TexasCHLforum.com

In a weird sort of way the presidents signing of the 2012 act to keep funding for our military and other agencies deemed by some proclamation to be defense oriented. This being said, it could be used as a gun control end around. It does contain verbiage allowing you or I to be detained without charge for an unspecified length of time, if there is a small piece of evidence that you could be a terrorist, or insurgent. the definition of those two terms is a broad as it gets
so if as legal firearm owning persons, make a statement that could be deemed as a threat, we could be detained and shipped to Guantanamo bay for an indefinite time. We already know that that big brother is scanning cell calls and emails and forums for certain words.
the president even went on to say he would not use the act to do such a thing.....but we all know elected officials say one thing then turn around and do the opposite.
Hitler did almost the same thing once he was in power and even dismantled the other bodies of government, like our congress.
with this act he could have the justice department essentially remove any congress person on the grounds they may be a terrorist. Imagine how dangerous this could be. its obvious to any normal person that congress does not have our countries best interest at heart.

in fact we could say the president and his administration plus many in congress are terrorists. How ? he/they has not secured the borders, he refuses to move forward with energy production here to make us NOT HELD HOSTAGE by foreign lands, I love that we exported more refined petroleum products last November than we imported, but it does not balance the scales.
we are being terrorized as Americans by a president and congress that wants us to be dependent on other governments. He wants us to be all one WORLD of people and take way our rights as US citizens
i know we must stop thinking out loud. didn't someone in DC pledge to close gitmo? before he changed his mind to keep it open?

I read somewhere that Obama himself insisted that the detention provision be included in the bill. I'd like to see some confirmation of that fact. If it is true, then we have one more instance of Obama driving the tyranny machine. We already have the Patriot Act. Why do we need further tools for the feds to go after U. S. citizens inside the U. S. borders? Well . . . the Patriot Act requires law enforcement to at least run it by a magistrate (even after the arrest or detention), whereas the new bill has no such magistrate requirement. This law takes us back to the days of King John in England, where you could be held in jail without trial, without even knowing what the accusation was. That's what spawned the Magna Carta, for Pete's sake. This federal government has just wiped out centuries of hard won freedom. Hold on to your guns and your ammo. Just sayin.'

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/42737.htm

...
During congressional debate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who co-sponsored the bill, said the Obama administration instructed him to keep U.S. citizens subject to the detention statutes.
...

No administration ever willingly gave up a power once granted (or asserted, grabbed, or inferred).

hi-power wrote:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/42737.htm

...
During congressional debate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who co-sponsored the bill, said the Obama administration instructed him to keep U.S. citizens subject to the detention statutes.
...

yes and thats what bothers me.
remember speaker pelosi telling the world that the tea party or anyone protesting bad government were on the lines of terrorists? then janet to say veterans were or could be homegrown terrorists.
but then she said the occupy nuts were OK

one swift order and we could all be on a plane with a black hood.

powerboatr wrote:

hi-power wrote:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/42737.htm

...
During congressional debate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who co-sponsored the bill, said the Obama administration instructed him to keep U.S. citizens subject to the detention statutes.
...

yes and thats what bothers me.
remember speaker pelosi telling the world that the tea party or anyone protesting bad government were on the lines of terrorists? then janet to say veterans were or could be homegrown terrorists.
but then she said the occupy nuts were OK

one swift order and we could all be on a plane with a black hood.

No, we won't...thanks to such fine men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. That is why the Second Amendment exists and why we have all these firearms and ammo...I'm telling you that people are looking at this the wrong way. It was meant to make it easier to round up and try 9-11 terrorists at Gitmo...Barry signed it because he doesn't want to look weak on terrorism. THAT is why he said he wouldn't use it, though, because his leftist ACLU buddies like the terrorists. But, hey, if you want to give the "Occupier-in-Chief" free promo for stuff I really don't think he has the intestinal fortitude to pull off, I can't stop you. I can't stand him in the least and I'll be overjoyed when he is gone. AND, I put very little past him IF he can get away with it...but I really don't think he can get away with mass detention of American citizens not DIRECTLY connected to 9-11 or Al Qaeda without some SERIOUS issues.

