# Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens ON US SOIL



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...rican-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/



> While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to  celebrate  Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday   that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will   be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at  an  enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American  citizens and  other civilians far from any battlefield &#8212; even people in  the United States  itself.
> 
> 
> Senators  need to hear from you,  on whether you think your front yard is part of a  &#8220;battlefield&#8221; and if  any president can send the military anywhere in the world  to imprison  civilians without charge or trial.
> ...



Five years ago if I would have said this would happen, people would say I was being hyperbolic.  Where is this country heading?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2011)

Damn that George Bush.
Oh, wait... hahahaha


----------



## granfire (Nov 27, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Damn that George Bush.
> Oh, wait... hahahaha



sorry, Hun, but he laid the corner stone for that one.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

SOOO this is the CHANGE everyone was talking about


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2011)

> The  worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S.  1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill,


Hmm, here is the text of the bill from the Library of Congress. Nowhere in there do the words worldwide, indefinite, detention or charge appear.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

Even if it passed congress I dont see it passing thru the Supreme Court


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Hmm, here is the text of the bill from the Library of Congress. Nowhere in there do the words worldwide, indefinite, detention or charge appear.



Thats because the orig. post was from the ACLU all they do is lie


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Hmm, here is the text of the bill from the Library of Congress. Nowhere in there do the words worldwide, indefinite, detention or charge appear.



Broad powers are defined by what the text doesn't say. This is very real I'm afraid.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Broad powers are defined by what the text doesn't say. This is very real I'm afraid.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk





> The  worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S.  1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate  floor on Monday. The  bill was drafted in secret  by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a   closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.


But, the article that YOU cited in the OP clearly states that that is what the text DOES say.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

Big Don said:


> But, the article that YOU cited in the OP clearly states that that is what the text DOES say.



Lawyerspeak, Don. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Lawyerspeak, Don.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Bovine feces.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Even if it passed congress I dont see it passing thru the Supreme Court



Did you believe that new laws have to 'pass through' the Supreme Court first before becoming law?  Because that's not how it works, actually.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats because the orig. post was from the ACLU all they do is lie



The ACLU is a very worthwhile organization that defends a variety of Bill of Rights issues that benefit us all.  Unfortunately, they are left-leaning and won't take 2nd Amendment cases, which is to their discredit.  But they are not liars.

In this case, however, I'm somewhat mystified.  I'm not sure I see the clear and present danger that they are claiming.  Needs some more research here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Did you believe that new laws have to 'pass through' the Supreme Court first before becoming law?  Because that's not how it works, actually.



No I undersatnd the process Im saying once it is passed and then challenged which the ACLU plans on doing the Court will stike it down.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The ACLU is a very worthwhile organization that defends a variety of Bill of Rights issues that benefit us all.  .


They were at one time.  Now they are just left wing looney tunes.  Looking for any chance to sue Police Department to make a buck.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> No I undersatnd the process Im saying once it is passed and then challenged which the ACLU plans on doing the Court will stike it down.



They can't challenge until they have standing to do so.  And they can't do that until some American citizen is apprehended under the new law and held without charge, etc, as the ACLU seems to think will happen.

However, I did find this...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203503204577040653240862394.html



> In part, the White House wanted to make sure it retained flexibility in handling detainees. So, for instance, a new provision would ensure that a civilian interrogation isn't interrupted if law-enforcement officials learn a suspect is a member of al Qaeda.
> 
> In a letter to the committee, provided by a senior official, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the compromise didn't alleviate all the administration's concerns about the legislation. The Obama administration objects to the decision not to restrict the military-custody provisions to detainees captured overseas. The defense department said the legislation could restrict transfer of future detainees to other countries and also objected to new language that expanded the detainees held by the military to include any "associated force" acting in coordination with al Qaeda.
> 
> ...



So there's a little smoke here, but I'm not sure there is fire.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> They were at one time.  Now they are just left wing looney tunes.  Looking for any chance to sue Police Department to make a buck.



Far from it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Far from it.



