News: New assault on citizens' rights in US


PDA






Zedicus
October 16, 2006, 08:12 PM
http://www.mrt.com.mk/en//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1297&Itemid=26

New assault on citizens' rights in US
Monday, 16 October 2006

US President George Bush on Tuesday will sign into law Congress's new terror-detainee legislation, known as Military Commissions Act, which limits the rights of American citizens.
US media say the controversial bill grants the law enforcement officials more power to detain citizens without tangible accusation. The law foresees arrest of individuals seen as potential threat to national security.

The new legislation, passed by the Congress with 57 percent of votes in favor, will enter into affect on Tuesday, once President Bush signs it into law.

The controversial bill will additionally imitate the citizens' rights in America, which have been already jeopardized in the recent years due to enforcement of other inappropriate bills, American media said.

Emphasis Added

How does this have anything to do with Guns?

Take This part for Example

the controversial bill grants the law enforcement officials more power to detain citizens without tangible accusation. The law foresees arrest of individuals seen as potential threat to national security.


and imagine what a Rabidly Anti-2A Administration could do to Gun owners with it...:fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "News: New assault on citizens' rights in US" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bouis
October 16, 2006, 08:21 PM
Macedonian Radio & Television?

gc70
October 16, 2006, 08:45 PM
‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.Stange, but I can't find anything dealing with US citizens in the Military Commissions Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.pdf).

Eleven Mike
October 16, 2006, 08:51 PM
This was my favorite part:
The controversial bill will additionally imitate the citizens' rights in America
I just don't understand what it means.

Delta608
October 16, 2006, 09:13 PM
The truth :

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109qaXh5X:e839: :neener:

DerringerUser
October 16, 2006, 09:34 PM
I agree. I myself despise (sp?) Bush, but thats just my opinion. I think he will go down as the worst president in history.


Well, if you guys are white, and conservative, then you're safe. Its the minority races that will be targeted.

Shweboner
October 16, 2006, 09:47 PM
Its the minority races that will be targeted.


just wait, no one is safe. Give an inch... lose a mile... or more

Zedicus
October 16, 2006, 09:56 PM
The truth :

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...09qaXh5X:e839::neener:

they are reffering to HR 6166

Eleven Mike: I think what they ment to write was

The controversial bill will additionally "limit" the citizens' rights in America

gc70
October 16, 2006, 11:37 PM
HR 6166 was passed by the House, sent to the Senate where it was passed as S 3930, and sent for the President's signature as The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.pdf).

ETXhiker
October 17, 2006, 12:31 AM
I agree. I myself despise (sp?) Bush, but thats just my opinion. I think he will go down as the worst president in history.

Well, if you guys are white, and conservative, then you're safe. Its the minority races that will be targeted.

DerringerUser, as is so often the case, I must ask - what in the world are you talking about? :scrutiny:

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 02:42 AM
Eleven Mike: I think what they ment to write was

The controversial bill will additionally "limit" the citizens' rights in AmericaWow, really?

Panthera Tigris
October 17, 2006, 02:46 AM
Well, if you guys are white, and conservative, then you're safe. Its the minority races that will be targeted.

You're right, I'll be safe. My girlfriend however, will be targetted. :mad:

What Derringeruser is saying is: Most anti gun laws are aimed at minorities. This bill, while not specifically gun-related, will likely be aimed at minorities also.

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 03:06 AM
Those of you worried about a racial angle should get out more. The less we focus on race, the closer we will come to the day that it no longer matters. I don't know if that day will actually come, but I think we can get closer.

4t5
October 17, 2006, 06:00 AM
Quote:
‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter."

Stange, but I can't find anything dealing with US citizens in the Military Commissions Act.

What about this?

Sec. 950fff. Wrongfully aiding the enemy

`Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

Since it would be highly unlikely for a foreigner to have "an allegience or duty to the United States", who the heck do you think they are talking about here?

crazed_ss
October 17, 2006, 06:18 AM
What Derringeruser is saying is: Most anti gun laws are aimed at minorities. This bill, while not specifically gun-related, will likely be aimed at minorities also.

Funny that people are suprised about this. I dont know how many posts I've read on this board where people advocate the profiling of Arabs could they might possibly be potential terrorists. Stuff like this passes because people want it.. Sad :(

Historic Arms LLC
October 17, 2006, 08:36 AM
This law could be used or "abused" in this manner:

An individual embarrasses a Law enforment agency for severe incompitence, and then the individual documents the following cover up and threats and intimidation.....It is found later that the information provided by the individual has the power to put into question thousands of convictions.

Is that individual going to be considered a "biligierent" under that law?

Will this new power be used by ATF to pound on some of us?

I am concerned about any "re-inturpretation" by ATF management being used to inflict unsanctioned punishment on any individual, as the ATF HAS with other laws in the past to myself.

Just a thought....


Len

Autolycus
October 17, 2006, 08:40 AM
When do we feed the hogs? I think the time is getting close.

Its things like this that make me doubt we will exist as a FREE nation for much longer. 20 years? 30 years? or even 10 years?

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 09:15 AM
4t5, did you miss this part?
Any person subject to this chapter
Who's subject to the chapter?



Funny that people are suprised about this. I dont know how many posts I've read on this board where people advocate the profiling of Arabs could they might possibly be potential terrorists. Stuff like this passes because people want it.. So, law enforcement should just leave out an important part of a profile (race), so that minorities will not be "targeted"? That is what is known as "political correctness run amok."




