Quoted for truth. However, you forgot:Zhukov said:Ah, we love you America.
From a distance.
...
A really looong distance.
"In a lead-lined bunker.
...
14 miles below the surface of the earth."
Quoted for truth. However, you forgot:Zhukov said:Ah, we love you America.
From a distance.
...
A really looong distance.
Chrono, you do know in the fifth amendment, that the bold part talks about Military Personnel who are serving, not normal US Civi's? It means that soldiers who do something against the service can have the indictments brought against them without a Grand Jury.chronomaster5042 said:See here's where things get tricky. First I point out the 5th amendment:Sylvine said:Did any one of You bother to actually check sections 1031 and 1032, or did You all just assume. Oh! It says so on teh internets! Must be true, then!...?
Under 1031:
"(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."
Under 1032:
"(b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
?The requirement to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States."
Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf
So, yeah. Goddamn it, I'm not even a citizen of the US. Do Your own research?
~Sylv
The bold part is the important part for this discussion. What it means is as long as we aren't detained by the military in a time of war or public danger, we get these rights. So back to the NDAA, section 1031 extends the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 - 40) to everyone including, US citizens. Meaning the military can detain US citizens if they believe they have connections to terrorist organizations, and since it's the military doing the detaining, the constitution does not apply and therefore section 1031 does apply to the detained regardless of citizenship.5th Amendment said: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.
As for section 1032, the way it is worded, implies that US citizens are exempt from the REQUIREMENT of being detained. It does not prevent one from being detained to begin with, it just means they can give us a trial if they want to.
It's not because we smell bad, is it? Please don't go..Zhukov said:Ah, we love you America.
From a distance.
...
A really looong distance.
You didn't elect anyone. It's the companies that own the government, the businesses decide whats what. And they have decided that they don't like you camping out in front of their buildings saying that they are big evil people.Lilani said:Anyway, though it is relieving Obama isn't even considering signing off on it, it's pretty disturbing that the congress and senate would both pass it in the first place. I mean really, who the fuck are these people we've elected?
Well, I suppose you could say fear has a certain smell to it...JoesshittyOs said:It's not because we smell bad, is it? Please don't go..Zhukov said:Ah, we love you America.
From a distance.
...
A really looong distance.
I'm not like these guys... I- I can change... I swear!
Then it seems to me Your problem lies with the 5th amendement, not with section 1031, since that one only states the US citizens are only included as far as the constitution allows it. Seems to follow the problem here lies in the constitution, then?chronomaster5042 said:The bold part is the important part for this discussion. What it means is as long as we aren't detained by the military in a time of war or public danger, we get these rights. So back to the NDAA, section 1031 extends the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 - 40) to everyone including, US citizens. Meaning the military can detain US citizens if they believe they have connections to terrorist organizations, and since it's the military doing the detaining, the constitution does not apply and therefore section 1031 does apply to the detained regardless of citizenship.
Yes. Since the whole section 1032 is about the requirement of detention of members of Al-Q and affiliates, it's also the requirement that doesn't extend to the citizens. If they are affiliated with Al-Q, though, their citizenship does not grant them immunity from trial. Certainly not a case of "evil government looking for ways to lock innocent civilians up".As for section 1032, the way it is worded, implies that US citizens are exempt from the REQUIREMENT of being detained. It does not prevent one from being detained to begin with, it just means they can give us a trial if they want to.
And the 4th amendment protecting us from unnecessary search and seizure.Tiger Sora said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel
Not to sure if the 5th applies so much. But I'm 99% sure this would violate the 6th.
So, IF, this bill is passed. It's in violation of an amendment thus..... has no, or limiting powers.
This is to what I can figure out. I'm no law man.
