Of the Bill of Rights?

[ConHog]

FYI
Obama riding Bush train to removing all civil liberties ...for your safety

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/...istration.html

You were the inspiration for the movie Conspiracy Theory , weren't you?


But , I do have to admit I find it amusing that the very people who screamed bloody murder when Bush took these steps defend them now that Obama has done so.

[revelarts]

You were the inspiration for the movie Conspiracy Theory , weren't you?


But , I do have to admit I find it amusing that the very people who screamed bloody murder when Bush took these steps defend them now that Obama has done so.

Me and a few others are screaming about both of them.
but I'm not sure what conspiracy theory has to do with the post.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison .
I mean we had more freedoms and now we've got less. the gov't could not do "X" now they can. It was illegal for them to "Y" now it's written into the law or assumed they do.
the supposed motivation is our safety -true, false or mixed- the result is that we have lossed freedoms.

[jimnyc]

but I'm not sure what conspiracy theory has to do with the post.

Because 90% of what you post is anti-government. 90% of that is rhetoric and assumptions. You read into every little thing you can possibly find to criticize our government. Do they do shitty things? Yup. Have they even done things that might be unconstitutional and need to be reversed? Absolutely. But if one were to solely follow your posts, you would think we live in North Korea.

[revelarts]

Because 90% of what you post is anti-government. 90% of that is rhetoric and assumptions. You read into every little thing you can possibly find to criticize our government. Do they do shitty things? Yup. Have they even done things that might be unconstitutional and need to be reversed? Absolutely. But if one were to solely follow your posts, you would think we live in North Korea.

that's funny, rsr and others post more rhetoric and assumptions about the democrats being the death of America, evil, stupid and crazy and most people here seem to agree based on some real evidence, but a lot of it is just rude insults. But the same level of scrutiny is rarely given to republicans or the military. Most here would say they are anti BIG gov't as well, and call it wrong too. But 90% of what i post is fact based. real crimes real unconstitutional activities. A few are in the form of 1st steps, in the wrong direction but folks here don't mind blowing people up for "planning" terror acts before they strike us or attacking whole coutries BEFORE they have a weapon that might hurt us one day. A few loud comments on bad domestic laws or acts before they become ubiquitous seems a reasonable response too me. Some things I've mentioned are huge and just been deied or ignored. But Thankfully we are not North Korea but every year we are moving in that direction. Somewhere I got this weird idea that public officials, police and the military should follow the constitution they swore to defend. if that's makes me anti-gov't then what has the gov't become?

[ConHog]

that's funny, rsr and others post more rhetoric and assumptions about the democrats being the death of America, evil, stupid and crazy and most people here seem to agree based on some real evidence, but a lot of it is just rude insults. But the same level of scrutiny is rarely given to republicans or the military. Most here would say they are anti BIG gov't as well, and call it wrong too. But 90% of what i post is fact based. real crimes real unconstitutional activities. A few are in the form of 1st steps, in the wrong direction but folks here don't mind blowing people up for "planning" terror acts before they strike us or attacking whole coutries BEFORE they have a weapon that might hurt us one day. A few loud comments on bad domestic laws or acts before they become ubiquitous seems a reasonable response too me. Some things I've mentioned are huge and just been deied or ignored. But Thankfully we are not North Korea but every year we are moving in that direction. Somewhere I got this weird idea that public officials, police and the military should follow the constitution they swore to defend. if that's makes me anti-gov't then what has the gov't become?

So you're complaining that some of us are okay with being proactive when it comes to fighting terrorism? Disgusting.

By the way, my oath was to defend this country, AND the COTUS. Not one or the other. And since the COTUS does in fact NOT mention terrorism, there is no constitutional limits on dealing with them.

PS you're belief that RSR is a kook does not then translate to mean that it is okay for YOU to be a kook as well.

[revelarts]

So you're complaining that some of us are okay with being proactive when it comes to fighting terrorism? Disgusting.

By the way, my oath was to defend this country, AND the COTUS. Not one or the other. And since the COTUS does in fact NOT mention terrorism, there is no constitutional limits on dealing with them.

PS you're belief that RSR is a kook does not then translate to mean that it is okay for YOU to be a kook as well.

i think your use of it for terrorism is off here but in general, If it's not in the constitution them you DON"T have jurisdiction to do it. The constitution is a limiting document for the gov't and it's public servants. Not a limiting doc for the people.

And when proactive mean murdering people who haven't had a trail or done *&$%# or by secret POTUS decree in my country's name, yes I've got a problem with it.

I never said RSR is a kook, just obsessed with ever democratic hang nail. he's right a lot of the times though.


____________

[ConHog]

ithink you use of it for terrorism is off here but in general, If it's not in the constitution them you DON"T have jurisdiction to do it. The constitution is a limiting document for the gov't and it's public servants. Not a limiting doc for the people.

And when proactive mean murdering people who haven't had a trail or done *&$%# or by secret POTUS decree in my country's name, yes I've got a problem with it.

I never said RSR is a kook, just obsessed with ever democratic hang nail. he's right a lot of the times though.


____________

Wait, so the COTUS doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of safeguarding our country and our population from foreign attacks?

[revelarts]

Wait, so the COTUS doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of safeguarding our country and our population from foreign attacks?

Yes it does, you said it didn't say anything about terrorism. But what you just mention should cover that. however now i have to relook at it to clear my own thinking.

[ConHog]

Yes it does, you said it didn't say anything about terrorism. But what you just mention should cover that. however now i have to relook at it to clear my own thinking.

As you said it is a limiting document. It doesn't limit how we deal with threats. Just says deal with them.

[revelarts]

As you said it is a limiting document. It doesn't limit how we deal with threats. Just says deal with them.

it does outline how to deal with them, if it's war then it's very specific, If crimes then there are limitson how to treat and try people etc.. it's not a blank check

[ConHog]

it does outline how to deal with them, if it's war then it's very specific, If crimes then there are limitson how to treat and try people etc.. it's not a blank check

If you can accurately point out whether terrorism is an act of war or a crime you are a lot smarter than most every attorney who has spoke on the matter who all agree that it is a gray area at best.


By the way, the COTUS makes NO mention of dealing with foreign nationals who have committed crimes against our nation while living outside of our jurisdiction. It would be nice if it were written in there somewhere . But it isn't. However, I refer you to the way Monroe handled African pirates during his Presidency. He most assuredly did not have them arrested and tried.

[revelarts]

concerning the general more personal points made against me of late, i refer you to these portion of a Reagan speech, the words reflex my sentiments almost exactly. I don't think he followed through as well as he could have but he did better than many and that's another story

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENRbKixne7Q?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[revelarts]

How Congress is signing it's own arrest warrants

I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books. They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.

Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her....

.... US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.
LINKS:
National Defense Appropriations Act
Indefinite military detention for U.S. citizens now in the hands of a secretive conference committee
December 8, 2011 – by Donny Shaw
http://bit.ly/sxolqr

http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-con...n-arrest-bill/

[fj1200]

U.S. Supreme Court denies Missouri’s push for warrantless blood tests in DUI cases

Missouri’s push to more easily draw blood from people suspected of driving drunk failed to convince U.S. Supreme Court justices Wednesday.

Law enforcement must continue to seek warrants to take blood from drivers stopped for possibly driving impaired, the court ruled in a case that originated in southeast Missouri.

[revelarts]

U.S. Supreme Court denies Missouri’s push for warrantless blood tests in DUI cases

thank God. at least we get a little. push back.
I don't like the idea of Cops taking blood test though. Or DNA. Another story