My department has had quite a few run ins with them that all i ever see them doing.  Oh and making sure you dont say merry christmas. of have the 10 comandments in a govt building or the stars and bars flying

Our latest run in with them was just last year.  We have city owned housing projects.  We had a policy of banning people from the property if they were arrested and convicted of a felony drug crime or crime of violence.  The challenged it saying we had no right to ban people from the property.  They won and our banning list was thrown out.  Violent crime is now up 63% in our housing projects since the ban was lifted.  Murders are up 89% in the housing projects.  Great Job ACLU.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2011)

Here is the text, because I've found that Thomas searches time out:





> *SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find that 1031(d) seems rather important.  Actions against US citizens are limited to those empowered by the Constitution.  Even ignoring that section, it seems rather more narrowly drawn than the ACLU would have you think.  The persons it authorizes detention of are, essentially, those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks, or who are part of Al Queda, the Taliban or other such bodies engaged in hostilities against the US.  Section 1032 simply requires that certain people (basically Al Queda, the Taliban, the like) to be held in military custody.  The whole of both really only apply to those people captured under hostilities related to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) 

That said... I don't like the sneaky, backdoor inclusion and methods here.  On that basis alone, I'd oppose it.  I'm not a fan of secret legislative process; somehow, it seems contrary to what we're supposed to stand for.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2011)

I would not agree with detention of US citizens without protection of the courts.  But this link http://willyloman.wordpress.com/201...032-of-s-1867-does-not-apply-to-u-s-citizens/ seems to show that US citizens are excluded, as well as legal resident aliens.  I haven't gone up to the LOC site nor the GPO FDsys and don't have time at the moment.  If US citizens are excluded, and only taliban and Al Qaeda subject to that type of arrest, it isn't what the ACLU seems to be saying.  That makes other things they say about the bill suspect.  In general, I don't like detention of combatants not subject to some oversite.  However, the current al Qaeda and others who are willing to do damage to the US, do not play by the rules of war, and disposition of those capture gets a little more murky.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2011)

Hmmm...honestly, this doesn't pass the smell test to me.  Did they link to the bill in question, I didn't see it in my quick look at the link.  When they say "even Ron Paul," doesn't make any sense because Ron Paul is one of the senators that would already be against this just from the way he views things in the first place.  Can someone link to the actual bill?  And that old Posse Comitatus thing, which prevents the U.S. military from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States?  And the fact that we can't even hold captured, unlawful enemy combatant terrorists in Guantanamo without everyone making a stink about it and yet, this bill is on the verge of a vote and no one has heard of it until the night before the vote?  I say hmmmm...


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2011)

> d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.



This kind of answers my points...

It is a fund raising appeal, no more.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

http://www.dailypaul.com/189009/national-defense-authorization-act



> The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision  is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will  be on the Senate  floor on Monday. The  bill was drafted in secret by  Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a  closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
> 
> 
> In support of this bill, *Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)*  explained that  the bill will *basically say in law for the first time that the   homeland is part of the battlefield* and people can be *imprisoned  without  charge or trial American citizen or not.*



Food for thought.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

More food for thought.

http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_l...ining_manual_protests_are_low-level_terrorism



> The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its   current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher  Training  Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."



And



> And according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act:
> Anyone who &#8230; _speaks out against the government&#8217;s policies_ could be declared an &#8220;unlawful enemy combatant&#8221; and imprisoned indefinitely.  That includes American citizens.
> ​



Thoughts on how this may tie into this new bill in the Senate?


----------



## granfire (Nov 28, 2011)

Fun times, right.


----------



## Monroe (Nov 28, 2011)

That's just fantastic! They could do that to Tea Party Protestors and OWS Protestors. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar This was how a Canadian citizen was thrown to the wolves. Ignoring citizen rights is a slippery slope. You need to draw the line somewhere. It's already started since Bush. I hope Americans don't let Obama do this.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> This kind of answers my points...
> 
> It is a fund raising appeal, no more.



Whatever the reason, it was not factual reporting.  What is reported by jks9199 is correct.  US citizens are exempt, as well as legal resident aliens.  Anyone interested in reading the entire portion can go to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf and read for themselves, starting at page 359.  Or the whole bill if it interests you.

Makalakumu - keep informing us of possible unconstitutional bills.  It is important, but perhaps do a little more research first sir?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> My department has had quite a few run ins with them that all i ever see them doing.  Oh and making sure you dont say merry christmas. of have the 10 comandments in a govt building or the stars and bars flying
> 
> Our latest run in with them was just last year.  We have city owned housing projects.  We had a policy of banning people from the property if they were arrested and convicted of a felony drug crime or crime of violence.  The challenged it saying we had no right to ban people from the property.  They won and our banning list was thrown out.  Violent crime is now up 63% in our housing projects since the ban was lifted.  Murders are up 89% in the housing projects.  Great Job ACLU.



