S.1867: Can they really detain us? Let's find out.

Originally posted by 412304


Ahhhh.... ignorance.... its bliss....

Searching for the truth , challenging my own way of thinking and asking questions is ignorant?

Hmmm.....

Then I am ignorant as all get out.

Originally posted by Solasis


Now you're showing that you're making another mistake of confusion; you're confusing what "should" be -- the bill of rights SHOULD trump this law -- with what actually is -- the fact that there's a chance that the constitution will be ignored in the execution of this law. In philosophy, we call that the "ought-is" distinction.

To be honest, that was a thought I had after I posted that... That even if the bill of rights trumps this other bill, who is to say Washington will obey that? So, point taken as far as that goes.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Lets say a US citizen commits an act of terrorism against the United States. They will be arrested and detained until the trial they are given ( As per our rights) proves them guilty or innocent.

Or they will be declared an enemy combatant and held until the cessation of hostilities, TBD, indefinitely. This hasn't happened to a US citizen (yet), but it happened to Bensayah Belkacem. He petitioned for habeas corpus and the judge returned him to Gitmo. No plane ticket home, and no trial for him. The only difference between Belkacem and a citizen is that Belkacem must be held by the military, but a citizen can be held by somebody else--the Federal prison system, maybe. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the government would decide not to charge a citizen enemy combatant, and let them go at the end of hostilities, but it remains possible under HR 1540.

Your mistake, I think, is in relying on the Sixth Amendment "right to a fair trial." The Sixth applies to "criminal proceedings," not military detention. There is no requirement that a citizen enemy combatant, held solely under the AUMF, be given a trial. It is only required that they receive due process (Fifth Amendment), which is the ability to challenge their combatant status (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). In other words, you have the right to a fair trial, but only when you have the right to a trial. Being an enemy combatant doesn't entitle you to a trial, only being a criminal does. And the government does not have to charge enemy combatants with crimes.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by 412304


Ahhhh.... ignorance.... its bliss....

Searching for the truth , challenging my own way of thinking and asking questions is ignorant?

Hmmm.....

edit on 15-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

No but being ignorant of the evil american government and having the mind set of a 5 year old that thinks the government will always be the good guy and could do no wrong... The hell? did you just come from another planet? You dont remember 9/11????!!!! How many times has the president lied??? B-b-b-b-but the president doesnt lie, he runs the country! HE CANT LIE TO US!!! Well he just did.

And Santa isnt real.

Okay guys let me say something here.

There have been great points made by so many and I want to let you all know I appreciate you all.

I started this thread under the impression that I was correct and that US Citizens could not be detained indefinitely.

But you guys have pushed right back and I am as impressed as ever.


I admit, that I think it is very unlikely such a thing will ever happen. I concede my point that it is not possible.

I am seeing now, that yeah, it is at least possible and the very fact that such a thing is possible, scares the hell out of me.

I don't think such a thing will happen, but really, I have no choice but to admit, it is in fact possible.

Originally posted by 412304


No but being ignorant of the evil american government and having the mind set of a 5 year old that thinks the government will always be the good guy and could do no wrong... The hell? did you just come from another planet? You dont remember 9/11????!!!! How many times has the president lied??? B-b-b-b-but the president doesnt lie, he runs the country! HE CANT LIE TO US!!! Well he just did.

And Santa isnt real.

Did I say any of that? I have said numerous times that I may very well be wrong. I have said many times that I am just looking for answers and in fact, you posted this as I was conceding the possibility.

I was looking for answers and I got them. There is no reason that I can see to call me or anyone else in this thread ignorant. We worked together to come to a conclusion. Honestly it would be ignorant to NOT explore all sides and possibilities.

Do me a favor and stop jumping to conclusions about me. Because it was an ignorant thing of you to do.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
What you seem to miss with all your Constitution and Bill of Rights nonsense is that the US is in a state of Emergency and has been so for ten years now.

Since the introduction of the Patriot Act and Emergency Powers, the Constitution/Bill of Rights are suspended.

I really need to find a YouTube video of Perry Cox from Scrubs doing his "wrong wrong wrong wrong" song for when people post stuff like this. Ah, here it is:

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Just ignore the hate, haha. Even if you were wrong and insistent on your opinion, gives no one the right to bull you. ATS is full of bullies who troll threads for ego boosts. You've been sincere and open minded this whole time. : )

A couple of points that may help you:

1. Ignore the people who are just trying to make fun of you. They are only distracting you. It is important that everyone understand what is happening, which is why many of us are working so hard to explain it.

2. Citizens in a nation being usurped by tyrants NEVER think anything like this can happen, which is why it has happened rather often in history. People are unwilling to think their government would be so blatantly tyrannical, and so they wait until it is far too late to stand up for what they think is right. At that point they have little choice but to comply with whatever rules are imposed upon them. You may have never thought SWAT teams could bust down your door, shoot your dogs and point their firearms at your children just because they SUSPECT you to have some drugs, but they can, and they have. You may have never thought a campus policeman could spray pepper spray directly into the faces of a few kids just sitting on the ground threatening noone, but they can, and they have. Understand?

reply to post by ConspiracyTruth


Thank you, it does not bother me. Such anger is pretty much par for the course. Hey, that's why it is called the political madness forum.

