Thoughts and Opinions - Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus

Print Page | Close Window

Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=189536
Printed Date: 21 December 2025 at 9:00am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus

Posted By: impulse418
Subject: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus
Date Posted: 26 November 2011 at 1:10am

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being - http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

Replies:

Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 26 November 2011 at 2:11am

That's nothing. More worried about this :

http://kotaku.com/5862623/a-half-dozen-people-petition-white-house-to-round-up-all-copies-of-skyrim-outlaw-and-burn-them - Ban Skyrim

KBK

-------------
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2

Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 26 November 2011 at 11:18am

Kayback wrote:

That's nothing. More worried about this :

http://kotaku.com/5862623/a-half-dozen-people-petition-white-house-to-round-up-all-copies-of-skyrim-outlaw-and-burn-them - Ban Skyrim

KBK

It's satire.

Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 26 November 2011 at 4:06pm

I can't imagine this bill or anything like it ever being passed, but it deeply worries me that the possibility even exists.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl

Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 26 November 2011 at 7:10pm

The problem with it, is that its attached to the DOD spending bill. Heres what the Administration has to say about it:

Originally posted by U.S. Administration

U.S. Administration wrote:

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.

Sauce: http://https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1867 - https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1867

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 9:59pm

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 - http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Okay so the bill passed 93-7. May draw a Presidential vito.

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 02 December 2011 at 3:27am

The comments section of that article annoyed me.

"93 out 100 US senators approved this, it must be good."

/facepalm

And this is coming from the anti-"big government" conservatives? Giving the government an even broader scope to work with?

-------------

Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 02 December 2011 at 10:01am

Rofl_Mao wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 - http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Okay so the bill passed 93-7. May draw a Presidential vito.

I've not checked, but I can't imagine that the supreme court would be okay with this. Confused

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl

Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 09 December 2011 at 9:00am

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/893 - http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/893

Ayes: 406 (Democrat: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9593?party=Democrat&vote=Aye - 171 ; Republican: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9593?party=Republican&vote=Aye - 235 )

Nays: 17 (Democrat: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9593?party=Democrat&vote=Nay - 15 ; Republican: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9593?party=Republican&vote=Nay - 2 )

Abstained: 9 (Democrat: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9593?party=Democrat&vote=Abstain - 6 ; Republican: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9593?party=Republican&vote=Abstain - 3 )

Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 10 December 2011 at 1:51am

Republicans Voting 'Nay'

Name	Voted

http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_Ronald_Paul - Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]	Nay

Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 December 2011 at 10:44am

Oh good.

-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl

Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 7:38am

I still don't know why this isn't showing up in the news. This should be the top story for the American people.

Wheres that Ben Franklin quote that Bri had/has in his sig? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

This is blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.

Edit: Spelling
Edit edit: quotation added

Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 7:59am

It's a common tactic to throw unpopular lines into a popular bill to force things through (especially when it comes to military funding). It's dangerous for a politician's career to vote against a military budget unless that's what the politician's constituents specifically expect from him/her. Don't want to be known as the anti-military representative/senator, they'll never hear the end of it. It's likely everyone knew about the constitutional violation but are letting it through with the hopes of a line item veto.

It also seems like a loaded thing to throw into a bill to lower the President's approval. If Obama lets it go through, he looks anti-constitution. Vetoing the bill will look strongly anti-military. A line-item veto would be the best bet, but it's a difficult power for the President to get. In any case, the damage to Obama's Presidential campaign is already done.

-------------

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 14 December 2011 at 9:05am

Tolgak wrote:

It's a common tactic to throw unpopular lines into a popular bill to force things through (especially when it comes to military funding). It's dangerous for a politician's career to vote against a military budget unless that's what the politician's constituents specifically expect from him/her. Don't want to be known as the anti-military representative/senator, they'll never hear the end of it.

This is what ticks me off about Defense spending. It isn't that it's such a big part of our debt that irks me, but rather the fact that the Military Industrial Complex passes R&D and pet-project spending off as "necessary for the safety of the common soldier" to the American people to get it pushed through. The reality is that not passing this bill would have simply made the writers go back and re-submit it without the anti-constitutional items which would have taken a day at most to do. But others would seize upon the fact that it didn't pass to paint their opponents as "un-American" or "uncaring for the safety of our soldiers."

Ike warned us about this kind of thing. But I doubt even he understood the extent to which the M.I.C. would eventually control the nation.

Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 19 December 2011 at 8:18pm