Did this fly under the Bassfishin.com radar?

[TN_Bassin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

I'm not going along with everything in this video... Mainly the parts on the NDAA. The comparison between the reichstag fire and 9/11 is a little overboard IMO

[kennethdaysale]

I'm sure some of our master debaters will share their unique insights and deeply held opinions about this vid and topic.......I only have time to say that my knee jerk reaction is.................I will take any position that is the complete opposite of Al Franken with confidence.

[aikenyounggun]

Never heard of the law, sure media would of blown it up. Couple points: I love the Abraham Lincoln quotes because lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. Meaning you could get arrested without a reason and held indefinitely. Our constitution is perfect only because our founding fathers realized it was imperfect and let there be amendments. Heck, the bill or rights is just amendments. If there were no amendments, we would have slaves, wouldn't elect our senators, there would be no equal rights, and whoever lost the presidential election would be vice president.
A big freak out video to help Ron Paul. Liberally minded running with conservatives. He believes in isolationism, which is ridiculous considering the current world. Crazy people on the Internet making videos. And hitler was VOTED into power because the allies screwed Germany over and their economy was terrible (money was used to heat houses). Everyone wanted CHANGE.

[joedog]

I'm staying out of this one.....ya right.
aiken has some good points but that doesn't make every ammendment RIGHT either.
It amazes me how much of an up roar SOPA caused, yet almost NOTHING on this!
I guess people are more worried about free porn and free music than thier actual 'valued rights'.
Now remember I was against SOPA but my reps got E-mails from me on this topic also!
Kind of makes you wonder about our priorities doesn't it?

[TN_Bassin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012

Very odd this didn't outrage very many people... or has nobody heard of it? Only reason I know about it is because I happened to read the Tennessean the day they published the article on it.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

...I will take any position that is the complete opposite of Al Franken with confidence.

Must like being wrong on most issues huh?

For anyone following the "News", you should have caught this. One important note concerning the most heinous parts of this bill, President Obama attached a signing statement to this Bill, which is a way for a President to show objections to a Bill, thus declaring that under his administration these parts, that are so objectionable, will not be enforced. Remember, the Republican House attached this to a Defense Appropriations Bill, so would you rather not fund our Military, that's the choice they had. Why don't you hold the Representatives, and Senators responsible for this Bill accountable?

[joedog]

Tn Bassin, great article, written well and very understandable.
Actually easier than any other sites I visited when I looked into it before.
Thanks!

Now the real concern of mine is this crap used on the Drug War or Automatic Weapon War or anything else the Govt or then active President wants to LABEL a war.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Must like being wrong on most issues huh?

If Al Franken is for it, then I'm against it. If Al Franken is against it, then I'm for it. Sight unseen. If that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

If Al Franken is for it, then I'm against it. If Al Franken is against it, then I'm for it. Sight unseen. If that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Soooooo...you're for the indefinite imprisonment of U.S. citizens both outside, and within the U.S., without due process, and being denied your rights under the Constitution?

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Soooooo...you're for the indefinite imprisonment of U.S. citizens both outside, and within the U.S., without due process, and being denied your rights under the Constitution?

Well Franklin....If a US Citizen declares war on the US or plots or plans or encourages or gives aide or instuction or money or shelter to anyone that intends to commit acts of terrorism against the US then they have renounced their citizenship and forfeited any and all of their constitutional rights. Does Anwar Al-Awaki's citizenship somehow bestow on him the right to happily and earnestly plan your murder? or your wifes? or your mothers? or your children? Citizenship is more than just a piece of paper, along with the title comes allegiance.

[WTL]

Due process is the key phrase.

[Bassboss]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

Well Franklin....If a US Citizen declares war on the US or plots or plans or encourages or gives aide or instuction or money or shelter to anyone that intends to commit acts of terrorism against the US then they have renounced their citizenship and forfeited any and all of their constitutional rights. Does Anwar Al-Awaki's citizenship somehow bestow on him the right to happily and earnestly plan your murder? or your wifes? or your mothers? or your children? Citizenship is more than just a piece of paper, along with the title comes allegiance.

Does that mean said person should be held indefinitely without trail, and due process?

[keithdog]

I think WTL has it right. Due Process is and should be the law. However, in war time, prisoners of war should be held untill the war is over. Then released or held for trial if war crimes are suspected. And then due process again come to the forefront. I do think much of the video is a bit over the top. Comparing Hitlers words after he destroyed his own parliment building to accuse the communists, to George Bush when speaking of Americans defending themselves against terrorist agression is pure BS. I did like some of what Ron Paul said. But these are scary times we live in. What IS the right thing to do when you know there are terrorist cells right here in our own country planning violent attacks? Wait for them to strike?

[kennethdaysale]

I am certainly not saying that we should throw out the 14th Amendment or due process. I am saying that enemy combatants are..........enemy combatants, and as such have no Miranda Rights/or due process. All the people that scream "slippery slope" are just blindly pouring K-Y Jelly on the slope leading to Sharia Law. Good luck finding a process there. much less due.
@keithdog....I agree we can't just stroll through Guantonimo and start mowing those guys down, but of course this war on terrorism has no real end. Why do you think Obama didn't close it down like he promised? Realized this situation was way more complicated and dangerous than he thought. Couldn't bring them stateside and try in civilian court like he thought. No other country wanted any part of them. For all intents and purposes they could be there for decades. You make choices and you live with them.

[Bassboss]

In Obama's signing statement he stated, "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I am certainly not saying that we should throw out the 14th Amendment or due process. I am saying that enemy combatants are..........enemy combatants, and as such have no Miranda Rights/or due process. All the people that scream "slippery slope" are just blindly pouring K-Y Jelly on the slope leading to Sharia Law. Good luck finding a process there. much less due.

Ok, I can agree that it's appropriate to hold "enemy combatants." Meaning terrorists we find any given country we are at war with; Or someone we find with a false pass port who is a terrorist in out con try. But indefinitely detaining a 16 year american kid, with no past criminal record, is something I don't think should be allowed just because the government says so.

[joedog]

I'm not really sure the topic is or should be really what we due to terrorists. For Me, Way to much emotional decision making (kill them All ! Let God sort um out.) vs logical decision making (make sure we truely know that the 'All' is said person and they have a right to prove or disprove it before 'I' kill them). Not let them run around free as a bird. We always have had the right to demand 'no bail'!
Obamma said what the current admin. is going to do. Not what FUTURE admin. may or may not do.
So who decides what is a WAR or NOT a WAR. Maybe some future idiot decides too many people die from guns and declares War on guns or War on drugs remember Pres. Nixon. (Who I liked, come on, we all have a few quirks ) Once the power is unleashed.......? Some one talked about changing laws and amendments and such. I think or at least thought I agreed. But this seems to maybe have come about quite quickly and almost backdoorsie. I think there could be a little infringing on rights here?
Should the discusion be why the 'RULES' were changed in such a fashion?
Or maybe how many 'other' laws have been changed with very little citizen input. Was the lack of input intentional and if so, why. I have a lot of thoughts on these topics but lets face it, I'm just Monday Morning quarterbacking at this point and I much prefer to be able to be more involved in the 'Pre-game discussion'!
Anyway just something to think about.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I am certainly not saying that we should throw out the 14th Amendment or due process. I am saying that enemy combatants are..........enemy combatants, and as such have no Miranda Rights/or due process. All the people that scream "slippery slope" are just blindly pouring K-Y Jelly on the slope leading to Sharia Law. Good luck finding a process there. much less due.
@keithdog....I agree we can't just stroll through Guantonimo and start mowing those guys down, but of course this war on terrorism has no real end. Why do you think Obama didn't close it down like he promised? Realized this situation was way more complicated and dangerous than he thought. Couldn't bring them stateside and try in civilian court like he thought. No other country wanted any part of them. For all intents and purposes they could be there for decades. You make choices and you live with them.

One, the Justice Department did try to bring those in Gitmo to the U.S. for trial, but was blocked by irrational, mostly Republican, reactionary fake uproar, tied in with a N.I.M.B. syndrome. Gitmo was not our choice, but that of the Bush Administration's unilateral decision.
Two, where in the Bill does it say anything about "enemy combatants", it says U.S. Citizens, meaning any U.S. Citizen, might want to read Joe's thoughts, because his fears, are fears we should all have. You don't want to throw out the Constitution, but this Bill essentially does that...with your knee-jerk approval.

[kennethdaysale]

@Dogmatic I won't be moved from my position on this. I don't expect you to abandon your belief system or values either. Hey I respect the fact that you have strongly held opinions, many people don't really believe in anything and if they do they don't know why. For the purposes of this forum I am more interested in how you do with the Huddlestons this year than I am in how our politics may differ.

[Dogmatic]

How about you read the Bill, or at least read the parts that many on here find disturbing?

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

How about you read the Bill, or at least read the parts that many on here find disturbing?

I have and anyone who falls outside the stated parameters can relax...includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war

[Top Tiger]

I've been watching this thread for a coupe of days now. Looking at the quote from KDS, that is so ambiguous that it could apply to almost anyone, once it's massaged by lawyers with a specific goal. Anyone here could be locked up for almost anything.
As far as amending the constitution for almost anything; it's a lot more difficult than people seem to think. It takes a 2/3rds majority in the House, a 3/4 majority in the Senate and a 3/4 majority of the State's legislatures. All the talk about amendments to outlaw flag burning, gay marriage, abortion rights,
etc. ad nauseum is just that,,,, talk to make citizens get up in arms about anything except the real problems we ALL face.
Due process is one of the cornerstones of this country. If we start changing the basics, then, who knows what we'll end up with.
A reference was made about Sharia Law. There's more than one door into that room.

[Dogmatic]

How about a Constitutional Ammendment to reverse Citizens United, seems to be plenty of support across the board for it?

[nofearengineer]

How about the President do his damned job, follow the Constitution, and enforce the laws Congress passes. He does not have discretion as to which laws he will enforce and those he won't.

[Dogmatic]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

For reference. To those who would like to participate in the discussion, and actually know what they are talking about. Parts of interest start on Page 265.
Sec 1027 might offer some of you an answer to the question about this administration's commitment to the closing of Guantanamo.

@NFE Hmmmmm...like the Affordable Care Act?

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

For reference. To those who would like to participate in the discussion, and actually know what they are talking about. Parts of interest start on Page 265.
Sec 1027 might offer some of you an answer to the question about this administration's commitment to the closing of Guantanamo.

@NFE Hmmmmm...like the Affordable Care Act?

Well DM I read page 265++ and don't see what all the fuss is about. What is on those pages that is a problem for you?

Sec. 1027....just says no money can be spent to close or transfer prisoners out of Guantonimo...are you seeing something there that I'm not? what commitment?