Is there anything this president won't do? I swear I remember liberals absolutely howling over the idea of wire taping people talking to known terrorists during the Bush admin. Where are they now? That was bad, this is FAR worse. This is 100% unconstitutional, it takes us back to pre-magna carta days! What was the president thinking?!? Moreover what were our senators and representatives thinking when they passed this monstrosity.

powerboatr wrote:if there is a small piece of evidence that you could be a terrorist, or insurgent. the definition of those two terms is a broad as it gets
so if as legal firearm owning persons

You're making an incorrect assumption here: NO EVIDENCE is required at all.....none, merely an assertion. Theoretically, there is no reason why anyone criticizing the war in Afghanistan or US aid to Israel can't be considered as giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies or the enemies of our "allies." The act does say "material support," so mere words probably can't put you in violation, but if say, you'd given money to some organization that made such criticisms, it might be a different matter. OTOH, since the detention order would be secret and you'd be held in a military prison in secret, indefinitely, and without trial, there would be no way of knowing whether or not your detention would be legal under the act anyway, so it all comes down to trusting any person who might exercise this power.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

powerboatr wrote:

hi-power wrote:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/42737.htm

...
During congressional debate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who co-sponsored the bill, said the Obama administration instructed him to keep U.S. citizens subject to the detention statutes.
...

yes and thats what bothers me.
remember speaker pelosi telling the world that the tea party or anyone protesting bad government were on the lines of terrorists? then janet to say veterans were or could be homegrown terrorists.
but then she said the occupy nuts were OK

one swift order and we could all be on a plane with a black hood.

No, we won't...thanks to such fine men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. That is why the Second Amendment exists and why we have all these firearms and ammo...I'm telling you that people are looking at this the wrong way. It was meant to make it easier to round up and try 9-11 terrorists at Gitmo...Barry signed it because he doesn't want to look weak on terrorism. THAT is why he said he wouldn't use it, though, because his leftist ACLU buddies like the terrorists. But, hey, if you want to give the "Occupier-in-Chief" free promo for stuff I really don't think he has the intestinal fortitude to pull off, I can't stop you. I can't stand him in the least and I'll be overjoyed when he is gone. AND, I put very little past him IF he can get away with it...but I really don't think he can get away with mass detention of American citizens not DIRECTLY connected to 9-11 or Al Qaeda without some SERIOUS issues.

I think we normally agree, but I have to disagree on this --to some extent at least. I agree that mass detention is unlikely, perhaps even impossible, short of some catastrophic event. However, there is no doubt that this power was INTENDED to be used against American citizens, since Congress voted against a proposal that would have specifically exempted American citizens. This act will eventually be used to make American citizens, and others, disappear. I think you're way too optimistic about how the government is going to define a "terrorist." Under this act a terrorist is anyone the government says is a terrorist --no evidence of wrongdoing is required, merely an assertion. Ultimately people will be arrested and detained on the mere word of some government official who will tell those executing the arrest and detention that the "evidence" proving the person is a terrorist is "secret." OTOH, I think it's also true that the government has already claimed the power granted in this act and the act just gives Congressional sanction.

"Terrorist" is just a word. You may associate the word with an image of a guy driving a truck bomb, but the act doesn't limit the definition, and It only means what the government and courts say it means. If you can be accused of being a "terrorist," or giving aid to terrorists, without evidence being presented in a court, and then imprisoned secretly and indefinitely, then there is no way to prevent the definition from being abused --and it will most certainly be abused; not immediately perhaps, but eventually, and of course, even if it is abused immediately, we'll probably never know, since it will all be done in secret. Furthermore, we're not talking about a battlefield in Afghanistan here, we're talking about what happens in the US: the Constitution doesn't limit due process to American citizens, it grants the same rights to all PERSONS, and "terrorists," foreign visitors, and illegal aliens, are all persons. You can be ACCUSED of being a bank robber, but you're not a bank robber until you're convicted in a court of law. A person in the US ACCUSED of being a "terrorist" shouldn't be a terrorist either, until it's proven in a court of law.

Mass roundups aren't necessary and would probably be counterproductive. The power to make people disappear is very effective even when just a few individuals disappear since it leaves the rest of us guessing about what happened. And if this power is used to make you disappear, it is unlikely your family will ever find out what happened to you, since your disappearance will be a national security secret. I view this act as the official beginning of a police state. It may take awhile for this power to be abused, but unless the SC revokes it by declaring it unconstitutional, it will eventually be abused, and it may be abused for a long time before anyone notices, because the number of people likely to be affected directly will probably be small, and from marginalized classes, like the Marine in Arizona whose killing was justified by the accusation that he was involved in the illegal drug trade.