On ATS you have to have a pretty thick skin( After 4 years my skin is like a tank ) and not be afraid of being wrong. It happens sometimes. Asking questions and being wrong is the only way to learn

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Isn't there a lawyer amongst all of here at ATS, that could clear this up ????This debate has been going on for days on end on thread after thread! In my opinion , if the bill doesn't specifically preclude citizens from detention, than off they'll go as everyone fears.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
What you seem to miss with all your Constitution and Bill of Rights nonsense is that the US is in a state of Emergency and has been so for ten years now.

Since the introduction of the Patriot Act and Emergency Powers, the Constitution/Bill of Rights are suspended.

I really need to find a YouTube video of Perry Cox from Scrubs doing his "wrong wrong wrong wrong" song for when people post stuff like this. Ah, here it is:

If i come across as a smart-ass bully please note that is not my intention.

I value Gimme some truth as a member and have no ill feelings towards him whatsoever.

Gimme if i have offended you please accept my humble apologies.

I am jaded and cynical and very very tired...

...i am also sadly CORRECT.

Cosmic..

reply to post by Cosmic4life


No need to apologize at all.

You have been very nice and pleasant in your posts, as always.

I've much respect for you.

I admit though, it scares the hell out of me having to admit that it is at least possible that such a thing could happen.... Scares me to death.

Sometimes I am wrong and I never have any problem admitting it...I didn't want to admit it this time. I wanted so much to be right...Can you blame me?

I wanted so much to finally put this debate to rest and to be able to bring the smiles back on peoples faces...

What happened was that I had to concede and admit, that yeah, it sure as hell seems possible and I hate that.

I'm sorry but if this bill really was harmless shouldn't obama be the one on ats telling us all to relax? Sorry but i'm not going to trust some random poster telling me to relax and considering this thread only has seven flags i'm not in the minority with this thought.

Originally posted by filosophia
I'm sorry but if this bill really was harmless shouldn't obama be the one on ats telling us all to relax? Sorry but i'm not going to trust some random poster telling me to relax and considering this thread only has seven flags i'm not in the minority with this thought.

You should read through the full thread ( If you have not). It is a good read and I even added to my own OP, admitting that I was wrong in stating so certainly that I was right....

I have since conceded that it is at least, possible. I wish I could still say that I think I am right...But I just can't.

Now I feel certain that it is very highly unlikely that such a thing is likely, but I admit that it is possible.

By the way, if you really expect President Obama to come onto ATS and tell us to relax, you are going to be waiting a long time. Please note, I have said many times in this thread that I may be wrong and that I am looking for help to find answers to questions and I even conceded that it is possible for such a thing to happen, albeit, very unlikely.

As for the relax part, well, it was just a suggestion.... But if you don't want to be relaxed, that is your prerogative.

As for the flags, well, flags are given as a pat on the back when a person thinks an OP was well written and researched and thought out. So if anything, the "lack" of flags can only be attributed to my crappy writing skills

But don't let that blind you to the fact that this is a wonderful thread with very great points made and many unanswered questions, being answered.

Happy posting.

Rude rude rude. Gimme tells you he believes there is no reason to worry
after reading the language of the bill and people go ape s*** on him. Is it the
"Dirty Hippie" on his avatar? That's like smelling blood in the water by trolling sharks.
Anyway, to say he doesn't know a thing of what he speaks is ridiculously rude.
And to say this expert says this or that, doesn't clear a damn thing up for me.
There is a ad banner that is at the top of ATS that says "prominent Economist warns etc"
That's no economist, that's a shill for NewsMax that used to be an economist maybe.
Should I get all my economic news from him?
So many knowledgeable constitutional scholars on this thread where do I begin?
Where were all of you when Cheney was taking a d*** on our constitutional rights?
Oh yeah, fighting hippies.

this was a good read, very civil. No nasty trolling and mean comments.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


"including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
is defined as any individual anywhere in the world who has either been involved in the planning or the execution of a act of terrorism under the employ of a recognized terrorist organization as defined by The US Dept Of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency and is not extended nor modified to include the global Occupy movement!

This is what I am able to ascertain from this using my extensive knowledge of US domestic and foreign policy and US law and can assure all that this is the correct stance.

What interesting is the need for interpretation. Why is there a need? Why isn't it clear? Why is the language ambiguous to most people? Why is the language buried in a 600 page bill? Since there are millions of laws already, and there has NEVER, NOT ONCE, been a case where a policing agency has thrown their hands up and said 'if only we had this law we could arrest this guy..." This has NEVER happened, so why the new wording if it really isn't needed? Why is there no end to the rule change, say, when the war is over?

How about this: No American Citizen, no matter what the suspicion or crime, can be held without the right to: hear the evidence against the, right to confront witnesses and a speedy trial on explicitly described charges.

Wouldn't that make everyone feel better, wouldn't that work in relation to the Constitution? Wouldn't that eliminate any confusion at all?

The only reason they don't say that, is because they don't mean it. There is no other reason. If you have ever sat in a contract meeting, the words are haggled over for hours, each "an" and "a" are vetted endlessly. They chose "not required" for a reason, as this means "you can do it without issue, but it is not required to be done." The inclusion of the "not required" does NOT mean the same thing as: Cannot be detained under the terms of this law without due process as established by the Constitution. Adding this language would make it unambiguous and this is not the point of this law.

Frankly, I rather shocked they did put in the disclaimer "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about..."

Alright guys, I ended up putting off my errands because I got sucked back into the thread.

So, I have to go run those errands and will be back.