The US Senate has just passed bill that ends bill of rights!

[thirtythr33]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 52114.html

Indefinite Military Detention Measure Passes On Bill Of Rights Day

WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a defense bill Thursday that authorizes indefinite detentions of American terrorism suspects, coincidentally acting on the controversial measure on the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, passed 86 to 13 and is expected to be signed quickly by President Obama, who withdrew a veto threat against the bill Wednesday. Six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed the bill.

Though the legislation passed overwhelmingly, several senators argued that it was threatening fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights, which is celebrated every Dec. 15.

"We as Americans have a right to a speedy trial, not indefinite detention," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). "We as Americans have a right to a jury of our peers, which I would argue is ... not enlisted or military personnel sitting in a jury. You cannot search our businesses or place of business or our homes without probable cause under the Bill of Rights."

"You cannot be deprived of your freedom or your property without due process of law, and that, I would say, is not indefinite detention," added Kirk, who voted for the bill. "I would actually argue that no statute and no Senate and no House can take these rights away from you."

The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Supporters of the bill argued that current U.S. law is a combination of rulings and precedents that already allow indefinite detention of Americans. But they say that granting the military explicit authority to investigate and detain terrorism suspects -- including Americans -- is vital to ensuring the nation can keep up with an adaptable and changing enemy threat.

They point to court rulings that have found detentions of citizens to be proper. But opponents say the issue of grabbing up Americans on U.S. soil and putting them in military detention without trial has never actually been tested by the Supreme Court.

"This provision would for the first time in American history require our military to take custody of certain terrorism suspects in the United States," said Durbin, who was especially concerned with two sections of the bill -- 1021 and 1022 -- and voted "no."

He argued -- citing FBI Director Robert Mueller's opposition to the provisions -- that there was no reason to mess with a system that has worked well since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Since 9/11 our counterterrorism professionals have prevented another attack on the United States, and more than 400 terrorists have successfully been prosecuted and convicted -- prosecuted and convicted -- in federal court," Durbin said. "Why do we want to change this system when it's working so well to keep America safe? The fact that these detainee provisions have caused so many disagreements and such heated debate demonstrates the danger of enacting them into law."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who added an amendment to the bill that specifies the resulting measure would not affect current law regarding citizens, argued that her provision provides protection for Americans.

Nevertheless, in voting for the bill, she also proposed a new bill that she, Durbin, Kirk and others intend to pursue later in hopes of making her interpretation the law.

"I strongly believe that constitutional due process requires that United States citizens apprehended in the United States should never be held in indefinite detention," Feinstein said. "That is what this legislation would accomplish."

Feinstein offered a similar amendment during earlier debate over the $662 billion defense bill, and it failed. It was not clear that this measure would do any better, although she noted that it built on a law signed in 1971 by President Nixon meant to curb abuses such as the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.

The bill requires military treatment for foreign terrorism suspects. Defenders of the bill have pointed to one part of the provisions that say U.S. citizens are "exempted" from the requirement to be detained by the military, but legal scholars note that even though that detention is not required, it is allowed.

President Obama had threatened to veto the measure. But after provisions were added that gave him the final say over which suspects stay in military custody, he relented. Those provisions also ensured that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would still be permitted to investigate and interrogate terrorist suspects. Mueller has called the provisions insufficient, warning that they will create bureaucratic roadblocks in the midst of vital investigations.

Obama could sign sign the bill as soon as Friday.

Civil liberties groups were infuriated that Obama retreated from the veto threat, and called on him to reconsider.

"The NDAA enshrines the war paradigm that has eroded the United States' human rights record and served it so poorly over the past decade as the country's primary counterterrorism tool," said Tom Parker, policy director of Amnesty International USA. "In doing so, the NDAA provides a framework for 'normalizing' indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life," he said, referring to a restriction in the measure on closing the Cuba prison for terror suspects.

"By withdrawing his threat to veto the NDAA, President Obama has abandoned yet another principled position with little or nothing to show for it," Parker said. "Amnesty International is appalled -- but regrettably not surprised."

[thirtythr33]

FEMA camps? Really? Can't we take this one conspiracy at a time?

You clearly haven't read the articles I've posted. Thats fine. I wouldn't expect someone with their head in the sand such as yourself to understand what this means anyways. Keep living in denial pal.

[averagejoe]

FEMA camps? Really? Can't we take this one conspiracy at a time?