And let's put this in context....the government claims it has killed most of the top Al Qaeda operatives; there have been no actual terrorist attacks in the US in ten years; and the same government claiming to need this power leaves our borders wide open. So why now?

Time for the Sheeple of America (those that can read) to review the steps taken by Adolf Hitler and his cronies to take control of Germany prior to WWII. Many Germans later stated that they were not aware of what they were signing on for, and that it sort of "crept up on them".

Here we go again...it is my belief that we have now firmly crossed the line.

VMI77 wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

powerboatr wrote:

hi-power wrote:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/42737.htm

...
During congressional debate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who co-sponsored the bill, said the Obama administration instructed him to keep U.S. citizens subject to the detention statutes.
...

yes and thats what bothers me.
remember speaker pelosi telling the world that the tea party or anyone protesting bad government were on the lines of terrorists? then janet to say veterans were or could be homegrown terrorists.
but then she said the occupy nuts were OK

one swift order and we could all be on a plane with a black hood.

No, we won't...thanks to such fine men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. That is why the Second Amendment exists and why we have all these firearms and ammo...I'm telling you that people are looking at this the wrong way. It was meant to make it easier to round up and try 9-11 terrorists at Gitmo...Barry signed it because he doesn't want to look weak on terrorism. THAT is why he said he wouldn't use it, though, because his leftist ACLU buddies like the terrorists. But, hey, if you want to give the "Occupier-in-Chief" free promo for stuff I really don't think he has the intestinal fortitude to pull off, I can't stop you. I can't stand him in the least and I'll be overjoyed when he is gone. AND, I put very little past him IF he can get away with it...but I really don't think he can get away with mass detention of American citizens not DIRECTLY connected to 9-11 or Al Qaeda without some SERIOUS issues.

I think we normally agree, but I have to disagree on this --to some extent at least. I agree that mass detention is unlikely, perhaps even impossible, short of some catastrophic event. However, there is no doubt that this power was INTENDED to be used against American citizens, since Congress voted against a proposal that would have specifically exempted American citizens. This act will eventually be used to make American citizens, and others, disappear. I think you're way too optimistic about how the government is going to define a "terrorist." Under this act a terrorist is anyone the government says is a terrorist --no evidence of wrongdoing is required, merely an assertion. Ultimately people will be arrested and detained on the mere word of some government official who will tell those executing the arrest and detention that the "evidence" proving the person is a terrorist is "secret." OTOH, I think it's also true that the government has already claimed the power granted in this act and the act just gives Congressional sanction.

"Terrorist" is just a word. You may associate the word with an image of a guy driving a truck bomb, but the act doesn't limit the definition, and It only means what the government and courts say it means. If you can be accused of being a "terrorist," or giving aid to terrorists, without evidence being presented in a court, and then imprisoned secretly and indefinitely, then there is no way to prevent the definition from being abused --and it will most certainly be abused; not immediately perhaps, but eventually, and of course, even if it is abused immediately, we'll probably never know, since it will all be done in secret. Furthermore, we're not talking about a battlefield in Afghanistan here, we're talking about what happens in the US: the Constitution doesn't limit due process to American citizens, it grants the same rights to all PERSONS, and "terrorists," foreign visitors, and illegal aliens, are all persons. You can be ACCUSED of being a bank robber, but you're not a bank robber until you're convicted in a court of law. A person in the US ACCUSED of being a "terrorist" shouldn't be a terrorist either, until it's proven in a court of law.

Mass roundups aren't necessary and would probably be counterproductive. The power to make people disappear is very effective even when just a few individuals disappear since it leaves the rest of us guessing about what happened. And if this power is used to make you disappear, it is unlikely your family will ever find out what happened to you, since your disappearance will be a national security secret. I view this act as the official beginning of a police state. It may take awhile for this power to be abused, but unless the SC revokes it by declaring it unconstitutional, it will eventually be abused, and it may be abused for a long time before anyone notices, because the number of people likely to be affected directly will probably be small, and from marginalized classes, like the Marine in Arizona whose killing was justified by the accusation that he was involved in the illegal drug trade.

And let's put this in context....the government claims it has killed most of the top Al Qaeda operatives; there have been no actual terrorist attacks in the US in ten years; and the same government claiming to need this power leaves our borders wide open. So why now?

