DOJ seeks new emergency powers amid coronavirus pandemic

Source

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the novel coronavirus spreads throughout the United States.

Here comes the federal power grab!

a reply to: links234

We've heard about this already.

They only asked. Haven't been given . Yet.

a reply to: links234

Patriot Act times 10....

a reply to: scraedtosleep
Has it actually been asked though?? I only seen Rand Paul reference politico claiming they have draft documents. Did they show scans of alledged documents??

Didn't the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) already do that, passed around 2012 or so?New Bill Could Let President Imprison Americans

ONE OF THE most outrageous acts of Barack Obama’s presidency was his failure to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

The fiscal year 2012 NDAA included provisions that appeared to both codify and expand a power the executive branch had previously claimed to possess — namely, the power to hold individuals, including U.S. citizens, in military detention indefinitely — based on the Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress three days after 9/11.

The New York Times warned that the bill could “give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.” Not surprisingly, Obama’s decision generated enormous outcry across the political spectrum, from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, on the right to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on the left.

However, the NDAA did provide some weak restraints on the executive branch’s ability to use this power. In theory, the NDAA’s provisions only apply to someone involved with the 9/11 attacks or who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.”

But now, incredibly enough, a bipartisan group of six lawmakers, led by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., is proposing a new AUMF that would greatly expand who the president can place in indefinite military detention, all in the name of restricting presidential power. If the Corker-Kaine bill becomes law as currently written, any president, including Donald Trump, could plausibly claim extraordinarily broad power to order the military to imprison any U.S. citizen, captured in America or not, and hold them without charges essentially forever.

originally posted by: links234
Here comes the federal power grab!

How come when the DOJ does something so many of you all seem to like as in this ATS recent thread, DOJ Rules that Female Athletes Do Not Have To Compete Against Girls That Are Boys, you’re all buddy buddy and waving their flag?

It seems one federal power grab or intrusion into our lives and liberties is okay as long as it fits one’s agenda while others are not?

Face it, the government is all crooks, nobody's friend and will not let any crisis go to waste.

originally posted by: Kalamitous

originally posted by: links234
Here comes the federal power grab!

How come when the DOJ does something so many of you all seem to like as in this ATS recent thread, DOJ Rules that Female Athletes Do Not Have To Compete Against Girls That Are Boys, you’re all buddy buddy and waving their flag?

It seems one federal power grab or intrusion into our lives and liberties is okay as long as it fits one’s agenda while others are not?

Face it, the government is all crooks, nobody's friend and will not let any crisis go to waste.

Perhaps because the link you provided was fixing a rather obvious problem with women's rights and the OP is about a possible Federal power grab?

We are allowed to have different opinions on different topics.

If that's OK with you, of course.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: links234

Patriot Act times 10....

what you dont want to be a patriot?

""Documents reviewed by POLITICO""

Hmmm

😃

originally posted by: Lumenari
Perhaps because the link you provided was fixing a rather obvious problem with women's rights...

Playing devil's advocate mostly because whiskey and isolation ennui, obvious to whom? As a woman of (ahem) considerable chronological experience, when I think “women’s rights”, it includes those of trans girls. Go figure?

However, that was not the point I was trying to make or relevant to my post. The DOJ is demonized as either part of the dark evil empire stripping us of our unalienable rights or protector and arbiter of morality saving us from social changes some are unwilling to understand or make. It just seems kind of funny or paradoxical to me.

Regardless, we’re probably going to get screwed again one way or another? Patriot Act 2.0 here we come indeed. It seems inevitable and it doesn't feel like there's a damn thing we can do about it.

a reply to: Kalamitous

Oh I agree... it looks like a good screwing of the American citizenry is upon us again.

However...

Playing devil's advocate mostly because whiskey and isolation ennui, obvious to whom? As a woman of (ahem) considerable chronological experience, when I think “women’s rights”, it includes those of trans girls. Go figure?

Trans girls are actually biologically boys, if you haven't figured that out yet.

So when I speak of women's rights in the context of guys who want to be girls beating the piss out of girls in sports (quite literally in the case of sports like wrestling) I was talking about the actual women involved.

Hope that helped.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Hope that helped.

Since it's off topic, I'll just stick to the saying in my avatar and let this one go but thanks!

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: scraedtosleep
Has it actually been asked though?? I only seen Rand Paul reference politico claiming they have draft documents. Did they show scans of alledged documents??

Idk. At this point it's just a rumor.

please!

Let's stick to the topic????


Do NOT reply to this post.