Please note that the GOP in landslide numbers voted to give Comrade Obama the power under the NDAA to have the military jail people forever without a trial.But I don't see that covered on the LR.
And they were wrong. I know Rand Paul didn't...
I don't think Mike Lee did either, or Jim DeMint. Bet newly-elected Arizona Senator Jeff Flake wouldn't have voted for it, either. So, Gary, that's an overreaching statement there. You should correct: "Some in the GOP voted..."
My question on NDAA, what "people" are we talking about exactly? We talking about US citizens, or illegal alien Islamic terrorists? If the latter, than yes, jail the fuckers for life without a trial. Executve the bastards in the back courtyard with a bullet to the back of the skull.
Insofar as US citizens go, what does the NDAA or the Patriot Act cover that wouldn't already be covered? People want to feel safe, so politicians pass laws that restrict us and infringe on our rights, but these laws aren't necessarily effective, but it helps during election time.
If NDAA applies to any US citizen, than trash the piece of shit legislation. If it's just illegal alien Muslims trying to kill Americans that it applies too, than it has my strong and enthusiastic support.
The US Senate roll call vote on the NDAA is currently posted on my Federalist Blog. Check out the vote and see who the Fascists in the GOP are.
YEAs ---88Akaka (D-HI)Alexander (R-TN)Ayotte (R-NH)Barrasso (R-WY)Baucus (D-MT)Begich (D-AK)Bennet (D-CO)Bingaman (D-NM)Blumenthal (D-CT)Blunt (R-MO)Boozman (R-AR)Boxer (D-CA)Brown (D-OH)Brown (R-MA)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Chambliss (R-GA)Coats (R-IN)Cochran (R-MS)Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)Coons (D-DE)Corker (R-TN)Durbin (D-IL)Enzi (R-WY)Feinstein (D-CA)Franken (D-MN)Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC)Hagan (D-NC)Harkin (D-IA)Hatch (R-UT)Heller (R-NV)Hoeven (R-ND)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Inouye (D-HI)Isakson (R-GA)Johanns (R-NE)Johnson (D-SD)Johnson (R-WI)Kerry (D-MA)Kirk (R-IL)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Kyl (R-AZ)Landrieu (D-LA)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lugar (R-IN)Manchin (D-WV)McCain (R-AZ)McCaskill (D-MO)McConnell (R-KY)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD) Moran (R-KS)Murkowski (R-AK)Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Portman (R-OH)Pryor (D-AR)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Roberts (R-KS)Rockefeller (D-WV)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Sessions (R-AL)Shaheen (D-NH)Shelby (R-AL)Snowe (R-ME)Stabenow (D-MI)Tester (D-MT)Thune (R-SD)Toomey (R-PA)Udall (D-CO)Udall (D-NM)Vitter (R-LA)Warner (D-VA)Webb (D-VA)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wicker (R-MS)NAYs ---12Burr (R-NC)Coburn (R-OK)Cornyn (R-TX)Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)Grassley (R-IA)Lee (R-UT)Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY)Risch (R-ID)Rubio (R-FL)Wyden (D-OR)
Wow, all of the things wrong at once.First off he's clearly kidding. But then I tend to take, you know, context and facts into account. But obviously, if you say it, you are obviously 100 percent serious. This is clearly him saying the Obama administration should jail opposition, not him joking that it's impossible for Obama to get anything done, despite a massive victory. I said on my twitter that the next James Bond film will be entitled '23 is not enough,' so OBVIOUSLY I have inside information into the naming of the Bond films.Secondly, Harry Belafonte is a singer and a social activist. He's not an 'adviser' to the Obama Administration, he endorsed John Edwards in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. But hey, he supports the President so anything he says can be attributed to EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT! So can I assume all of you agree with Toby Keith when he said he'd like 'Obama to suck on [his] machine gun'? Cuz he's a musician who is opposed to the President, so obviously anything he says can be attributed to all of you.And thirdly, and most adorably, I love the comments from Eric talking about how he'd like to jail and execute Islamic terrorists without a trial. Ahhh, and he accuses other people of being anti-American and anti-Democracy. Because clearly, the Founding Fathers envisioned jail without a trial, execution without a trial and persecution based on religion.Or, to put it more succinctly: You're a hypocrite.JamesQueens, New York, NY
"and he accuses other people of being anti-American and anti-Democracy."While you're presumably neither of those. Tell everyone, then, why you support a Communist, Jeepers.