...you have a clear insight into and understanding of the big picture here...ugly, ain't it...by the time most folks come to agree with you, it'll be too late...

I have agreed since reading about this SEVERAL months ago.

I am also afraid the FEMA camps are going to the the detention Centers.

VMI77 wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

powerboatr wrote:

hi-power wrote:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/42737.htm

...
During congressional debate, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who co-sponsored the bill, said the Obama administration instructed him to keep U.S. citizens subject to the detention statutes.
...

yes and thats what bothers me.
remember speaker pelosi telling the world that the tea party or anyone protesting bad government were on the lines of terrorists? then janet to say veterans were or could be homegrown terrorists.
but then she said the occupy nuts were OK

one swift order and we could all be on a plane with a black hood.

No, we won't...thanks to such fine men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. That is why the Second Amendment exists and why we have all these firearms and ammo...I'm telling you that people are looking at this the wrong way. It was meant to make it easier to round up and try 9-11 terrorists at Gitmo...Barry signed it because he doesn't want to look weak on terrorism. THAT is why he said he wouldn't use it, though, because his leftist ACLU buddies like the terrorists. But, hey, if you want to give the "Occupier-in-Chief" free promo for stuff I really don't think he has the intestinal fortitude to pull off, I can't stop you. I can't stand him in the least and I'll be overjoyed when he is gone. AND, I put very little past him IF he can get away with it...but I really don't think he can get away with mass detention of American citizens not DIRECTLY connected to 9-11 or Al Qaeda without some SERIOUS issues.

I think we normally agree, but I have to disagree on this --to some extent at least. I agree that mass detention is unlikely, perhaps even impossible, short of some catastrophic event. However, there is no doubt that this power was INTENDED to be used against American citizens, since Congress voted against a proposal that would have specifically exempted American citizens. This act will eventually be used to make American citizens, and others, disappear. I think you're way too optimistic about how the government is going to define a "terrorist." Under this act a terrorist is anyone the government says is a terrorist --no evidence of wrongdoing is required, merely an assertion. Ultimately people will be arrested and detained on the mere word of some government official who will tell those executing the arrest and detention that the "evidence" proving the person is a terrorist is "secret." OTOH, I think it's also true that the government has already claimed the power granted in this act and the act just gives Congressional sanction.

"Terrorist" is just a word. You may associate the word with an image of a guy driving a truck bomb, but the act doesn't limit the definition, and It only means what the government and courts say it means. If you can be accused of being a "terrorist," or giving aid to terrorists, without evidence being presented in a court, and then imprisoned secretly and indefinitely, then there is no way to prevent the definition from being abused --and it will most certainly be abused; not immediately perhaps, but eventually, and of course, even if it is abused immediately, we'll probably never know, since it will all be done in secret. Furthermore, we're not talking about a battlefield in Afghanistan here, we're talking about what happens in the US: the Constitution doesn't limit due process to American citizens, it grants the same rights to all PERSONS, and "terrorists," foreign visitors, and illegal aliens, are all persons. You can be ACCUSED of being a bank robber, but you're not a bank robber until you're convicted in a court of law. A person in the US ACCUSED of being a "terrorist" shouldn't be a terrorist either, until it's proven in a court of law.

Mass roundups aren't necessary and would probably be counterproductive. The power to make people disappear is very effective even when just a few individuals disappear since it leaves the rest of us guessing about what happened. And if this power is used to make you disappear, it is unlikely your family will ever find out what happened to you, since your disappearance will be a national security secret. I view this act as the official beginning of a police state. It may take awhile for this power to be abused, but unless the SC revokes it by declaring it unconstitutional, it will eventually be abused, and it may be abused for a long time before anyone notices, because the number of people likely to be affected directly will probably be small, and from marginalized classes, like the Marine in Arizona whose killing was justified by the accusation that he was involved in the illegal drug trade.

And let's put this in context....the government claims it has killed most of the top Al Qaeda operatives; there have been no actual terrorist attacks in the US in ten years; and the same government claiming to need this power leaves our borders wide open. So why now?

Okay, I understand what you are saying. The definition of "terrorist" is basically undefined, for starters. The act, now signed into law, removes basic protections under the law from ANYONE "deemed" a terrorist, and since they don't have to say what those actions were, even the tiniest of pretense can then be used to say "he was a terrorist". And we most assuredly agree on the government, in general, over-reaching on just about anything...its just a matter of how much over-reach there is and in what direction, with any given administration. And the current administration LOVES the over-reach. But, the thing I'm not understanding is why the ACLU is upset on this one? And please, no one insult my intelligence by suggesting that they actually care about "civil rights". They care about the "rights" of select groups, usually associated with the left, when it suits their ideological agenda. That is what had me thinking it must be a mis-interpretation or something.

