Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitutional experts: pro-life ‘terrorists’ could be permanently detained without trial under law
LifeSiteNews ^ | 1/4/12 | Ben Johnson

Posted on 01/04/2012 4:29:55 PM PST by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Constitutional experts warn a new law that allows the president to permanently detain U.S. citizens without trial could be used against pro-life activists, who have already been defined as potential terrorists in documents by some government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.

“This law can apply to pro-lifers, yes,” said John W. Whitehead, a constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute. Whitehead told LifeSiteNews.com the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) “would allow the military to show up at your door if you’re a ‘potential terrorist,’ and put you in military detention where seeing a lawyer is difficult.”

The NDAA, which President Barack Obama signed on December 31, allows the president to hold enemy combatants in military detention facilities without trial until the end of hostilities, if the person “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The law allows the president to determine which groups may be considered terrorists without judicial or congressional oversight, although Secretary of Defense is required to “regularly brief” Congress about “covered persons.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, said the Obama administration specifically asked senators for the power to permanently detain American citizens without trial and to “remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Although Section 1022 states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” many contend the law allows detention as an option for Americans captured abroad. Glenn Greenwald of Salon summarized, “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional.”

Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, said pro-life activists “already are classified as domestic terrorists on some FBI lists.” She said that on one occasion the manager of a Kansas City, Kansas, abortion clinic slammed her client, Mary Ann Sause, to the ground and told the peaceful pro-life demonstrator he was photographing her license plate so he could report her to the FBI.

Cody, who told LifeSiteNews.com her organization is currently studying the NDAA, added that the law states “enemy territory is anywhere.” The Senate rejected an amendment from Dianne Feinstein limiting permanent detention to those captured “abroad.”

“If it’s within the discretion of the government under the National Defense Authorization Act, of course it will be used by the government to intimidate and silence pro-life people, especially those who are in the public forum,” Cody said.

In his signing statement, President Obama wrote, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” [sic.]

“The signing statement means nothing,” Whitehead said. “The signing statement is a political thing he hoped would settle the fears of the ACLU. If you give the president the power to come get you, he’s going to do it if he needs to, or if the corporations funding him say you are a potential terrorist.”

Whitehead said one of his clients, street preacher Michael Marcavage, has become the target of an FBI terrorist investigation. Whitehead wrote a letter to FBI director Robert Mueller asking why Marcavage is being investigated for preaching the Gospel. The FBI has not responded.

Under this administration, the Department of Homeland Security has listed pro-life organizations as potential domestic terrorists and held joint training sessions with the FBI to monitor pro-life websites.

An April 2009 DHS report entitled “Rightwing [sic.] Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” identified as likely terrorists “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” or who would be “antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues.” Such groups, the report concluded, “are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” The DHS later pulled the report.

However, last August DHS and FBI agents attended a terrorism training seminar hosted by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and the Feminist Majority Foundation that equated free speech and distributing literature with violence. An 84-page resource guide listed three pages of potential extremist websites including Priests for Life, National Right to Life, the American Life League, Concerned Women for America, Human Life International, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Christian Broadcasting Network.

In 1994-6, the Clinton administration’s Justice Department subpoenaed longtime pro-life activists in hopes of uncovering a terrorist conspiracy to kill abortionists. The Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) program compiled a vast database of information on anti-abortion groups and individuals, including the National Right to Life Committee, the late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, Feminists for Life, and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, which condemned the secret database.

Whitehead warns the NDAA is “a threat to anybody causing trouble – that means exercising your rights.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bloodoftyrants; democrats; govtabuse; moralabsolutes; ndaa; obama; policestate; prolife; rapeofliberty; tyranny
Zero would life to start jailing pro-life Christians.
1 posted on 01/04/2012 4:30:02 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on 01/04/2012 4:30:42 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; Amos the Prophet; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 01/04/2012 4:31:46 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

President Obama wrote, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

The “finite” detention on the other hand will be
authorized in a heart beat.


4 posted on 01/04/2012 4:35:45 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not allow a citizen to be held without a speedy right to trial. This law will collapse with the first trial of any kind. It means nothing!


5 posted on 01/04/2012 4:38:23 PM PST by maxwellsmart_agent (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; tet68

Here is a list of the members of the US Senate who voted for NDAA and in favor of giving President Obama the power to detain Pro Life activists in prison without trial.

Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI]
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R, NH]
Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY]
Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT]
Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO]
Sen. John Boozman [R, AR]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE]
Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA]
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
Sen. Daniel Coats [R, IN]
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND]
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE]
Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Sen. Kay Hagan [D, NC]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV]
Sen. John Hoeven [R, ND]
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX]
Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI]
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]
Sen. Mike Johanns [R, NE]
Sen. Ron Johnson [R, WI]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI]
Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
Sen. Joe Manchin [D, WV]
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D, NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Sen. Jerry Moran [R, KS]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL]
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR]
Sen. John Reed [D, RI]
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS]
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI]
Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT]
Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA]
Sen. Tom Udall [D, NM]
Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO]
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
Sen. Mark Warner [D, VA]
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]


6 posted on 01/04/2012 4:44:36 PM PST by trumandogz (Rick Perry Scored 10% on the Iowa Test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Haven’t any of these congressional freaks ever read the Constitution?????? I guess they can’t read...they don’t read most of the bills they pass. Tools to Tyranny!


7 posted on 01/04/2012 4:50:22 PM PST by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Constitutional experts warn a new law that allows the president to permanently detain U.S. citizens without trial could be used against pro-life activists, who have already been defined as potential terrorists in documents by some government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.”

It’s not a stretch for Obama or some other President name the Tea Party as “potential terrorists”.


8 posted on 01/04/2012 4:54:33 PM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So, we win the election, get rid of Zero, and then round up the terrorist abortionists.

What's the problem here?

9 posted on 01/04/2012 5:10:19 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Everybody involved with this forum could be considered a threat under this new legislation!


10 posted on 01/04/2012 5:15:20 PM PST by CowboyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Even my least favorite terrorist sympathizer, one who has been palling around with terrorists since he was a child receiving affection from one, deserves a trial and a specific prison sentence. This law is shockingly, disgustingly wrong.

11 posted on 01/04/2012 5:18:29 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I believe this would qualify as a suspension of Habeaus Corpus.


12 posted on 01/04/2012 5:30:10 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CowboyConservative

This was what I was worried about when I first read the Patriot Act. The amount of things that defined a ‘terrorist’ sure didn’t sound like it was aimed at foreign enemies.

It looked like it was made to eventually round up christian conservatives. The fact that it was supported by the people who would eventually be imprisoned by it just stunned me.

Look at who homeland security says are terrorists, people who are pro constitution and returning war vets. Look who the TSA molests.

They are getting us to build our own cages - using our own patriotism to destroy us.


13 posted on 01/04/2012 5:32:00 PM PST by LibertyLA (fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

wagglebee, this article is not true. These “constitutional scholars” are just yanking your chain.

The article itself quotes the language of the bill that specifically excludes US citizens, and that it applies only to Al-Qaeda.

It in fact doesn’t give any power to the Presidents that they don’t already have, and Senators like Rubio and DeMint would not have voted for it if it in anyway would lead to detention without trial of American dissidents.

This is simply crying wolf.

There are too many real threats from Obama to waste time on something like this, but day after day, it keeps surfacing on FR.


14 posted on 01/04/2012 5:41:45 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I believe this would qualify as a suspension of Habeaus Corpus.

You are exactly right. There are, no doubt, disingenuous lawyers who would argue otherwise for the right price, but they should be ashamed of themselves. This is a clear and unforgivable violation of the Constitution and should not be tolerated, whether the citizen whose rights are being trampled is an Islamic terrorist, a peaceful pro-life protester, or a Manchurian Candidate leading "Occupy the White House". This is the United States, not North Korea, and we should act like Americans.

15 posted on 01/04/2012 5:42:56 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

President?

Or Dictator?


Click The Pic

Support Activist Free Republic

16 posted on 01/04/2012 5:57:43 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen

The speech Lindsey Graham and John McCain made will make you puke. I’m sure it’s on youtube. Lets go arrest them.


17 posted on 01/04/2012 6:02:36 PM PST by VicVega ( GEAUX LSU TIGERS, GEAUX SAINTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If you read the report’s description of terrorists, the occupy folks and latest governor walker protestors would be called terrorists.


18 posted on 01/04/2012 6:23:31 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The NDAA, which President Barack Obama signed on December 31, allows the president to hold enemy combatants in military detention facilities without trial until the end of hostilities, if the person “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”(Emphasis added.)

Are there any pro-life Christians who meet the criteria?