Your experience proves that is all they do.  Right?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Whatever the reason, it was not factual reporting.  What is reported by jks9199 is correct.  US citizens are exempt, as well as legal resident aliens.  Anyone interested in reading the entire portion can go to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf and read for themselves, starting at page 359.  Or the whole bill if it interests you.
> 
> Makalakumu - keep informing us of possible unconstitutional bills.  It is important, but perhaps do a little more research first sir?



Can US citizens be deemed enemy combatants? If so, wouldn't this bill apply? 

The problem is that this bill is sitting upon a pile of other bills that define terms. If this doesn't say what the ACLU and Rebublican senator Graham say it says, why would these two disparate parties say it says that?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 28, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> SOOO this is the CHANGE everyone was talking about


According to the link, the bill was drafted in secret by Carl Levin and John McCain. Not Obama.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Can US citizens be deemed enemy combatants? If so, wouldn't this bill apply?
> 
> The problem is that this bill is sitting upon a pile of other bills that define terms. If this doesn't say what the ACLU and Rebublican senator Graham say it says, why would these two disparate parties say it says that?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk





11 (b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED
12 STATES CITIZENS.&#8212;The requirement to detain a person 
13 in military custody under this section does not extend to 
14 citizens of the United State



Makalakumu... did you read the bill he posted? The answer to your question was spelled out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> 11 (b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED
> 12 STATES CITIZENS.&#8212;The requirement to detain a person
> 13 in military custody under this section does not extend to
> 14 citizens of the United State
> ...



Is it?  Why do the senators voting on it say that it gives the government the power that was claimed?


----------



## Nomad (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Is it?  Why do the senators voting on it say that it gives the government the power that was claimed?



Because they want to generate opposition to the bill?  We've seen time and again that the "truth" is quite fluid in the hands of politicians.  I'm not saying that the bill as written in full isn't bad, or doesn't possibly contain some troubling bits that taken to extremes could lead to this sort of thing (and I'm not saying it does, either).  What I am saying is that quoting *any *politician as a reliable source of unbiased information is simply wrong.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your experience proves that is all they do.  Right?



Nope I alrady stated the other things Ive seen them do.  
Um lets see they are fighting  Alabama from segragating HIV positive prisioners from General Population
Um they are planning to sue a SC public school for having a Christian Rap group preform but fight to allow Gay and Lesbian school alliances clubs in schools
Um Fight for a womans right to an abortion but fight against a states right to have capital punishment
Not only Capital Punishment is bad but so it Solitary confinement they are fighting against that in Oregon
They are against privatization of prisons
They call detention of illegal immigrants in jails to await deportation inhumane and brutal
Fighting to close Gitmo
Filing suit against a private business for not hosting a Gay wedding reception
They are AGAINST an individuals right to own a gun.
They supported the firing of a counslor who said she didnt want to counsel kids on Gay issues because she wasnt comfortable talking to kids about that
They use "news" sources like Media MAtters on the ACLU website
They are fighting to have the terms Islam, muslims, and aribic removed from US Govt training materials on Terrorism 

I can go ON and ON but I see nothing above that is not 100% adopted from the far left political platform.  ALL of that was taken directly from the ACLU website.

In theroy I think the ACLU is a good idea however in practice they ahev shown over and over to just be the judicial arm of the Left wing of the Democratic party.
You cant claim to be FOR upholding Constitutional rights of all americans and be against the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.  You cant be for the 1st amendment unless its a Christian speaking then they need to shut up.  You cant be for Due process of the law for illegal immigrants and then convict a police officer in the court of public opinion for pepper spraying protesters that are breaking the law.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Because they want to generate opposition to the bill?  We've seen time and again that the "truth" is quite fluid in the hands of politicians.  I'm not saying that the bill as written in full isn't bad, or doesn't possibly contain some troubling bits that taken to extremes could lead to this sort of thing (and I'm not saying it does, either).  What I am saying is that quoting *any *politician as a reliable source of unbiased information is simply wrong.



It's not just politicians, its lawyers who study this for a living. My guess is that the way terrorists are classified and treated is what is generating the hype.

