Bye Bye Habeas Corpus?

You're scaring me Smoke.

It's not final yet. They are going to conference the bill. And according to Allen West he is removing the \"suspected\" verbage and if they don't, he won't vote for it. I suspect that it will still pass, but not include the large power grab on american soil.

OH shit!

All it takes is one good lawyer to twist the meaning and you can kiss your rights goodbye Mr Suspect. If I was a mastermind, I would push this through immediately. Think of the options for control. It's tasty.

The Bush Administration did this and it was overturned by the Supreme Court. http://www.salon.com/2008/06/12/boumediene/\r \r What am I missing here?

'Tempora Mutantur'

This comment from the website says it all:\r \r mike wrote on Dec 13, 2011 1:46 AM:\r \r \" S 1867 (Sec. 1032) \r \r \"Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest. Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens. Outlines implementation procedures.\"\r \r How does this amount to a stripping of our civil liberties? It says right there that it doesn't apply to US citizens. Did anyone bother to read through it a little? I found that in like 5 minutes. \"\r \r

Sigh, you fail to recognize the trends that are in the underlying message. This bill isn't the problem in itself, it's the mentality willing to accept certain circumstances in exchange for protection. It is the trend to watch for, not so much the direct message.

One trend is how blatant misdirection is becoming and how important word play currently is for the purpose of sway votes rather than accurate assessments. Such as linking Romney to KKK: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/14/msnbc_likens_romney_to_the_kkk_with_his_keep_america_american_slogan.html \r \r 'There we go guys, that should sway a small percentage over, keep thinking up more spin ideas, well done!' \r \r

Sigh - my original comment alluded to the fact that the same thing was attempted (actually it was done) under Bush and the Right was pretty much silent. A frequent retort to the protests against it then from Bush supporters that I saw was \"if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't fear this\".\r \r So what makes this different now? Times have changed? Have they REALLY? Or is the main difference that Obama is in the White House and not a Republican? (Either way I agree it is WRONG - fortunately as I posted earlier, this bill excludes American Citizens).\r \r As for the MSNBC/Romney comment - both sides pull this crap - heck, FoxNews has made blatant misdirection and misinformation an art form.

\"The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.\"\r \r I just ran into this. This makes it a whole different kettle of fish. Completely agree that this is 100% wrong and shouldn't be done. I suppose the Supreme Court will take it down just as they did Bush's attempt at the same thing?\r \r

Vote on this tomorrow on 12/15/11.

See Flobber, one good lawyer, and every bill can be spun as needed for National Security. Slippery slope my man, slippery slope.

Can you say V for Vendetta

I can say, 'Useful Idiots.' :D