Following that train of logic we could also say we have absolute freedom since there's nothing that prevents us from going on a killing spree except for the consequences afterwards. We could easily say that any power or government is an illusion created to avoid chaos.Nyaoku said:I'm going to be blunt. No single individual really has any rights/freedoms/entitlement. They are an illusion made by masses to help prevent chaos from destroying systems that generations took to establish that form your living conditions. While there may be consequences for violating these illusions, they can still be violated. When the ones in power decide that the rules need to change, they change them. Every system on this planet has some form of corruption within it. It's a fact we have to learn to live with while we do the best we can to reduce its impact. In the words of one who will not be named for now: "Learn to play the game or become a pawn of it. The choice is yours."
I agree. Many of our...things ,for lack of a better word, are out of date. Electoral collage anyone?lacktheknack said:Ever get the feeling that America should just drop all of its politicians, all its red tape, all its in-progress bills, all its current lawsuits, etc, and just start again?
I'm feeling it quite a bit here.
A very intelligent user pointed out something that I think pertains to this just a bit. It's the exact wording of the bills they passed.008Zulu said:You didn't elect anyone. It's the companies that own the government, the businesses decide whats what. And they have decided that they don't like you camping out in front of their buildings saying that they are big evil people.Lilani said:Anyway, though it is relieving Obama isn't even considering signing off on it, it's pretty disturbing that the congress and senate would both pass it in the first place. I mean really, who the fuck are these people we've elected?
If it was the "companies" stuffing the ballot boxes a year or so ago in preparation for these protests their in-house seers foretold to them, then I'd say what they got passed here is pretty much useless for helping them out (unless, that is, most of the protestors are not US citizens or legal aliens).Sylvine said:Did any one of You bother to actually check sections 1031 and 1032, or did You all just assume. Oh! It says so on teh internets! Must be true, then!...?
Under 1031:
"(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."
Under 1032:
"(b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
?The requirement to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States."
Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf
So, yeah. Goddamn it, I'm not even a citizen of the US. Do Your own research?
~Sylv
Which flies just fine until a bunch of people are really, really, really hungry. Then it can go a lot of different directions. One of those directions ends with all the "powerful people" losing their fucking heads.Nyaoku said:I'm going to be blunt. No single individual really has any rights/freedoms/entitlement. They are an illusion made by masses to help prevent chaos from destroying systems that generations took to establish that form your living conditions. While there may be consequences for violating these illusions, they can still be violated. When the ones in power decide that the rules need to change, they change them. Every system on this planet has some form of corruption within it. It's a fact we have to learn to live with while we do the best we can to reduce its impact. In the words of one who will not be named for now: "Learn to play the game or become a pawn of it. The choice is yours."
So maybe I should have googled a little deeper before posting that, you are indeed correct about the fifth amendment part, I'm sorry.thethird0611 said:Chrono, you do know in the fifth amendment, that the bold part talks about Military Personnel who are serving, not normal US Civi's? It means that soldiers who do something against the service can have the indictments brought against them without a Grand Jury.chronomaster5042 said:Stupid stuff I was wrong about
The bill expressly says that it US citizens cannot by law be detained without trial or reason. The REQUIREMENT means that they fail the requirements and are exempt from the law. Read the bill man.
THIS!! Enough with the fucking scaremongering already!!Sylvine said:Did any one of You bother to actually check sections 1031 and 1032, or did You all just assume. Oh! It says so on teh internets! Must be true, then!...?
Under 1031:
"(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."
Under 1032:
"(b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
?The requirement to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States."
Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf
So, yeah. Goddamn it, I'm not even a citizen of the US. Do Your own research?
~Sylv
I applaud you for being able to say that. Just earned a bunch of respect for not being a 'I have to be right' person.chronomaster5042 said:So maybe I should have googled a little deeper before posting that, you are indeed correct about the fifth amendment part, I'm sorry.thethird0611 said:Chrono, you do know in the fifth amendment, that the bold part talks about Military Personnel who are serving, not normal US Civi's? It means that soldiers who do something against the service can have the indictments brought against them without a Grand Jury.chronomaster5042 said:Stupid stuff I was wrong about
The bill expressly says that it US citizens cannot by law be detained without trial or reason. The REQUIREMENT means that they fail the requirements and are exempt from the law. Read the bill man.