Posted on 01/03/2012 3:21:42 PM PST by Yosemitest
Yup, even if it’s something a “redneck militia” would normally not at all be interested in, it would be way too easy to trump up a charge that oh, Mr. Cletus Yokel sent a donation to al Qaeda. And the nature of the charge — NOT the strength of the evidence — would be what would keep Mr. Yokel in Gitmo!
In a stalemate like what you described, who has the court power? It ain’t the hillbillies. They don’t have millions of dollars of gunpoint extorted money to throw at lawyers.
True, but there always was, starting with AUMF 2001 and, yes, the Patriot Act and there was a lot of grey area with regards to suspension of Habeus Corpus since the Civil War. If the govt could find you eligible for detention under 2012 NDAA, they would have been able to do it before NDAA 2012 was passed. End of story,
So when obuma sends out the fat welfare momma brigade to get you, what will you do?
This is one more piece of B.S. that the gummit can throw at the USSC’s wall hoping it will stick, and in the meantime extending the clock for itself. So no, not end of story.
“End of story...” doesn’t make any sense. You were asked before (and have studiously avoided answering) why this bill was needed if it doesn’t change anything that wasn’t already law.
Have you rented any property to an AQ or Tallibunny agent? Sold them any material goods? Given to any charity that turned out to be a front for them? Written any screeds about the 4th or 10th amendments that might be construed as giving cover to them?
If you never did anything remotely like that and they accuse you of it who will you complain to about it?
That is because Congress passes laws that reaffirm previously existing laws. That is not anything new either. This new provision even state their purpose of affirming authority the govt already has, oarticularly with the AUMF. And the NDAA passed every year for 48 years, and each time it is a long and lengthy bill. I am sure if one were to read each of them you would find plenty of clauses that just reaffirm existing laws. Why does the govt pass laws that simply reaffirm, for US citizens, existing law ? There could be a lot of reasons for that. For example,. simply stating outright that clause 1031 doesnt apply to US citizens could be interpreted to mean other clauses do-a large potential problem. I dont know the govt’s exact reasoning; only someone who knows the thought process of everyone who helped draft it does. But that doesnt mean NDAA 2012 goes way beyong AUMF 2001 or the Patriot Act. Just reading it can show that it doesnt
“The new FEMA camps will be busting at the seams IMO not long after the Obaummer starts his crackdown on us conservative dissidents. Heil Obama!”
You’re wrong.
American Marines and soldiers are not goosestepping Nazis who will round up or kill families and neighbors.
Take a deep breath and relax.
You're "sure" meaning you are guessing. Your "this is old news just move on" argument doesn't make it any better.
I’m sure with gay generals and hijab wearing Moose, something could be assembled willing to do most any mission no matter how unseemly.
Right.
They can deny you a lawyer, charges, evidence, and there is no habeus corpus, so there is no legal reason they couldn't sent you some nice place under rendition for further "processing" - like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, China, or Russia.
Those places have lots of roomy jails, gulags, and torture chambers in those countries and nobody would ever know or be able to do anything about it.
This is really serious, folks.
BFL
Thanks for your well-presented post. However; when you say:
“I am really surprised that Rush and the Freepers are critical of something opposed by the Pauls and enthusiastically supported by the countryclub Republicans and Democrats alike.”
I am not sure why you would be surprised that Rush came out against this outrageous violation; I guess he surprises people often with his perspicacity.
And I am not sure you have been listening to Rush much lately if you are surprised by his stance against the Republican establishment. He has been ripping them a new one over their Romney machinations.
And I wish Freepers would wake up on this issue. On one thread today it was reported an Occupy Wall Streeter hollered out thanks to one Paul or the other for opposing the NDAA, and immediately all I saw was posts castigating Paul for being supported on this one issue by an Occupy Wall Street protester! Even an Occupy Wall Street protester recognized this abomination and potential for mischief and misuse of the new law.
“The govt has already reserved the right to suspend Habeus Corpus in certain cases”
Previously, for terrorists. Now, any citizen suspected of anything the gov’t defines as terrorism or a suspected association with anything that could threaten the US.
For a hypothetical, say Obama suspends internet service for “security” reasons.
Protests start up all over the country. With NDAA, police and military can now round up whomever they please, without due process.
OK. All of my posts have been in support of that conclusion so I was just wondering why you chose me to reassert it to.
Come on Rush. This is not just a democrat thing. The GOP voted for this all the way. And you know it.
So why do they need it?
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.