Think Anwar al Alaki. If I'm reading this right, he could be killed or captured on American soil.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Think Anwar al Alaki. If I'm reading this right, he could be killed or captured on American soil.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


I think he could have without this bill.  I thought he had warrants so he already could have been arrested on us soil and if he geav them a reason for deadly force well he could ave been killed


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Is it?  Why do the senators voting on it say that it gives the government the power that was claimed?



You never answered my question. Have you read the bill?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> You never answered my question. Have you read the bill?



The answer is yes.  It's interesting to see the ways our government is spending an additional 663 billion on the war effort.

Regarding, NDAA, despite the language, it's still a concern for civil liberty groups and lawmaers.  I tried to trace all of the waivers and references to other bills and quickly ran out of time.  I'm not convinced.

Here is a description of what the Udall Amendment would do.



> The Udall amendment would strip sections 1031 and 1032 from the bill and in their place, mandate a process for Congress to use to consider whether any detention legislation is needed. If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:
> 
> (1)  Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
> 
> ...



???


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

Okay, here's the missing piece.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshg...alters_detainee_language_in_defense_bill.html



> [h=1]Senate panel alters detainee language in defense bill[/h] 				The Senate Armed Services Committee voted Tuesday to approve a  new version of the defense authorization bill that changes  detainee-related provisions in the measure and could clear the way for  the legislation to reach the floor as soon as this week.



It looks like the language was changed after the uproar ensued.



> "These provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens. While this compromise  includes many of the recommended changes and clarifications sought by  the Administration, it retains critical components such as the  requirement for military custody of members of al-Qaeda or its  associated forces captured while participating in or planning an attack  on the U.S. or its coalition partners," the trio said. "We are  encouraged by today&#8217;s unanimous vote, and look forward to debating these  vital issues on the floor of the Senate when the NDAA comes up for  consideration as early as this week.&#8221;



I wonder what the final version will look like?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

And here is another opinion on the current version of the bill.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/us_rep_justin_amash_opposes_de.html



> Although the bill says &#8220;the requirement to detain a person in  military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the  United States,&#8221; Amash said the language is &#8220;carefully crafted to mislead  the public.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained  indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention  discretionary,&#8221; he wrote.



Lawyerspeak indeed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> And here is another opinion on the current version of the bill.
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/us_rep_justin_amash_opposes_de.html
> 
> ...


So what is it your upset about?  The fact that US citizens can be detained?  We already kill US Citizens

One week after a U.S. military airstrike killed a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen, no one in the Obama administration, Pentagon or Congress has taken responsibility for his death, or even publicly acknowledged that it happened.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...al-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html

16 year old kid born in Denver Co. and a US Citizen.  Were you so upset when taht happened?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2011)

Yes, I was upset. The extra-judicial killings are probably what this bill is addressing and adding a little more power for good measure.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Nov 30, 2011)

Makalakumu, you may be right on this after all.  Senator Mark Kirk was on the Don and Roma morning show here in chicago and he said he voted against the bill because the white house stripped out the provision that exempted U.S. citizens from the law.  Which would mean U.S. citizens could be taken into custody and detained by the military if this passes the house and is signed by the president.  Now, I was busy while I was listening to his segment so there may be some details I am missing, but it does need to be looked into and calls need to be made to members of congress if this turns out to be true.  I can't look up the details of the bill or how it was passed thru the senate right now but keep in mind, this is a Democrat controlled senate that brought this bill to a vote and passed it.  I'll hold the republicans who voted for this responsible as well if the details are true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 2, 2011)

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-passes-senate-93-7/



> The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military  to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and  no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National  Defense Authorization Act.
> 
> One amendment  that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used  against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.
> ​ Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence  Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision  from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure the military  wont be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists, also  failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.​



It's got bi-partisan support.



> The bill puts military detention authority on steroids  and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk  of being locked away by the military without charge or trial, said  Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil  Liberties Union.
> ​ As Spencer Ackerman highlights,  the bill completely violates the sixth amendment in that it allows  American citizens to be locked up indefinitely, including in a foreign  detention center, without any burden of proof whatsoever. An American  merely has to be declared a terrorist and they can be abducted off the  streets and never seen again.
> ​ The detention mandate to use indefinite military  detention in terrorism cases isnt limited to foreigners. Its  confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict  each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas Robert  Chesney  a nonpartisan authority on military detention  U.S. citizens  are included in the grant of detention authority, writes Ackerman.​



The left and the right both say that it includes American citizens.



