They need someone to fill those non exsisting fema camps.
So when can we expect to see domestic terrorist George Soros frog-marched in front of the cameras?
Has this made it though the House? If so, how? I’d have thought the Tea Party gang would have stopped it..
DHS, TSA, ATF and all the rest are the worst evils put upon freedom loving citizens that have ever been conceived. All invented with good premises, but very quickly turned to Gestapo Goose Stepping Jack-Booted Thugs. Now they seek to add our domestic military to the mix.
Extreme bad law. The military should never be used on our soil even for terrorists acts. That should be handled by the FBI or the CIA if proof that the subject are terrorists. Then the case should be handled by the Justice Department with Congress oversight. This is very serious. Might be a better way and would like to hear of better solutions.
INDEED.
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
or anything else inconvenient.
I assume Ron Paul would be opposed to this, but are any of the other Republican candidates speaking out against this? If they start bringing it up as a campaign issue it would force Obama to backtrack fast.
Funny how they fight for terrorists in other countries to have rights under the US Constitution and yet seek to deprive Americans from those same rights.
I am having trouble with the level of excitement over this part of S. 1867 as noted in this article. In my PDF version with link noted below, pages 359-371 on my PDF for Sec. 1032 say that U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens are excluded.
To my estimation, if anything the bill lacks guidelines for a turnover of suspects to the FBI or some such similar agency. However, that principle is probably spelled out in some other part of the U.S. Code dealing with Posse Comitias.
My problem comes from noting Google now calls up dozens of articles headlining the bill legalizes sodomy and bestiality. Article 125 of the UCMJ says those acts are simply wrong, but our legislators cannot allow that definition to stand after their repeal of DADT. SB 1867 substitutes in Section 551(pages 131-149 on my PDF) myriad descriptive phrases such as “unlawful force”, “rendering unconscious”, “causing bodily harm”, “sexual contact”, “lack of consent”, and “place in fear”. The problem is all the new phraseology includes the word ”person”.
Now that issue should have the people from PETA up in arms. The Army still has quite a few horses and the Naval Academy mascot is a goat. The first reactions by the military are hesitant references to “good order and discipline”. I am not sure that statement provides a lot of comfort to the animals pacing nervously in their stalls.
Reading on (page 140 on my PDF) I find Article 120b troubling, because the language of the bill says a person must be less than 16 years of age to be considered a child. I have always thought of those folks living at home and going to high school as children.
Text UCMJ
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm
Government Senate Repeals Bans on Sodomy and Bestiality in the Military
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senate-repeals-bans-on-sodomy-and-bestiality-in-the-u-s-military/
S. 1867 Text
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
George Washington and Alexander Hamilton didn't scruple over habeus corpus in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1799 when federal soldiers, at their command, hauled westerners out of their homes at midnight, took them back east over the mountains to cities on the seaboard, and held them without trial, some for years.
Abraham Lincoln and General Burnsides didn't hesitate to ignore habeus corpus during the Civil War when Burnsides, as military commander of the old northwest locked up political opponents - elected members of state congresses, newspaper editors, and any others that opposed Republican policy in the pursuit of the war.
Those are just two of many instances that might be cited over the course of our country's history. So I don't think this is the end of habeus corpus quite yet. A violation maybe, and it needs to be addressed. On the other hand, given the trajectory of history towards an ideal of one world government, a smaller human population, and a ruling elite that strides across the face of the world like demigods in complete harmony with nature, you never know for sure. After all, to make that omelet called the "Congress of Humanity in Solidarity with the Earth" more than a few eggs have to be broken.