Depends if they surrender or not. Some GIs summarily executed Nazis that they caught when they crossed into Germany. If they were POWs and clearly surrendered, I would not be in favor of summarily executing the terrorists. Trial for Nazis is fine. Much preferred. But in the field of war sometimes it gets a little murky.
Gary, you still didn't answer the question. Does NDAA apply to US citizens or just enemies of the United States?
If the former, than yes, it should be opposed by all libertarians. If the latter, than no, it should not be opposed.
US citizens on American soil. Rand Paul has bravely spoken again and again on this. Marco Rubio's stock went up with me when he voted no.
The good ole boy network lives; and it must fight the majorities social democracy.
". If the latter, than no, it should not be opposed."So if an American citizen is in league with a enemy force like alQaeda and apprehended while engaging in warfare against the United States, they should be treated as though they were someone caught robbing a liquor store?
If I say I dig the NAZI party in 1941 and decide I'm going to do whatever they order me to do as a means of helping them win a war against my country, what policeman should write me a ticket? And for what?This is a matter of jurisdiction. Wage war against the United States, you aren't one of us anymore. A different set of rules kick in.It can't be any other way. There is no way for it to be.
when does a US citizen lose their rights? Even the Rosenberg's didn't give up their 4th,5th and 6th amendment rights. In that case, was justice not served?
I would imagine the FBI would have jurisdiction and you would be arrested by them and tried in a federal court as were the Rosenbergs, who were tried and convicted in a federal court and then executed. Civil rights don't go away because the FBI arrests someone, at least it shouldn't.
James and Harry Belafonte are right about one thing; the assholes of this nation voted for Obama for a second term. They are going to get what they want. It is up to us, the smart people, to allow them to suffer their consequences. Fuck 'em. I hope every last one of them dies a horrid death.
Jerry, I'm not convinced Obama actually won the election. Lots of evidence of massive voter fraud in northeast Ohio, Philadelphia and Broward County, Florida. Democrats are masters at voter fraud. Republicans are too polite and too straightforward to even consider such a thing. Worse, we don't want to challenge the Democrat voter fraud. Thus we lose.
"when does a US citizen lose their rights?"When they engage in armed insurrection. This isn't a head-scratcher unless you just don't like reality.You don't have a "right" to destroy the very government instituted to preserve the notion of rights.Some of you need to really come back down from the cloud and take a sober look at how the world works.
"I would imagine the FBI would have jurisdiction and you would be arrested by them and tried in a federal court as were the Rosenbergs"Like you have the power to "imagine" an apple being an orange.The Rosenbergs (treated as heroes to this day by the scumbag left) didn't wage war against their own nation. They weren't soldiers. They were duped into trading information. They weren't enemy combatants.
"It is up to us, the smart people (SIC!!), to allow them to suffer their consequences. Fuck 'em. I hope every last one of them dies a horrid death."Uh-huh. Your village just called.
The crime is the same, treason.
Actually, Espionage. specifically this:The Espionage Act of 1917 (Pub.L. 65-24, 40 Stat. 217, enacted June 15, 1917) is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War) but is now found under Title 18, Crime. Specifically it is 18 U.S.C. §792 et seq.It originally prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support U.S. enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions. The constitutionality of the law, its relationship to [free speech], and the meaning of the law's language have been contested in court ever since.Among those who have been charged with offenses under the Act are former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and alleged cablegate whistleblower Bradley Manning. Rutherford's conviction was overturned on appeal. The most controversial sections of the Act, including the original section 3, under which Rutherford was convicted, were repealed in 1921.
"The crime is the same, treason."An act of war isn't a "crime". Pearl Harbor wasn't a criminal offense. You seem to be confused about some very basic shit here, buddy roe.
The root of your misunderstanding is likely to be found in the word "support". If your on the team, you aren't a supporter. The Marines don't "support" the Marines. They're the Marines. Folla?
And you do not understand jurisprudence.
Ah yes. Ignore all of my comments and focus in on one part of one sentence.And for the record, I don't support a communist. I support the democratically elected President of the United States, who has never shown any communist leanings.Care to respond to, oh I don't know, the rest of my comments?
Post a Comment