> Though the White House has threatened to veto the bill, the fact that Obama administration lawyers yesterday reaffirmed their backing  for state sponsored assassination of U.S. citizens would suggest  otherwise. Not voting for the bill, or in other words upholding the oath  to protect the Constitution, has been described over and over again as  political suicide.



Will Obama sign it?  I've subsequently read that one of the reasons that the Obama Administration was opposed was because it actually limited the White Houses power.  They could do it all under the table before.  Now, they have to notify congress.  Not that this is a good thing, because this bill effectively rolls back some of our statutory protections like Posse Comitatus.  

Is this two minutes to midnight on American Freedom?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 2, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Is this two minutes to midnight on American Freedom?



Nah, dude.

_It's a new dawn_. "Midnight" passed a long time ago, while everyone was sleeping.


----------



## billc (Dec 15, 2011)

Here is an update:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/



> The White House is signing off on a controversial new law that would authorize the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain alleged al Qaeda members or other terrorist operatives captured on American soil.



Hope and change you can believe in, hmmmm...




> "By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."​



Obama signing on to this doesn't surprise me.  I wonder how many republican dimwits voted for this.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57336424/the-problem-with-captured-terrorism-suspects/


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2011)

Now that Obama has built upon the foundation that Bush built upon, is anyone else out there seeing this political game from a different perspective?

Never mind that this effectively repeals the Bill of Rights...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Now that Obama has built upon the foundation that Bush built upon, is anyone else out there seeing this political game from a different perspective?
> 
> Never mind that this effectively repeals the Bill of Rights...



Nah. Tried telling y'all years ago. My perspective hasn't changed-it's being proven..............


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Nah. Tried telling y'all years ago. My perspective hasn't changed-it's being proven..............



Consider myself told.  You're right.  Now what?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Consider myself told. You're right. Now what?



Well, you should have done what I did:

Get rich.Build an off-grid home.Learn animal husbandry-keep goats, chickens, pigs and rabbits. Garden.Have a vineyard and an orchard. Keep bees. Learn to make wine, mead, beer, cheese and preserves. Buy a boat and a plane. Convert a truck to run on biodiesel, Guns. Bullets. Stockpile food, medicine, fuel and barter items. 

Of course, if you haven't done that, it's _almost _too late, but you can still do what I've done all along:

_*Pray.*_


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, you should have done what I did:
> 
> Get rich.Build an off-grid home.Learn animal husbandry-keep goats, chickens, pigs and rabbits. Garden.Have a vineyard and an orchard. Keep bees. Learn to make wine, mead, beer, cheese and preserves. Buy a boat and a plane. Convert a truck to run on biodiesel, Guns. Bullets. Stockpile food, medicine, fuel and barter items.
> 
> ...



I'm stealing this speech for my next post apocalyptic movie poignant flashback where the archetype anarcho-guide-figure chastises his wayward pupils for casting his wisdom aside and the scene shifts to the future where the doomed are being similarly chastised.  

It's epic.  I'll get rich, and then I'll be advanced to step one on the list that you laid out for us.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> It's epic. I'll get rich, and then I'll be advanced to step one on the list that you laid out for us.



"Step one" is key. 

_I am the *1%*_.

Not really-more like somewhere in the top 5% of the 99%, but it sounded good (to go with the post apocalyptic movie poingant flashback, etc....:lfao: )

*bwahahahah.....haha* and all that. :lfao:

Seriously-you're in Hawaii. Learn to sail and get a boat. Forget about taking the country back-it was lost before we were born. No one listened then, and no one who can do anything about it is listening now-they're too busy making sure that they stay the 1%.

A great Republican:

[yt]8y06NSBBRtY[/yt]

and, just for billi, a not-so-great one:

[yt]AZU0c8DAIU4[/yt]

We get what we deserve......

_I know that it's comin'
but I ain't worried none, 
'cause we got enough pity to go around
and everybody's gonna get them some. _


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Seriously-you're in Hawaii. Learn to sail and get a boat. Forget about taking the country back-it was lost before we were born. No one listened then, and no one who can do anything about it is listening now-they're too busy making sure that they stay the 1%.



