Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats just it, terrorism isn't a war. The war on terrorism is the same as the war on drugs, simply marketing.
Should we lock up a 18 year old kid who gets caught with a joint because he is a prisoner of the drug war?
And the difference is, in America, we expect to have a trial. This wording allows the military to simply say you are a prisoner of war, and detain you, without trial, forever. I think everyone deserves the right to a fair trial, even in other countries, but its guaranteed American citizens by law.
It is a war, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Anytime Congress authorizes the President to use military force against another nation, organization, or individual, they are in fact making a declaration of war in accordance with the US Constitution. Public Law 107-40 gave the President that authority. The last time I checked, Congress did not authorize the President to use military force against US citizens in the War on Drugs. In case you are a product of US public schools, the War on Poverty is also not a war where the military is involved.
The military can detain POWs for as long as the war lasts, without charges and without a trial. Only a complete idiot thinks wars last "forever." When Congress repeals Public Law 107-40, then all the POWs will either be released, or they will be charged and put on trial.
So you are saying all the Politicians who have read and voted on it (including several with Law degrees) are lying?
Why would they be lying? The vast majority of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have voted in favor of detaining POWs indefinitely, without charging them, for the duration of the war. How is that a lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickAssArmyChick
Please show me a link of POWs who were arrested in US Soil or a US territory where the US Constitution APPLIES?
Who said they had to be arrested on US soil? But since you asked, Jose Padilla was arrested, detained without charge, and held for several years without violating any of his constitutionally protected rights.
As far as the US Constitution is concerned, you might want to consider reading the Fifth Amendment. Some of the words contain more than two syllables, so you will have to read it very slowly.
Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Source: Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution
I bolded in red the significant portion of the Fifth Amendment that pertains to holding someone indefinitely without being charged for the simple minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickAssArmyChick
Also, the bill is in the hot seat because it will violate our rights under the 5th Amendment which states that we are entitled to DUE PROCESS.
As I demonstrated above, you obviously have never bothered to read the Fifth Amendment.
Liberals are always asking conservatives to "tell us how our freedoms are being eroded?"
Well, here it is.
Where? Certainly not with this law to hold POWs until the war is over. The only people having their freedoms "eroded" are those who waged war against the US and got caught, alive. Do you include yourself among that bunch?
Liberals are always asking conservatives to "tell us how our freedoms are being eroded?"
Well, here it is.
Take a look at the roll call votes on this one, especially Udal's Amendment.....
Not happy with pulling the veto threat, but it was Section 1032 that was the larger problem, and what Obama was mostly referring to, that is what has changed.
"The House passed the NDAA conference report, which permits the indefinite detention of Americans without charge or trial, on a vote of 283-136. I voted no. The roll call is attached.
Our efforts increased the number of Republican "no" votes from 6 to 43. Unfortunately, the number of Democratic "no" votes stayed about the same as the May roll call.
They had to pull every trick in the book to beat us. Be proud of your efforts. We are making a difference. The bill still must go to the Senate and the President."
(Justin Amash R-MI)
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 932
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
But people said Obama was going to Veto it....remember?
Obama NEVER lies...
He just changed his mind...kind of like he did on Guatanamo, the Patriot Act....
PS: I am past the point of being concerned. I have been shaking for the past hour, my head is about to explode and I just want to break down.
WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY HEADED?!
What is next? Taking our guns away? Our "Free" speech?
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Obama didn't veto it because changes were made at the last minute to part of it he objected to. Now the law is even more hurtful to civil liberties....So there is no hypocrisy on that point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When Congress repeals Public Law 107-40, then all the POWs will either be released, or they will be charged and put on trial.