I don't think anyone's intelligence is ever questioned or meant to be inferred

the group will be small at first, think about the statements made by this and even previous administrations.

most recently, to the war time veterans. Some are on already on the list, simply because of their advanced training and ability to net results in the most arduous of assignments. then they are discharged or give it up to, save a marriage, are tired of over abundance of re-deployments, all humans have stressors that send them over the edge.
we as Americans enjoy and defend with fervor our right to speak our minds and try to make change when things are not right. we have elections and we write millions of letters to get attention and maybe make a difference.
now through in the group of "occupiers" they could be loosely defined as possible terrorists, they did in fact harass folks trying to get to work, and folks simply living near the groups base camps, they even stopped and closed several ports. that in itself could be an act of terrorism by interrupting commerce. funny thing was the union guys were pee oood and i don't think they felt threatened by the protestors. but the ports were closed.

back to us veterans, and how some in office feel we are the next home-growns or recruits because of training, experience, etc.

now add in a simple email letter to a friend about a fictitious story
include the key words that are being scanned for and see how long it takes before a dhs plated vehicle shows up at your door
I know some people in another state that are seriously scared to speak bad of the potus or his actions.
i am not worried, if i disappear, it would be noticed. maybe not found, but at least missed. , i have been to gitmo on more than one occasion it has great fishing there.
I worked in a place that was super snoopy about all of our communications inter office and out of the office to other groups.
you know the the saying about not poking the bears.....some people simply by nature of their job have no sense of humor.

we shall speak our minds to educate and help make change without violence or the like.
we should always have intelligent discussions so we are educated

education is always the key, and the best weapon

Heartland Patriot wrote:Okay, I understand what you are saying. The definition of "terrorist" is basically undefined, for starters. The act, now signed into law, removes basic protections under the law from ANYONE "deemed" a terrorist, and since they don't have to say what those actions were, even the tiniest of pretense can then be used to say "he was a terrorist". And we most assuredly agree on the government, in general, over-reaching on just about anything...its just a matter of how much over-reach there is and in what direction, with any given administration. And the current administration LOVES the over-reach. But, the thing I'm not understanding is why the ACLU is upset on this one? And please, no one insult my intelligence by suggesting that they actually care about "civil rights". They care about the "rights" of select groups, usually associated with the left, when it suits their ideological agenda. That is what had me thinking it must be a mis-interpretation or something.

Well, I guess you could look at the ACLU as supporting a select group....Muslims....since as a group they will likely be first and most affected. I don't think there will be any immediate effect for most people --they'll be going after people on the margins, but the use of this power will spread just as the use of other power, like the "war on drugs," has spread. And the indefinite detention aspect is particularly troubling. I was reading an article that pointed out that even Stalin didn't use indefinite detention.....for example, when Solzhenitsyn was sent to the Gulag for writing a letter considered "anti-Soviet," he was given a defined sentence: 8 years. We're being told America is a "battlefield" in war without end. If these people are so dangerous as to warrant indefinite detention, why not execute them? What is the logic of ever releasing them anyway? If you were held for five or ten years in Gitmo without charges or trial what would you do when you got out? Would it matter if you weren't a terrorist before you were sent there?

The whole premise the act is based on is ridiculous because while "terrorists" might kill innocent people from time to time, they simply don't have the resources to destroy, vanquish, or even do major harm to this country. In other words, they don't present a threat that justifies undermining the Constitution. For comparison, consider the amount of bombing we did in the very small country of Vietnam...they didn't surrender, nor were they vanquished --and terrorists simply do not have even the resources to do to us what we did in Vietnam.

Terrorism is not an existential threat to the US, but destruction of the Constitution certainly is. And there is additional context I forgot to consider before.....look at this guy in the Oval Office, he just this week said publicly that if Congress doesn't do what he wants he's going do whatever he wants anyway. I don't believe there is very much difference in intestinal fortitude between our Congress and the Roman Senate that allowed Caligula to make a his horse, Incitatus, a Senator. Obama probably won't try to make is dog a Senator though, because it would just add gravitas to the Senate.