Well, I'm making more money then I ever have, despite the depression, so I'm on the path of building *my *exit strategy.  

In the meantime, if there is even a chance of saving something of this country, I'm going to go for it, because I'd rather live here then any other place.  If anyone out there is interested in doing the same, put your support behind Ron Paul.  He can't fix everything, but it's a step in the right direction.  Peace and liberty.

Incidentally, Obama's veto threat had nothing to do with Civil Liberties.  It surrounded the whole idea that Congress would provide oversight to this power.  So, the law was rewritten to take out the oversight clauses...and the veto threat disappears.  The executive branch has total dictatorial power and most of the other candidates for president, other then Ron Paul, are total psychopaths.  

The ejection button is flashing red.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> *Get rich*.Build an off-grid home.Learn animal husbandry-keep goats, chickens, pigs and rabbits. Garden.Have a vineyard and an orchard. Keep bees. Learn to make wine, mead, beer, cheese and preserves. Buy a boat and a plane. Convert a truck to run on biodiesel, Guns. Bullets. Stockpile food, medicine, fuel and barter items.



Dammit, I ALWAYS forget that one! *grumble grumble*


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Dammit, I ALWAYS forget that one! *grumble grumble*



"Rich" is relative.

I know people on the rez living at a subsistence level who will probably be bothered by what's coming way less than most......


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> "Rich" is relative.
> 
> I know people on the rez living at a subsistence level who will probably be bothered by what's coming way less than most......



"We're all on the Reservation now..." Russell Means.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 18, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> "We're all on the Reservation now..." Russell Means.




Eh....I lost all respect for Russell a long time ago.... 

Of course, he's dying, and tried to do a lot of good things-best to speak of them, and not speak ill of someone so close to passing........


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 18, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Eh....I lost all respect for Russell a long time ago....
> 
> Of course, he's dying, and tried to do a lot of good things-best to speak of them, and *not speak ill of someone so close to passing........[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Now that and 'don't speak ill of the dead' has always puzzled me, why not, should we not tell the truth, why do we have to lie about the dead or dying? if they were nasty, evil etc etc why do we have to say they weren't just because they've gone? Tell the truth and shame the devil as people say here.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 18, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> elder999 said:
> 
> 
> > Eh....I lost all respect for Russell a long time ago....
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 18, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, he's not dead yet, and I know him, and can think of any number of people I'd much rather have haunting me than him.The truth includes positives and negatives, though the negatives pretty much outweighed the positives for me
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2011)

My father knows Russell Means.  I met him once through him.  I knew he was dying and I know about his checkered past.  I found his comparison of Indian Reservation life to our current politics interesting...and it's a side issue.  It popped into my head when Jeff noted that people on the reservation might not notice as much difference as others.

QFT

If recent history is any guide, the government will expand the use of this new power to uses beyond which it was intended.  I wonder if there are any posters on this board who think it won't be used beyond how it's been explained.  Please share your thoughts.


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2012)

And so Obama, the one who was to bring "hope and change" to a benighted land puts on his jackboots...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/31/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/



> In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the  National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii.  In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key  provisions in the law  including a controversial component that would allow the  military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens  arrested in the United States, without charge.



Were conservative talk show hosts the only ones who saw through Obama during the election, and will they still be the only ones to talk about it during this election?


And in a lame attempt to explain his fascist actions...



> Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.



But of course, those beliefs didn't stop him from signing the bill...did it?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 1, 2012)

Jacboots that were fashioned from the leather of the USA PATRIOT Act, under George W. Bush. We're all getting just what we deserve.





			
				billi said:
			
		

> Were conservative talk show hosts the only ones who saw through Obama during the election, and will they still be the only ones to talk about it during this election?



They didn't see through him-they saw what they wanted to see, and said _what they were told to say_, otherwise they'd have recognized that he his strings were controlled by the same corporate puppet-masters as his predecessor. We're all  getting what we deserve.




			
				billi said:
			
		

> And in a lame attempt to explain his fascist actions...



Not that he gives a damn what the "conservatives" think-we're not voting for him anyway. He's going to be reelected without our votes. We're all getting what we deserve.





			
				billi said:
			
		

> But of course, those beliefs didn't stop him from signing the bill...did it?



Because his corporate puppetmasters are going to need the government to have that ability in the next decade or so. We're all getting what we deserve.


----------

