It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We can now be detained.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:59 PM
According to this link, we can now be detained INDEFINATELY.
Any innocent U.S. citizen can now be detained and held forever without due process- on suspicion of "terrorism."
Considering if you fit a description of someone who commited a crime you can be held for 24 hours unless proven guilty... then, what is the description of being linked to "terrorism?"
I guess we'll never know...
Police state sooner than we imagined?


posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:06 PM
BTW this hasn't been passed nor will it ever be passed and the day it is passed is the day we need a revolution.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:36 PM
Actually it already has been pased...well here in Australia it has im pretty shure.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:39 PM
Why say we can now be detained, when its completely untrue? THe article only hints at the the proposed law, designed to address the SCOTUS' concerns over the Gitmo tribunals, could be used on US citizens. Even if it directly said that citizens can be detained permanently without trial, it'd only be a proposed law (and of course a bad one at that).

So why make a statement that is essentially false like that? All this serves to do is function like chicken little, complain about the sky falling enough, and eventually people won't listen.

Anyway, the issue to look at in terms of detaining US citizens is the Padilla Case, and it seems that the government has ruled that padilla has to have access to the civilian courts and civilian law.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:56 PM

Even the mere fact that this law is be presented for approval should have the entire nation in an uproar which should shake the White House on it´s foundations don´t you think?

What kind of a law proposal is THAT?

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:27 PM
No, why?

Its a law about the tribunals. The SCOTUS said that the current tribunals weren't constituted properly, and that specific acts from congress would be needed.

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

But, again, whats the point of arguing hypotheticals here? The basic statements in the Opening Post are wrong.

top topics

log in