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.


Senate votes to pass defense authorization bill that includes a new policy for detaining, trying ter

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 10:31 PM

Originally posted by isthisreallife

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Yeah but with numbers that high -- there is a strong chance that the veto will be null and void with an override back in Congress. Tis scary but there is still hope that during reconciliation of the two bills -- from each respective House -- that the language is neutered or removed; wishful thinking is night time trait of mine.

I was saying the same thing. I believe that Obama could use a nullified veto to his advantage later on in the campaign trail. That is why he would veto it, not necessarily because he disagrees with it.

If you're wishful thinking I can't blame you. I was just hoping the MSM would pick it up and run with it....

I gathered that was what you were saying -- just wanted to also concur I suppose. Sadly and yes it is sad that I believe the president -- just as other presidents have done -- will use this for political purposes and has no care of what the language actually entails.

This is a classic example of the "right hand doing something left hand has no clue of". Departments within the Executive are heralding this type of "enforcement and authority" while the White House says it is bad. It is all of course a political game and all for show.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by SunnyDee

Dear SunnyDee,

Passing 93-7 is a VERY bad sign. That means both parties have agreed to this essentially. And if both parties in the senate agree, it seems the house would be following in a similar direction.

It is worse than that, if the house passes it with the same ratio then they can override the Presidents veto.

Yep, I forgot that, but what is the amount needed? 2/3 vote in favor?

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by SunnyDee

Dear SunnyDee,

I don't know the ratio and stopped caring a long time ago. Politics is a charade, it is a show and nothing more. It is a blame game used to keep us from seeing the real issues. 2/3rds or 4/5ths, it doesn't really matter, they will have enough or he will become our hero. Either way it is a show. Sorry for the cynicism. I didn't mean to critique you, just bringing it up. What should amaze us is that 93% of our senators reject the constitution. They believe the no rules matter, that everything is about self-interest and that suffering is okay when it is the other person and it benefits you. 93% of our senators don't care about you or me, they only care about themselves. That is evil. Peace.

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Yep, I forgot that, but what is the amount needed? 2/3 vote in favor?

The House passed their version back on May 26th, 2011. H.R. 1540 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 with a vote of 322 to 96.

The House version, at least from what I have read in the their bill, does not include the provisions from the Senate version. This is actually a good thing -- reason being is reconciliation has to happen before the bill is presented to the President for signature or veto.

Here are some possible outcomes:

During reconciliation there is contentious and heated battle over the language from the Senate bill S. 1867 and the language is axed during the process. In this case...start hammering away at your Representatives that such language is unacceptable and should not be part of the final joint bill.

The language is adopted by both Houses and passes as such and the president fulfills his promise to veto the bill. Here is where those in Congress would shine if they want to actually show they are for the People -- While they sold their souls to include the language, they now have an opportunity to redeem themselves and stand united to not override the veto and it becomes a WIN-WIN (for the President and for those who stopped the override). We still lose frankly because its another bill from the drunken sailors that occupy the Congress.

The language is adopted by both Houses and the President once again shows he has no statesmanship and doesn't veto the bill. We are all screwed because quite frankly, if the White House lawyers say it is the Executive and not the Judicial on who gets assassinated and who doesn't -- who is to say that the language wouldn't be construed to fulfill their purposes.


Points to remember:

-- S. 1867 is not going to the President's desk -- instead it has to be reconciled with H.R. 1540 first.

-- This is some slight good news because I do not believe that the language in S. 1867 is in H.R. 1540 (at least I couldn't find it; if you have, please let us all know so we can rejoice in how screwed over we are).

-- Hammer away on your Representatives and let them know they can join us in the soup lines next year if they want to pass this bill with such language.

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

Disregard prior, apparently the bill is titled for fiscal 2012.

Yet fiscal 2012 already started on Oct 1st.

The budget is a mess.
edit on 2/12/11 by MikeboydUS because: correction

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link has some interesting notes on the subject that could be disturbing...

"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens,” Christopher Anders of the ACLU tells the Associated Press.

For the biggest supporters of the bill, however, history necessitates that Americans must sacrifice their security for freedom.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a backer of the legislation, says current laws protecting Americans are too lax. Rather, says the senator, anyone suspected of terrorism "should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer."


... Waterboarding, sleep-deprivation and other methods outlawed in the 2005 Anti-Torture Act will be added to a top-secret list of approved interrogation techniques that could be used on suspects, American or other.