19 posted on 01/04/2012 6:31:16 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bttt


20 posted on 01/04/2012 8:26:19 PM PST by Bellflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The NDAA, which President Barack Obama signed on December 31, allows the president to hold enemy combatants in military detention facilities without trial until the end of hostilities, if the person “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”


Are pro-life protestors frequently seen in the company of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces?


21 posted on 01/04/2012 9:22:48 PM PST by Grunthor (Do you worship the State or do you worship the Lord? There is no middle ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

As could “Second Amendment Terrorists”, or “Taco Stand Terrorists”.


22 posted on 01/04/2012 9:45:35 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ramping up. Where will it end?


23 posted on 01/04/2012 9:55:19 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen

As much as he is decried here, Ron Paul voted against this legislation. But he’s a wackadoodle, right?


24 posted on 01/04/2012 10:52:05 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Ron Paul voted against this legislation and good for him for doing so. Unfortunately, for unrelated reasons he is, in fact, a “wackadoodle” and a certifiable crackpot. Broken clock, right twice a day, etc.


25 posted on 01/04/2012 11:35:12 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

Perhaps you should have written what you did in huge red letters, or pinged every poster on this thread.

Is there a convention for this on FR like a huge stop sign graphic? I’ve seen this situation occur before with Freepers getting up in arms over a hoax, with the lone but correct naysayer (not me) buried in the noise. Maybe a convention should BE established.


26 posted on 01/05/2012 2:38:18 AM PST by UnChained
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

Here’s a decent article that breaks down the intentionally vague and confusing language of NDAA 2012

http://yeyoungeconomist.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/fact-check-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2012/

Two questions A.Hun for you since you think this is a all about nothing situation.

1. Why did the Obama admin specifically ask that the language protecting US citizens from any of this be specifically removed before he would consider signing it?

2. Why would the President after signing it have to release a special statement saying he wouldn’t target American citizens since parts of the NDAA 2012 he has reservations with, sec 1021 to be exact?

There’s more than a few FReepers who have their heads way down in the sand on this one and think its nothing to worry about. This admin will be coming for our guns soon, and of course that will be nothing to worry about also right???


27 posted on 01/05/2012 3:46:09 AM PST by eak3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Ah. So now I understand why California let so many prisoners go free.

To make space for us.

28 posted on 01/05/2012 3:48:52 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Are pro-life protestors frequently seen in the company of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces?
***********************************
step by step ... just wait for V1.01 to be enacted (buried on P 1074 of an appropriations bill).


29 posted on 01/05/2012 4:16:44 AM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Obama will classify the Tea Party and any gathering of and for the Tea Party as acts of sedition.


30 posted on 01/05/2012 4:22:37 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Castigo Cay by Matt Bracken, check it out. And his other works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I see Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted for this, she shows her true colors.


31 posted on 01/05/2012 4:24:32 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Castigo Cay by Matt Bracken, check it out. And his other works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Bookmark


32 posted on 01/05/2012 4:26:17 AM PST by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I guess the “coalition parner” in this case would be this administration’s partner, Planned Parenthood. This is sick!


33 posted on 01/05/2012 4:39:02 AM PST by Catholic Iowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eak3
1. Why did the Obama admin specifically ask that the language protecting US citizens from any of this be specifically removed before he would consider signing it?

Because it limits his power, actually. FDR detained indefinitely thousands of US citizens after Pearl Harbor, and it was legal under the Constitution.

2. Why would the President after signing it have to release a special statement saying he wouldn’t target American citizens since parts of the NDAA 2012 he has reservations with, sec 1021 to be exact?

Probably to cover himself with his base. They don't believe a President should have any war powers. Thats just a guess...I have no idea wth Obama is thinking.

34 posted on 01/05/2012 5:10:37 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: UnChained

Thanks.

Its a tempest in a teapot for crackpots.


35 posted on 01/05/2012 5:12:00 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

Sigh, if only the gov’t would realize that, we’d be much better off.


36 posted on 01/05/2012 5:21:59 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

That verbage is not in the law, that is an interpretation. Merely the most current, acceptable interpretation. We’ll see what changes. I hope you are right, but do not believe that you are.


37 posted on 01/05/2012 5:25:06 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

So can environmental terrorists.


38 posted on 01/05/2012 6:33:59 AM PST by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Congressman Allen West supported this crap, too, and then he went on Glenn Beck’s radio show to defend his position.
Sickening.


39 posted on 01/05/2012 6:37:50 AM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (The "Occupy Wall Street" losers should try occupying their local employment office. GET A JOB!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

I wouldn’t bet much on that.

