Posted on 12/01/2011 9:18:11 PM PST by Kartographer
Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? In the Senate’s dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.
Congress is supposed to work in public. That requirement is in the Constitution. It is there because the folks who wrote the Constitution had suffered long and hard under the British Privy Council, a secret group that advised the king and ran his government.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Don’t you think the citizens of NYC on 9/11 might have recognized the enemy made the CONUS a battlefield?
What makes us think the enemy will honor our designation of the CONUS as not a battlefield? Isn’t the battlefield wherever the enemy chooses to attack?
>>>An outright declaration of martial law is just too much of a frontal attack. I think they know they have to work gradual, pick off any dissent one by one. To do that they have to get around posse commitatus.<<<
I’ve written this before, but I’ve spent most of my adult in the media and schools, so I’m familiar with the mindset of the American fascist.
In fact, I think it’ll be worse than we imagine. I don’t think we’ll see the gulags and the killing fields and the camps. It’ll be, as you say, “one by one.” And it will be subtle, coy, underhanded. For most people, all it will take is a visit from a friendly stranger in a crisp suit with a quiet reminder about what is appropriate to say at work or in public. You can keep your guns and call Rush and Mark and Sean. Complain all you want, but be aware that we have diverse, multiple viewpoints, all of which deserve a voice, and if your opinion creates a hostile workplace, or a hostile community, or a hostile family, please quiet down according to the regulations concerning this kind of speech. Maybe there will be a fine for malcontents, or a calmly worded dismissal from your job. Keep your gun. Who are you going to shoot, anyway, some guy in a cubicle just following rules from another guy in a cubicle based on a 4,000-page law? Go to church if you want, just don’t pray openly, since it might annoy someone. Still a troublemaker? You’ll be required to attend a weekend workshop at a posh hotel with a continental breakfast, concluding with a signed agreement to reform behavior or speech. Of course, every once in a while there will a show trial, which should be enough to make everyone else cower in fear. Let a thousand flowers bloom, according to the species list guidelines from the Department of Agriculture’s Soil and Water Conservation Service, with pest management from the EPA, using water based on usage rates provided by the Department of Commerce, and carbon credits applied from the Department of Energy to balance your footprint of greenhouse gases. No invasive species, either; the Fish and Wildlife Service guy will be over to look over the blossoms to make sure the environment is safe. Smiling, kind, and, of course, unrelenting help from the state. And remember, as long as you follow the rules, it’s your property.
I think I’m right about this, too. I hope I’m just a nut who needs a tin-foil hat. God help us.
ping!
That’s exactly it. Naysayers are trying to define this in the context of law and judicial process. This is the mother-of-all poker bluffs on a pair of deuces. On this and on every other front they are engaged in the Final Solution, the Ultimate Gambit, or even the Muslim Checkmate if you will.
Basically it is one of the 3:
1. Get this country under their control, or
2. Scorched earth/burn it all down, or
3. Die trying and take as many with them as they can.
Buddy, seriously, what is your agenda here?
Did you read anything I wrote?
First, we have no “Constitutional Rights.” We have some that are “guaranteed” by the Constitution but like an old car, the guarantee is limited.
Congress has just notified us that the guarantee has expired. Like that old car, if we want to keep things going the way we’re used to we’ll have to do the dirty work and pay the bill ourselves.
Good uck folks.
It’s late. That was supposed to read “Good luck folks.” I’m off to bed.
Indeed.
sounds great... suffer one year with 0failure messing around...
then four years to utilize such a ‘law’ by rounding up all libs and escorting them to bases in antarctica and alaska
Isn’t that what the national guard is for?
Only if the USSC goes to sleep.
Meanwhile, if Obama gets another four years, he’ll certainly see to it that the USSC is filled with idiots or somnambulists.
,,,,,, let’s see ,,,,, I think it’s been going on for about 40 years now . . .
Next question ;
Good uck to us all.
the biggest problem we’ll have is when we approach to right the wrongs of the government, 1 of 2 people will be on the side of the big government.
it will be troubled times indeed.
t
The original assault was ATF. The FBI finished it with the help of the US Army, specifically Delta Force from Ft Hood. Clinton waived Posse Commitatus.
Congress has stolen our Constitutional freedoms— as the
Hillsdale College First Friday lectures demonstrate.However the Rights recognized in the bill of Rights as adopted by Congress in Sept.1789 and Ratified by the States Dec.1791 are fundamental Rights gifted by God that cannot be stolen -they can only be neglected -or forgotten.... or infringed upon.
the thief cannot come in to steal from a strong man unless he binds the strong man first ,as it is written. IMO we have left
our door open and have allowed the thief enter at will believing It cannot happen in America.While we slept it has.
Not exactly. It describes HOW the law will apply. That military detention is not required when the detainee is a US citizen.
Does the NDAA Authorize Detention of US Citizens? - Lawfare (Robert Chesney) December 1, 2011
Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision--i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons ("covered persons" in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this "mandatory detention" requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens. But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category.
Just curious, but where were you on 9/11? I don’t recall New York City coming under Martial Law, did I miss something?
Does anyone seriously contend US military should not respond to such an attack?
The legislation is too broad.
A Forever War with Oceania is a great way to subordinate all our rights to the executive branch of government, especially if the battlefield is defined as anywhere and everywhere the executive decides to declare a battlefield.
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.