Was there freedom to sacrifice to start with? heheh,

Probably don't want to know what some of those "approved techniques" could be if they have to be top secret...

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by redbarron626
nice to wish , but if you read the bill S1867, there is too much to lose to let it not become law, if Obama vetoes this he is anti vet, anti defense, anti home land, anti Air force, Navy,and Army, if he does pass this, then he is anti citizen er protester. He has but one choice but to sign it in to law , the good news is he will have20 to 90 days to make some changes to amendments, or can over ride them the lawyers are at work now.

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by AQuestion
Senate are traitors to the constitution.


posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by isthisreallife

I found this, but have no idea if it's true or not, as in, don't know if this source is reliable.
Seems like anybody who the guberment deems a terrorist could be arrested now. Including people who have stored food for more than 7 days or people missing fingers (handling explosives?). Is this for real? I can't believe this!

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by isthisreallife

Its time for the elections, lets see who, is arrested as a terrorist, and who will make those claims the White House, or the FBI with there intrapment machine, i won't vote for any who feels that we the WHITEs should go to jail, while the DOJ says its ok the have AK-47s at bebes bbq. pipes at polling places, and give guns the drug dealers,

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by lazydaisy67

Its there way, of starting an issue blacks against whites, yes a race issue, thanks to the DOJ, won't go after black on white crimes, but goes after white on black crimes. in Az, two illegals tresspass, on a farm, get butt whoop, get arrested, judge rules in there favor, takes farm away from owner and rewards the illegals. four thousand acres. and people keep quiet, vote no more of this and insider trading, we get benefit cuts in ssi, and they make millions in stock trades

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 12:13 PM
i'd like to know where the government is getting all the money for this crap....because i sure as hell ain't paying for way...i refuse to pay income taxes...back in 1994, i was supposed to get a tax refund of nearly $2600, and was told i wasn;t going to get it, by the irs....they wouldn't give a reason....that's when i decided it was time to stop paying income taxes..and refuse to let any employer take any money out of my paychecks...# the government...i'm tired of getting burned

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
If alqueda is such a big threat then why the hell are they supporting the muslim brotherhood in the middle east??

I think we have a bunch of double-faced pricks in washington..worse then EVER before!

$800 billion for the military to detain "suspected terrorists" when social security, medicaid and medicare is going down the drain. What the hell is a suspected terrorist and why are they not allowed attorneys and detained INDEFINITELY? If that is not gestapo in action then I really do not know what is......Even mossad plays better than that on the palestinians.

93% of the senate, both republicans and democrats, are traitors. I am going to vote for SPUSA from now on, you can bank on that, And when SPUSA #s me over I am going to vote for the Green Party.

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by EvilBat

I always had respect for Bernie Sanders, and Rand Paul, he just got more points in my book. He is a true fiscal conservative, seriously more props to him. I don't agree with many things Rand Paul supports, and I'd probably oppose him on many issues, but, when it comes to spending, Rand Paul is really demonstrating consistency in his stances. I wonder what happened to the other Tea party freshman.....

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

I wonder what happened to the other Tea party freshman.....

They primarily support cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare.

After all, IT IS the american way..pun intended!

If you don't agree with the military spending trillions each year, then you are deemed anti-american. The democrats agreed with everything Bush&Cheney pushed so they are just as guility, if not more so, because they supposedly back democracy.

I wish we could wake up from this DHS nightmare and make-believe alquedism.

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:33 PM
Can anyone confirm this report;


December 1, 2011

( – (Updated) The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

See my answer in the other thread you brought this up in Xuenchen. It is confirmed and is part of the many facets of the UCMJ that need to be modified to reflect the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Though I am wondering why they didn't just propose an amended Article 125 of the UCMJ that kept intercourse with an animal in as a punitive measure -- but honestly; such doesn't matter. Since engaging in such act as a member of the Armed Forces can fall under many other different Articles of the UCMJ.

When I was in, we were always told -- in a semi jovial manner -- that having sex in any other way than missionary is in direct violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ. So really, ridding some of the ridiculous prohibited acts from that Article is understandable (and needed to accommodate same-sex intercourse).

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:03 AM
It's actually kind of frightening.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by dreamnomore

What is far more frightening is other governmental and military powers included in this bill, explained in this thread:

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in