House bans Constitution!

Post Reply New Topic

So you guys are cool with the loss of our right to a trial? Habeus corpus has been central to our concept of justice.
Without a right to a trial all our other rights become meaningless. The bill of rights no longer exists except as a piece of paper.

The right to trial is long gone. These arrangements where if you have a trial and are found guilty you get a 10 times longer sentence than if you give up your supposed right to trial shows that a trial is not a right.

The amendement, which did not pass, was to add language to the approprations/authorization bill that would strike language added to the authorization bill two years ago.

Now, the relevant bill did'nt pass the house today (sources conflict, and I'm not sure on the primary sources), but there is zero chance the bill passes the senate in it's current form because the Senate and House have two very different spending amounts in mind.

I'm personaly expecting at least one continuing resolution (CR) for the upcoming fiscal year, I hope not another 6 month long one (like we had from October 2012 to March 2013).

In all fairness to the OP, the level of detail above is seldoom reported accurately outside of (maybe) the trade press.

HB1960 has not been signed into law.

Why don't you two boys get together and go rent a room someplace?

I will ignore the ad hominum. However, indefinite detention is already the law. Obama, I voted for him, wants to imprison people that have not committed a crime but might in the future. I really wish I could post links. But google"youtube Rachel Maddow indefinite detention". I think you will agree that accusing Maddow of being an Obama hater is absurd.

You must be thinking of another bill. Yesterdays was for an amendment that would exclude indefinite detention for Americans. It failed!! ! Those that voted against it believe that Americans should not have the right to a trial!! !!

Actually,its worse then that. The bill did not ask to rid us of the evil of indefinite detention. Its goals were far less ambitious. It was not about protecting everyone's rights is was "only" about protecting American's rights.*
Of course no one cares about that! As Benjamin Franklin said," Those that would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither." We used to be the land of the free and home of the brave. Now we are the land of the unfree and home of the wienies.
* Fnord, you are obviously confused. Rejection of the bill means that congress believes that Americans should not have the right to a trial. I am at fault. In my intense anger at the elimination of the bill of rights I was inaccurate in the OP. I had just found out about the treason. I made it sound like voting for the bill was wrong and voting against it was patriotic. If it makes you feel any better, I am embarrassed. But I am not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is far more important, the exposure of our bill of rights being destroyed.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 14 Jun 2013, 6:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

There seems to be some confusion here, between H. Res 260 and H.R. 1960, the legislative agenda was to consider what will become the defense approprations and authorization bill(s). The matter discussed above was brought in on at least one amendement (I believe it was "number(ed) 12 printed in House Report 113-108" (US House website).

Out of curiousity, have you brought your concerns on this matter to your local US Represenative's office?

Yes, it was 12. However, I still believe it came under 1960..
I have written emails. Far more polite then here (I dont want to be indefinitely detained!)* to "my" representatives.
* Hopefully, the NSA is not monitoring this site and will jail me for exercising my freedom of speech. I honestly do not think that they will. I am insignificant and not violent. However, that that is a legal possibility is troubling.
PS: If I stop posting, you will know where I am.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 14 Jun 2013, 6:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

You are correct, H.R. 1960, which (should) end up as the legislative vehicle for the defense appropration and/or authorization bills.

Better living through citations.

it apears to apply to terrorists only,i dont believe the bill concerns citizens.i could be wrong,im not as up on politics as i used to be

It applies to Americans on American soil. I believe that a person should not be sentenced until after being found guilty . It used to be that you were guilty after being proven guilty. Not anymore!. Trials are now superfluous.

Here is that Maddow video about Obama wanting to imprison people that have not committed any crime but might in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdpXNIwunc
Maddow is hardly an Obama hater, just the opposite. Most of her time is spent defending him. * I voted for him twice. He is horrible but better then Romney and way better than his predecessor.
http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/
* She speaks the truth even when it goes against her politics!

Vermontsavant, can you supply a legal definition of "terrorist"? Not a common-sense version - common sense and the law are seldom on speaking terms.

As the act is phrased, and given certain aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Attorney General's office can accuse someone of "terroristic acts", refuse to provide any further information "to protect national security", and subject that person, US citizen or foreign national, to indefinite detention ("we'll let you out when we freaking well feel like it"). I find this concept enormously chilling.

yea,good point.

sadly they can bend the constitution any way they want.i would vote for this new law but it will be 30 years untill they use it to permenentley incarserate someone just because they dont like