Historic Arms, why would a law against aiding terrorists be used to target whistle-blowers? If they're willing to stretch things that far, they could just as easily slap you with anything else.

crazed_ss
October 17, 2006, 09:31 AM
So, law enforcement should just leave out an important part of a profile (race), so that minorities will not be "targeted"? That is what is known as "political correctness run amok."

If a crime has been comitted and the cops have a profile/description of a possible suspect then it makes sense to focus on the race of the people who meet that description. If no crime has been committed, then the cops shouldnt target people on the basis of race.

It's interesting how people never seem to care about rights when it's other people who are being violated.

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 09:43 AM
It's interesting how people throw out vague accusations to muddy the waters. Proper profiling (including race if necessary), properly done, violates no one's rights. If it did, I wouldn't support it.

ceetee
October 17, 2006, 09:44 AM
If a crime has been comitted and the cops have a profile/description of a possible suspect then it makes sense to focus on the race of the people who meet that description. If no crime has been committed, then the cops shouldnt target people on the basis of race.

Gotta agree 100%. What do the "Shoe Bomber", the "Unabomer", and the "Alfred P. Murrah Building bomber" all have in common? If the only people that come under scrutiny are those of obvious Arab descent, we're leaving out a vast majority of potential criminals and terrorists.

mons meg
October 17, 2006, 09:46 AM
Sec. 950fff. Wrongfully aiding the enemy

`Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

I guess I'm confused. I thought treason was already outlined in the Constitution, and didn't include a military tribunal. Are they referring to Americans caught on a foreign battlefield? Need more specifics.

CNYCacher
October 17, 2006, 09:53 AM
What about this?

Sec. 950fff. Wrongfully aiding the enemy

`Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

Since it would be highly unlikely for a foreigner to have "an allegience or duty to the United States", who the heck do you think they are talking about here?


I would imagine that means military personel or a sworn ally.

Then again, almost all public school students are forced to "Pledge allegiance to the flag. . ." once a day for 13 years. . .


What bothers me most about this whole thing is that no one is focusing on the word co-belligerents. What a great word! Did they just make that up?

My buddy and I went out drinking last night. I got belligerant and my buddy was my co-belligerent.

Manedwolf
October 17, 2006, 10:07 AM
Macedonian Radio & Television?

Yes, I think they have a television. It's a 1982 Zenith with a coathanger antenna, kept in the capital. :D

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 10:44 AM
If the only people that come under scrutiny are those of obvious Arab descent, we're leaving out...potential criminals and terrorists. True, if we ONLY focus on those who fit a profile.

Then again, almost all public school students are forced to "Pledge allegiance to the flag. . ." once a day for 13 years. . .I don't think that's true anymore.

Zen21Tao
October 17, 2006, 11:29 AM
US media say...

God knows I always take what the media says as true. :eek:

Why not just come out and say "[t]he left wing controlled news machine that has such venomous hatered for George W. President that it willinging sides with our enemies just to undermine anything the President tries to say or do says..." :banghead:

NoPhilly
October 17, 2006, 11:30 AM
Well, if you guys are white, and conservative, then you're safe. Its the minority races that will be targeted.
:mad:

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 11:40 AM
Calm down, Zen. You are barely readable.

progunner1957
October 17, 2006, 01:11 PM
I myself despise (sp?) Bush, but thats just my opinion. I think he will go down as the worst president in history.Nope - that title goes hands down to William Jefferson Blowjob Clinton, followed closely by James Earl Carter.

oldfart
October 17, 2006, 01:46 PM
"Nope - that title goes hands down to William Jefferson Blowjob Clinton, followed closely by James Earl Carter."

Why is it that we - and I do mean "we" since I do it too - have the idea that "history" began when "we" were born? There were a bunch of bad Presidents during the latter part of the 19th century. The difference was caused by the coverage of television and internet.

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 02:00 PM
good point, of.

Manedwolf
October 17, 2006, 02:38 PM
Nope - that title goes hands down to William Jefferson Blowjob Clinton, followed closely by James Earl Carter.

And I still don't understand the absolute, utter OBSESSION with the man's activities almost eight or more years ago with another consenting adult, vs. far more egregious violations of CONSTITUTIONAL law that politicians and leaders have committed before and since.

Gezus christ, give it UP already. The only people who obsess THAT badly about that act really, really need to get a date, or a prescription for blue pills and time with their wife. It comes across as obsessive jealousy, at this point, since it was SO long ago, and SO irrelevant to today's world.

I mean...damn. :scrutiny:

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 03:26 PM
It has nothing to do with the Lewinsky scandal. It's simply a symbol for much deeper resentments against Clinton and Democrats in general.

FWIW, though, her consent was immaterial as she was an intern and he was the president.

JohnBT
October 17, 2006, 03:36 PM
Lewinsky, sheminsky, it's the lies he told under oath that bother most people to this day.

"the word co-belligerents. What a great word! Did they just make that up?"

No. It's a relatively old word. Here's one example - from 1944 - that I googled up in about 2.13 seconds.

http://cdm.lib.uiowa.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/wwii&CISOPTR=787

buzz_knox
October 17, 2006, 03:43 PM
Lewinsky, sheminsky, it's the lies he told under oath that bother most people to this day.

I thought it was the nuclear reactors and material to North Korea, the MIRV technology to China, blowing up a factory he knew to have no links to terrorism to defuse the release of Lewinsky's testimony, or sending Americans into harm's way to forestall the impeachment hearings that caused people to have issues.

If you enjoyed reading about "News: New assault on citizens' rights in US" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!