So we've gone from enemy soldiers to "enemy combatants" to "belligerents."

Definition of "belligerent" (Merriam Webster)

Quote:

1: waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war

2: inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness

We're not belligerents as evidenced by the first definition because according to NDAA we're NOT protected by the laws of war.

http://harpers.org/archive/2011/03/hbc-9....

"Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, speaking to the New York City Bar Association last week, acknowledged the concerns raised about Manning’s detention and stated that he had personally traveled to Quantico to conduct an investigation. However, Johnson was remarkably unforthcoming about what he discovered and what conclusions he drew from his visit. Hopefully Johnson is giving careful thought to the gravity of the deviation from accepted U.S. practices that the Manning case presents. Under established rules of international humanitarian law, the detention practices that a state adopts for its own soldiers are acceptable standards for use by a foreign power detaining that state’s soldiers in wartime. So by creating a “special regime” for Bradley Manning, the Department of Defense is also authorizing all the bizarre practices to which he is being subject to be applied to American soldiers, sailors, and airmen taken prisoner in future conflicts. This casual disregard for the rights of American service personnel could have terrible ramifications in the future The recent dismissal and replacement of the Quantico brig commander may well reflect a critical attitude within the Pentagon towards the special regime for Manning, but more recent developments, including the regime of enforced nudity, offset that.

The brig commander at Quantico should consider carefully whether it is really wise to deal with a young whistleblower by using watered-down versions of the tools of tyrannical oppression with which regimes like Mubarak, Ben Ali, and Qaddafi are so closely associated."

Which Amendment have we crossed out now?

Quote:

Which Amendment have we crossed out now?

I don't think there are any left from the first 10...

This is all so obvious to me as to where we are headed - straight into civil (and equally likely global) war. Why no one else sees the handwriting on the wall is completely beyond me.

It's like watching Jews get their shops smashed and stars sewn on their clothes in the 1930's and everyone around you going, yeah, so what ? Who cares ? Not like it really all means anything - just the govt doing their best to protect us all .. what are you, some kind of anti-patriot or something ?

Surrounded by complete idiots, day after day after day after day.

My father, warning my aunt about about all this crap for a decade or more - then it all comes true and she says to him, "Well you 'might' have said something about that ..."

An entire nation of suicidal ****ing idiots incapable of any semblance of rational thought - yeah this will end well.

For the last four decades the Supreme Court has been so preoccupied with race, abortion, and navigable waterways that they haven't awakened to the fact they've become***** on a bull--mere "surplusage," in legalese. What a sorry state of affairs.

Or maybe SCOTUS is a bunch of willing tools. Who nominates candidates for SCOTUS? The President does. Who confirms them? The Senate does. Perhaps "checks and balances" is just an elaborate scam, exactly like everything else related to government?

I was at a 'liberty' meeting on Thursday night. There were three Michigan State Representatives there, and one former Representative currently running for a seat in Congress. Precisely this subject was the topic of discussion. They all confirmed that we have a SERIOUS problem in that we may not be able to challenge any detention under NDAA in court, specifically, not even SCOTUS.

Here's the problem as I understand it: Since NDAA includes two clauses, one which specifies that 'indefinite' detention can be ordered by the Executive and the other which states, 'detainee can be held without trial or representation,' this creates a situation whereby there are no grounds upon which to present a Constitutional argument.

If the courts play by the rules as proscribed by the Constitution itself, they cannot accept an case or appeal from someone who (1) has no right to counsel and (2) is essentially OUTSIDE the Constitution.

These three government representatives have conferred with Justin Amash, (R-MI) (an attorney whose primary practice was Constitutional law), and he has concurred with what I've presented here.

Further, Justin has put forward that it is NOT unlikely that a US citizen targeted with application of NDAA might just 'disappear' overnight and there would not be a damn thing his/her family could ever do about it - not through the courts or any legal avenues anyway.

If a currently sitting Member of Congress is saying this, out loud and in public, and is also discussing this openly with members of State Legislature, you can be assured that this is NOT tinfoil.

Playing chess with someone with nothing to lose? Yelling checkmate may be the last words they ever say.

Stalin must be proud...

Not too surprising. Sad, but not surprised. Perhaps Gen can give us a heads up the day the feds demand the list of Ticker Forum Belligerents.

Medic -

They have no need to ask for any lists. They probably already know more about each of us than our mothers ever did,

So ... the President, who swore to uphold the Constitution, signed NDAA, which includes wording through which he can take action which evades the Constitution and renders a US Citizen without any Constitutional recourse.

There's something drastically wrong with this.

Yea. Just hope enough people catch onto that before it's too late... if it's not already.

The Supreme Court has the final say on what its own authority is (At least it says it does in Marbury v. Madison). But a case has to get there first.

How is a case going to get to SCOTUS if the plaintiff (the only category of person who would have standing) is literally nowhere to be found?

Medic wrote..

The Supreme Court has the final say on what its own authority is (At least it says it does in Marbury v. Madison). But a case has to get there first.

And there's the problem. It can't get there. But let's say just for a second it could....there'd still be no standing and would never be heard by SCOTUS.

One of the Michigan House Representatives said, 'Even STALIN provided for those charged to have (1) representation and (2) detention was not indefinite - it was limited to 25 years.'

There you have it: NDAA is WORSE than Stalin's regime.

Without exception, every single Member of Congress who voted for this...this...TYRANNY...should be charged with treason, or at the very least should never receive another vote from a living American citizen.

Quote:

Without exception, every single Member of Congress who voted for this...this...TYRANNY...should be charged with treason, or at the very least should never receive another vote from a living American citizen.

I wish it was that easy...Steve Gill (local "conservative" talkshow host) was talking about this very thing this morning...how wonderful it was...and how much people were lying in describing what 'could' happen and that people should stop disseminating all the false information regarding this 'wonderful anti-terrorism tool'. Of course, he also had the quotes from Allan West 'debunking the myths'... What a ****ing tool himself...unfortunately, he has the listeners that believe he's 100% right all the time.

edit: Steve Gill also mentioned the failure of the Virginia primary, since it has "only Romney on the ballot". Just added to show how full of **** this douche is

This is why "playing by the rules" and voting are now fools errands.

The rules are not for them, just YOU. But but we have redress in the courts. OH hahahahahahahahahaha

How many republicrats voted for the NDAA? Which party's president signed it ?

And some of you still think voting will fix things.

Enjoy

From "my" congressman in January ...

Quote:

January 31, 2012

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on H.R. 1540, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate the opportunity to update you on efforts to amend and clarify this legislation.

H.R. 1540, which was signed into law in December, provides our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere the equipment and resources they need to complete their missions and meet future threats. It authorizes troop pay, benefits, and enlistment and other bonuses for all those who serve to keep us safe. The bill helps fulfill a primary constitutional obligation of the federal government: to provide for the common defense.

H.R. 1540 also directs that foreign terrorists tied to al Qaeda or the Taliban who are caught in plots against the US be taken into military custody. While we must maintain a system for detaining foreign terrorists, it must not threaten the constitutional rights of American citizens in any way. I understand and share the concerns of many that the bill's language is overly broad and should have been written much more clearly.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3676, a bill to amend the Defense Authorization to state unequivocally that no American citizen may be detained without all the due process rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. We cannot afford any ambiguity in the law where our most fundamental constitutional rights are involved. I look forward to consideration of H.R. 3676 at the earliest opportunity.

I will continue to stand for a strong national defense and a national security strategy that defends our homeland while protecting both our interests abroad and the constitutional rights of all citizens.

Thank you again for contacting me. For more information on current issues, you can follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Please feel free to contact my office anytime at 202-225-2676 or online at jordan.house.gov with any other questions or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,


Jim Jordan

Congressman, Ohio 4th District

Quote:

And there's the problem. It can't get there. But let's say just for a second it could....there'd still be no standing and would never be heard by SCOTUS.

That was the whole issue in Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court solved the problem by simply declaring its own power of judicial review.

But that was back when they had something under those black robes.

US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2 wrote..

. . . the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (emphasis mine)

The way I read this is that, in theory, Congress can pass any law it wants (even gross violations of the BOR, etc.) and include a statement that this law is not reviewable by the courts, those laws cannot be legally challenged.

Is that a correct interpretation? If not, then what does the bolded text actually signify and what is the intent thereof?

Quote:

This is why "playing by the rules" and voting are now fools errands.

The rules are not for them, just YOU. But but we have redress in the courts. OH hahahahahahahahahaha

How many republicrats voted for the NDAA? Which party's president signed it ?

And some of you still think voting will fix things.

Enjoy

I think a lot of people do actually realize that voting won't fix anything now. The problem is, nobody is willing to take the first step to do something else.

Until that changes, nothing else will.