You clearly haven't read the articles I've posted. Thats fine. I wouldn't expect someone with their head in the sand such as yourself to understand what this means anyways. Keep living in denial pal.

neb's can't put all the dots together. He's been proven wrong for so long. Yes he is in denial. That's a good way to put it. He try's hard.......

[Nebula]

Keep living in denial pal.

I've dealt with conspiracy theorists for the past six years on these forums. They've been right... oh, let me think... about zero per cent of the time.

1. There are no FEMA Camps being set up to inter mass numbers of Americans.
2. Most of the supposed FEMA Camps on lists circulating through CT websites have nothing to do with FEMA and are there for legitimate (and non conspiratorial) reasons.
3. There are concerns with the new legislation. I do grant you that..
4. No one is hiring National Guard or Army members to be prison guards in FEMA camps.
5. No one is hiring National Guard or Army members to be prison guards in concentration camps for Americans.

[averagejoe]

Keep living in denial pal.

I've dealt with conspiracy theorists for the past six years on these forums. They've been right... oh, let me think... about zero per cent of the time.

1. There are no FEMA Camps being set up to inter mass numbers of Americans.
2. Most of the supposed FEMA Camps on lists circulating through CT websites have nothing to do with FEMA and are there for legitimate (and non conspiratorial) reasons.
3. There are concerns with the new legislation. I do grant you that..
4. No one is hiring National Guard or Army members to be prison guards in FEMA camps.
5. No one is hiring National Guard or Army members to be prison guards in concentration camps for Americans.

Don't worry wayoutwest. neb's has conspiracyphoba! He believes that people who question governments motives and MSM reporting are lumped together as CTer's. He has a thing for CTer's as you can tell.

[Captain Awesome]

I actually hope there are FEMA camps.

May be one day they'll round up all the people I don't like and put them there...

[Nebula]

One would think if there were FEMA camps and the big, bad U.S. government wanted to round up all the anti-government people, they would start with the conspiracy theorists. Yet they're still around...

[thirtythr33]

One would think if there were FEMA camps and the big, bad U.S. government wanted to round up all the anti-government people, they would start with the conspiracy theorists. Yet they're still around...

*personal attack removed*/ferri You don't have to look very far to realize that this is indeed true. American soldiers have even come out and said they being prepared to round up "dissidents". Lawyers and Politicians are talking about it. Obviously you've never heard of REX 84. You live in a world of denial. I often wonder how someone such as yourself would have lived in 1930's Germany. Its quite the bubble you live in.

[steelrules]

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/ ... alist.html

http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/ge ... br-doc.pdf

Nebula, you have zero credibility on these forums anymore, all you insults over the years calling people conspiricy theorists and tin foil hat wearers is nothing but tiresome, everything we so called CT'ers have been talking about for years is coming true.

It's obvious you have some agenda to hide the truth from people, but as more and more headlines come out in MSM media your proven wrong over and over again.

And any time you can no longer defend the lie you call for the forum to be moved to the conspiricy forums, frankly that's just sad.

Your also fond of attacking Alex Jones but I'll have you know that his stories are being posted and linked to by the ultra conservitive Drudge Report.

The only conspiricy here is the one you are a part of "Hiding the truth".

My recomendation to you is continue to weigh in on small town issues like ice sheets and such, but leave global events to people who do research and fact check.

[Captain Awesome]

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html

Is that supposed to be a proof of something?

[Bsuds]

but leave global events to people who do research and fact check.

Let us know when you find one of those with some intelligent results Eh!

[averagejoe]

but leave global events to people who do research and fact check.

Let us know when you find one of those with some intelligent results Eh!

This was from 2 years ago. So they have been preparing for awhile.

http://remixxworld.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... ttlem.html

[Captain Awesome]

This was from 2 years ago. So they have been preparing for awhile.

http://remixxworld.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... ttlem.html

National guard is a proof of FEMA?

We have our own national guard here (reserve), does it prove that Canada has FEMA camps?

[Nebula]

I have to admit the thought of Alex Jones slaving away in a FEMA work camp does bring a smile to my face. Perhaps if he gets rounded up by the National Guard goons and tucked away in a camp somewhere, Glen Beck can find out and interview Mr. Jones.

Seriously, if the conspiracy theorists are actually right and they know what's going on and the US government really is going to round up all the anti-government people, one would think the conspiracy theorists would be at the top of the list. I guess I'll know I was wrong when I end up talking to myself in here.

[steelrules]

Nebs Give it some time they just passed the black baging law.

For every one else.
Even FOX gets it right from time to time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_aT ... =endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_gr47cP ... AAAAAAASAA