If you haven’t noticed, the US Constitution doesn’t mean much these days.


40 posted on 01/05/2012 7:27:29 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

I see your point but that headline writes a check that the article simply does not cash. Lying is a sin, no matter the reason.


41 posted on 01/05/2012 7:33:32 AM PST by Grunthor (Do you worship the State or do you worship the Lord? There is no middle ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Well I can understand why you feel that way, but I just wish there was some consistency with those who protested so violently and are so up in arms over this. I wonder how many of them actually felt the same way when Bush was trying to detain suspects in a markedly similar manner. In fact, for all of the problems surrounding Obama on domestic and foreign policies, his interpretation of who can be detained and arrested under AUMF, which this bill was meant to reaffirm, has essentially been the same as that of Bush. And so this law is basically saying Congress agrees with Ex President Bush. That’s it. That’s the whole purpose of it.

And I do not claim that is not an important and serious issue, something I tried to reiterate in previous debates on this. Shifting the balance of power on something this controversial is a potential big problem. But what we need is a true understanding of current law, interpretation of current law, reevaluation of interpretations and pressure on govt to reevaluate it as well. Insisting that Obama designed this as a sort of grand scheme to expand his power to lock up pro life protesters does not help. Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the provisions were initially created by members of Congress and passed Congress with enough of a majority that a pocket veto was Obama’s only option. And that vetoing this bill, which has the military budget contained in it, would have left our military and other employees without pay for at least several months, making it even less of an option.


42 posted on 01/05/2012 10:05:06 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

No different than bombing Catholic churches in Nigeria, IMO.


43 posted on 01/05/2012 10:28:24 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

No wonder the kids in school cannot read-—apparently neither can the Senate.


44 posted on 01/05/2012 10:30:11 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibertyLA
The wording according to homeland security would cover anybody who is pro Constitution anybody who is pro Christian anybody who is pro Second Amendment or any amendment, basically all of us!
This is no longer the free republic our parents enjoyed in a nutshell, keep your powder dry!
45 posted on 01/05/2012 2:16:54 PM PST by CowboyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent
You show me one time over the last three administrations where the Constitution or Bill of Rights was really upheld? If you were correct and I wish you were we would have less to worry or complain about including the article that brought this discussion about.
46 posted on 01/05/2012 2:23:53 PM PST by CowboyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

I am ashamed there are two names from Wyoming on this list, vote against every single one!


47 posted on 01/05/2012 2:26:13 PM PST by CowboyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: emax
. . . But what we need is a true understanding of current law, interpretation of current law, reevaluation of interpretations and pressure on govt to reevaluate it as well. Insisting that Obama designed this as a sort of grand scheme . . .

I am not reading your posts as dismissing this, nor do I read this stupid, immoral law as an Obama power grab. Rather, I see this as a symptom of the big government inside the Beltway perspective that expanding government is always the answer regardless of the question. Except in cases of invasion or insurrection, as specified in the Constitution, our Congress should not attempt to work around habeus corpus. There simply is no time when an American citizen should be detained indefinitely without charge and without trial as permitted by the letter of this law. If a trial is awkward, that's unfortunate, but that is the only means that should permit our government to hold even a terrorist captured on the battlefield if that terrorist is a citizen. The rules for non-citizens can be different, but allowing indefinite detention of Americans crosses a line that should never be crossed.

48 posted on 01/06/2012 5:10:14 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I do understand that perfectly that point of view. But it does require American people as a whole to understand this history of law and the interpretation of the Constitution and what that document allows and demanding our Congress and SCOTUS reevaluate it as well. Because Presidents have claimed that there are exceptions for detaining Americans without trial, possibly indefinitely, since the Civil War.


49 posted on 01/06/2012 9:44:43 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: emax
Presidents have claimed that there are exceptions for detaining Americans without trial, possibly indefinitely, since the Civil War.

Given the exact words in Constitution: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, indefinite detention without trial was at least plausibly constitutional during the Civil War. What we are facing today is neither an insurrection nor what the Founding Fathers meant by an "invasion". Too much dependence on evolving rulings and precedents can lead to an interpretation that is clearly contradictory to the actual words of the Constitution. I prefer to defer to the specific words, with any reference to history merely a guide to how those words have been understood. I have no problem at all with holding trials for treason and executing every evil slime who takes up arms to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but if they are citizens then their right to a trial is not subject to congressional infringement.

50 posted on 01/06/2012 10:08:12 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson