"Prolonged detention"?

Meet the National Defense Authorization Act, 2012.

This bill says that anyone suspected of having "committed a belligerent act" could be detained indefinitely--without charge and without trial. The original wording of it specifically exempted American citizens from this, but according to Senator Carl Levin, that wording was taken out, and it was the current administration who wanted it taken out.

Granted, the new wording doesn't specifically say that American citizens are NOT exempt, but it says nothing either way, only that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely. The bill does not define what that means in the new language, if I'm understanding it correctly. It COULD be interpreted to include American citizens, especially if the administration took out the wording that specifically exempted them.

What's more, apparently the fate of this bill could be decided as early as tomorrow.

It's illegal of course, but that's never stopped our government. Lots of our laws including ones upheld by the supreme court are illegal...and of course the wording was left intentionally vague so they can do what the fuck they like. They should probably come get me NOW. I was fucking born beligerent. :ninja:

Oh look, I don't even have to commit a beligerent act. I can merely be suspected.

Detaining ANYONE including known terrorists for ANY reason without charges and/or a trial is unconstitutional AND against the international treaties we've agreed to, but ignore. Ooh can we ship the beligerent fuckers off to Israel to meet the Mossad too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brice

It's illegal of course, but that's never stopped our government. Lots of our laws including ones upheld by the supreme court are illegal...and of course the wording was left intentionally vague so they can do what the fuck they like. They should probably come get me NOW. I was fucking born beligerent. :ninja:

Oh look, I don't even have to commit a beligerent act. I can merely be suspected.

Detaining ANYONE including known terrorists for ANY reason without charges and/or a trial is unconstitutional AND against the international treaties we've agreed to, but ignore. Ooh can we ship the beligerent fuckers off to Israel to meet the Mossad too?

---

Not to be argumentative in any way, but the mere fact that the law is passed and then upheld by the SC makes it "Legal" not Illegal. However, morally speaking and in the original spirit of the Framer's intent they are "Wrong". Even though I am very "Conservative" in nature, I find it hard to understand why we can't hold the Federal Gov't to the same standards as say every other state enforcement agency, Hold 'em up to, I believe, 72 hours and then charge 'em or street 'em. While I understand that there are "extenuating circumstances in a good portion of these cases, the problem becomes the old L&O "slippery slope" wherein the parameters for holding a person get wider and wider. There HAS to be rules. We as a free society cannot abandon this fact. This coming from someone who traditionally gets P.O.'ed on anything 9/11 Non-Pro (bad choice of words but I am at a loss) related. We have to uphold standards for all and not deviate. Maybe the current, and past, Administration's should stop pandering to certain areas of the public and commit reasonable dollars to the agencies responsible for protecting us. For example, Military funding is great, but maybe that is spending money on retaliation rather than prevention.


One of the most mind-boggling facts to come out after 9/11 is that of the (at the time) 13 million people here on student or work Visa's we only knew, as a Gov't where 10% of them were at any given time. The majority of those Visa's had expired!!! Scares the shit out of me that we are not doing more to make so-called "Illegals" live up to the law of the land. I am not trying to descend into a "Illegal Alien" rant. but there is something fundamentally wrong with our overall approach to this situation. No? Please, I am not trying to go on a tangent here. Rather than knee jerk reaction, I am saying that this entire situation needs very close scrutiny and informed public input from both sides and the middle of this equation. We just seem to throw shit at the problem with little or no concern for the ramification's. On both sides. A fair and comprehensive solution is sorely needed!!!

Rant complete.

Edit: As a possible starting point, No U'S citizen may be detained longer than 72 hours without charges being filed and a court date set. "Indefinite detention" is reserved for those illegally in this country (i.e. w/o a current valid Visa) suspected of Terrorist activities. Unless that Visa is under current review for a valid extension. I am no Lawyer (thank God), but I hope you see where I am going with this as an overall point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlin1958

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brice

It's illegal of course, but that's never stopped our government. Lots of our laws including ones upheld by the supreme court are illegal...and of course the wording was left intentionally vague so they can do what the fuck they like. They should probably come get me NOW. I was fucking born beligerent. :ninja:

Oh look, I don't even have to commit a beligerent act. I can merely be suspected.

Detaining ANYONE including known terrorists for ANY reason without charges and/or a trial is unconstitutional AND against the international treaties we've agreed to, but ignore. Ooh can we ship the beligerent fuckers off to Israel to meet the Mossad too?

---

Not to be argumentative in any way, but the mere fact that the law is passed and then upheld by the SC makes it "Legal" not Illegal. However, morally speaking and in the original spirit of the Framer's intent they are "Wrong". Even though I am very "Conservative" in nature, I find it hard to understand why we can't hold the Federal Gov't to the same standards as say every other state enforcement agency, Hold 'em up to, I believe, 72 hours and then charge 'em or street 'em. While I understand that there are "extenuating circumstances is a good portion of these cases, the problem becomes the old L&O "slippery slope" wherein the parameters for holding a person get wider and wider. There HAS to be rules. We as a free society cannot abandon this fact. This coming from someone who traditionally gets P.O.'ed on anything 9/11 related. We have to uphold standards for all and not deviate. Maybe the current, and past, Administration's should stop pandering to certain areas of the public and commit reasonable dollars to the agencies responsible for protecting us. For example, Military funding is great, but maybe that is spending money on retaliation rather than prevention.


One of the most mind-boggling facts to come out after 9/11 is that of the (at the time) 13 million people here on student or work Visa's we only knew, as a Gov't where 10% of them were at any given time. The majority of those Visa's had expired!!! Scares the shit out of me that we are not doing more to make so-called "Illegals" live up to the law of the land. I am not trying to descend into a "Illegal Alien" rant. but there is something fundamentally wrong with our overall approach to this situation. No? Please, I am not trying to go on a tangent here. Rather than knee jerk reaction, I am saying that this entire situation needs very close scrutiny and informed public input from both sides and the middle of this equation. We just seem to throw shit at the problem with little or no concern for the ramification's. On both sides. A fair and comprehensive solution is sorely needed!!!

Rant complete.

---

I've always held the opinion that these framer's intent arguments are false to begin with. It is their words which are laws as opposed their intent. Their intent was and is meaningless. The Supeme Cour isn't there to decide what was or wasn't intended. They are there to make rulings within the confines of the laws.

And no, I have to disagree with another point of yours. The SC has upheld countless laws which are in fact against prior laws ....which doesn't change the old laws, but makes the new ones unconstitutional. Their job is to interpret laws, not intents.

I've never really cared about such things as liberal or conservative; republican or democrat. I have opinions that fit all and none of these categories. I think the labels themselves are a major hindrance. In political circles these words are akin to cursing each other. :lol:

Brice, as I said "Thank God I am not a lawyer", but the law (as it is) is a living thing constantly changing and evolving. I, personally, think that is generally a good thing. As such, intent and interpetation must be a valid point of consideration in any informed decision. Points in law are constantly subject to quoting case law of the past and incorporating valid inconsistencies, but rather than get into a "legal" discussion, I'd be more interested in your opinion of the more, shall we say, fundamental points of my post.

My main point being that this is not a subject that 'Outrage, Condemnation and indignation" should be approached with from either side of the equation. We need true, non political introspect and careful consideration, fueled by ALL sides of the argument to form a fair and comprehensive resolution.

Probably one one where no individual or group is either completely happy or completely disappointed. However, a resolution is needed.

We will never forget!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlin1958

Brice, as I said "Thank God I am not a lawyer", but the law (as it is) is a living thing constantly changing and evolving. I, personally, think that is generally a good thing. As such, intent and interpetation must be a valid point of consideration in any informed decision. Points in law are constantly subject to quoting case law of the past and incorporating valid inconsistencies, but rather than get into a "legal" discussion, I'd be more interested in your opinion of the more, shall we say, fundamental points of my post.

My main point being that this is not a subject that 'Outrage, Condemnation and indignation" should be approached with from either side of the equation. We need true, non political introspect and careful consideration, fueled by ALL sides of the argument to form a fair and comprehensive resolution.

Probably one one where no individual or group is either completely happy or completely disappointed. However, a resolution is needed.

We will never forget!!!

---

Hmmm...I'm not 100% sure I think that's a good thing. I think maybe we should. And before you go taking that badly please hear me out. I say us clinging to that does us a lot of damage psychologically and spiritually. I think as a country we should go past this. I don't view these sort of things as an attack on a country...even though the perpretators of the acts view it as such and even though our government and media views it the same. I see it nothing more than the senseless murders of innocent people. Horrible, but no more than that. It doesn't really need to be, imo. I think the idea that this was an attack on americans (whatever they are...it's just another piece of land really) is detrimental in numerous ways. It hinders healing for those who suffered a personal loss from those events. I think us never forgetting makes it a hell of a lot harder for people to heal when ultimately all we have is vile people (let's not even build them up to be terrorists, but let them be lowly murderers only) killing/murdering a whole bunch of people for some crazy idea.

I'll leave the discussion of intent and interpretation of the law for now though I am sure neither one of us is likely to convince the other on this subject. Maybe another time for that one as I think it's a fascinating subject.

I'm not sure I totally understand your main point there though I am trying. Personally I think all along we should have been holding all these terrorists which we've detained by the standards of our traditional civil courts. I think we really fucked up on this one even if our intents were pure. I think if you break a law (or are accused of such) in our country you should uniformally and unilaterally be given the same rights as our citizens for the purpose of detaining, trying, and sentencing you ...ones which are entrenched in tradition USUALLY for good cause.

I'm a liberal democrat and it's frightening to me when someone like Rand Paul is the voice of reason in the senate.

Don't be fooled. There is no voice of reason in the senate.