Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention

Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/25/2013 4:09:41 PM)
Proposed construction of an appropriate legal regime to indefinitely imprison precrime convicts outside the purview of the courts. Freedom American Style! The "Rule of Law"? 1984

JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/25/2013 4:25:58 PM)
"There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes -- in some cases because evidence may be tainted but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States." -- Barack Obama This is the guy that the liberals like? I also find it amusing that despite all the evidence on the FEMA camps including this speech right here people STILL do not believe they are intended for illegally incarcerating US citizens. And again, for the readers out there, I voted for Obama first term. I voted green this last election. I haven't drunk the Republican kool-aid either. I just get it that they are one party working towards a common goal.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/25/2013 8:08:10 PM)
This is the guy that the liberals were willing to accept in order to avoid the other choice foisted off on them. Which is the game that the one party using 2 aliases has been running for quite some time. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC "There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes -- in some cases because evidence may be tainted but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States." -- Barack Obama This is the guy that the liberals like? I also find it amusing that despite all the evidence on the FEMA camps including this speech right here people STILL do not believe they are intended for illegally incarcerating US citizens. And again, for the readers out there, I voted for Obama first term. I voted green this last election. I haven't drunk the Republican kool-aid either. I just get it that they are one party working towards a common goal.

JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/25/2013 8:12:48 PM)
Yeah, the creepy part is that speech is from his first term. Judging from his following actions ... particularly the FEMA camps and the NDAA ... I'd say he was being truthful in his speech. Reading the original of the speech was interesting. He tried over and over and over again to say, "Don't worry. We'll be really careful while we strip you of all your rights and void most of the first 10 amendments" I had Carol vote Dem and I voted Green. Given the war on women I figured splitting our vote that way wasn't too poor a choice but even that decision could be second guessed.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/25/2013 9:30:35 PM)
I'm personally shocked! Oh, not at governmental scumbaggery. No, I'm shocked that Madcow, the patron saint of the feministas is almost sounding fair and balanced. The feministas are gonna go nuts! I need some popcorn. Peace and comfort, Michael

Fellow -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/26/2013 12:37:40 AM)
This is just Obama second term, just wait what will happen during his third and forth term of presidency.

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/26/2013 6:13:30 AM)
LOL. Tinfoiling horseshit. prisoners of war are prisoners of war. there is no reason to take them before the court. there is nothing to decide.

Fellow -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/26/2013 10:46:04 AM)
What WAR? War on terror?

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/26/2013 10:49:56 AM)
Yeah, you didin't read about the AUMF, which is what gives this sort of stuff Carte Blanche Americanism and meets the constitutional requirments? Also one of the reasons that there was no need to get the congressional declaration/authorization for Libya that McCain/Kerry were begging him to take from them?

joether -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 2:39:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Proposed construction of an appropriate legal regime to indefinitely imprison precrime convicts outside the purview of the courts. Freedom American Style! The "Rule of Law"? 1984 Didn't former President George W. Bush do something akin to this during his years in office? All those 'enemy combatants' he took from Iraq and Afghanistan. Confined and tortured them. And where were all the conservatives bitching about any of this? They were all agreeing to it. But now, that there is a Democratic President, they are all now against the whole concept of '....indfinite imprisonment...'. Who do they think they are fooling?

Fellow -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 2:50:35 AM)
Libya destruction and Gaddafi assassination was international war crime. Nobody can authorize this thing.

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 6:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow Libya destruction and Gaddafi assassination was international war crime. Nobody can authorize this thing. LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, his own people beat him to death, I dont think that part of it was international. As for the other, thanks for the heads up, Perry Mason, but the question would be, since W withdrew us from the world court, and there is nobody on this planet with the military might thru toys we have, what the fuck are they gonna do about it, and when in our countries history did we ever give a fuck about that?

JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 8:44:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL. Tinfoiling horseshit. prisoners of war are prisoners of war. there is no reason to take them before the court. there is nothing to decide. You're call Ron. The only issue here is that this isn't a war. There are no sides and no uniforms. Some faceless beaurocrat could at a moment's notice decide that YOU are in some way tangentially linked to a terrorist organization and then you are subject to your own "there is nothing to decide" commentary. I, however, see it differently. I very much think justice is important and I think it's worth deciding on. Insofar as the partisan ridiculousness on this thread... Yeah... this is not Obama's doing. The republocrats have been working this path for decades.

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 8:52:26 AM)
Well, no they cant inside the US. Here we got laws, we do not export our benificence to the greater part of the planet however. AUMF is AUMF. I dont know what the foolishness of the OP has to do with, clearly it states it aint happening insofar as american citizens are concerned on our soil.

JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 9:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, no they cant inside the US. Here we got laws, we do not export our benificence to the greater part of the planet however. How quaint that you believe that. I believe roughly 80% of the US population (not to mention a fair percentage of Canada's population and possibly Mexico's also) live in what the ACLU referred to as "constitution free zones". Granted, that phrase is inflammatory but it does accurately depict the idea that if you live in large swaths of the US the constitutional rights you think you have don't exist. I assume that you also believe Obama regarding the 2012 NDAA... namely that while yes, it DOES authorize him to do all sorts of bad things he's a good man and wouldn't do such things.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 9:24:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, no they cant inside the US. Here we got laws, we do not export our benificence to the greater part of the planet however. AUMF is AUMF. I dont know what the foolishness of the OP has to do with, clearly it states it aint happening insofar as american citizens are concerned on our soil. Yet. You forgot that word. It isn't happening on our soil, yet. The only thing is, what happens when you leave our soil? You decide to go for a quick jaunt across the border into Canada to get some beer. As soon as you are firmly on Canadian soil, you hear a quiet whistle... Or, they take the next step, and make it part of the War on Terror to take out terrorists wherever they find them. The AUMF being what it is, who says they aren't going to change it, amend it, or add to it?

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 9:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, no they cant inside the US. Here we got laws, we do not export our benificence to the greater part of the planet however. How quaint that you believe that. I believe roughly 80% of the US population (not to mention a fair percentage of Canada's population and possibly Mexico's also) live in what the ACLU referred to as "constitution free zones". Granted, that phrase is inflammatory but it does accurately depict the idea that if you live in large swaths of the US the constitutional rights you think you have don't exist. I assume that you also believe Obama regarding the 2012 NDAA... namely that while yes, it DOES authorize him to do all sorts of bad things he's a good man and wouldn't do such things. You may assume the second, but you and the ACLU are incorrect on the first, I have quoted that USC several times, and am not going to do so again. We disagree. On the other hand, having that ability since 2012 he hasnt used it yet.....what would change that (although we should recap) http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp

JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 10:32:26 AM)
Well, we can certainly agree to disagree but I'd be inclined to explore this more fully. re: Constituion Free Zone Regarding the US constitution, we have a supreme court and executive branch that has shown ZERO regard for any sort of constitution. So I'm afraid I don't find much protection in a moldy piece of paper. I'll point out that the difference between the Canadian supreme court and the US one is rather marked. Here, I think the constitution still matters to some degree. So while I acknowledge that the US constitution prohibits some of the things the ACLU is worrying about without the supreme court in play that doesn't mean anything -- as Obama has demonstrated openly. In regards to civil liberties I'm afraid the DHS demonstrates openly and daily that my fears here are 100% justified. re: The 2012 NDAA I do not find any sense of comfort and security in that snopes report. I also find their research on that one to be particularly incomplete. PUBLICLY Obama said he didn't agree with the need for indefinite detention. In actuality he kicked the bill back to the house/senate because it didn't contain strong enough provisions for same. He could've said "this is reprehensible and I cannot sign it". Instead, he gave me the vague promise that he (and all future presidents and all members of the executive branch unto eternity) wouldn't be a bad boy. That, I'm afraid, is not upholding the US constitution. Let's take a look at a more sane viewpoint. Given that legal scholars across the country were hotly debating whether or not the NDAA ended the rule of law in the United States don't you think a more sensible approach would have been to actually freakin clarify the verbiage? The fact that they did not elect that course tells me everything I need to know. How easy would it have been to state simply and succinctly, "Nothing in this provision is intended to apply to US citizens on US soil."

Fellow -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 12:15:52 PM)
quote: LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, his own people beat him to death, I dont think that part of it was international. As for the other, thanks for the heads up, Perry Mason, but the question would be, since W withdrew us from the world court, and there is nobody on this planet with the military might thru toys we have, what the fuck are they gonna do about it, and when in our countries history did we ever give a fuck about that? CIA-AlQaeda are not quite "his own people". History also shows "military might thru toys" are not sufficient: empires go down (usually rotting from inside, SU the most recent addition to the graveyard). One must be blind not to see the process has begun and accelerating.

mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 12:18:08 PM)
You have proof that the video of him being beaten to death, which was widely viewed (and prolly is still on youtube) was CIA and al-Queda? You have credible documentation of this, cuz not a one of those agencies have a decent dental plan according to what I saw.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875