Thread: Legally detaining American citizens indefinitely and without trial

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

no but the one in the US was.

Would it surprise you to learn that during the time of the civil war there were slave owners in the North?

I DO treat these laws as illegal... Which is one reason why I'd love to be on a jury for a drug-related charge (or something related to THIS) because I could nullify the law. Now we just need to convince everyone else in the United States to nullify senseless marijuana prohibition and the detainment of American citizens... (Although if they are detained without a trial... that could pose a problem to the whole "nullification" deal...)

Originally Posted by cmind

Would it surprise you to learn that during the time of the civil war there were slave owners in the North?

Lol it would surprise me yes but it would also be irrelevant. The emancipation proclamation did not go "And from hence forward we are going to be a corrupt, overbearing and centralized government with no responsibility to the constitution or rights of the people"

Originally Posted by cmind

Oh, was Confederacy a bad word? Canada is a confederacy. Does that mean we're all slave owners?

It has fuck all to do with what you call it. Perhaps I'm not up on my Civil War history, but I don't see what that example has to do with the matter at hand.

And if you're referring to the emancipation proclamation, that's irrelevant because congress had nothing to do with it; it was an executive order issued by Lincoln himself and nothing else.

Well, I guess this comment:

Originally Posted by Supernova

Really? The confederacy? Really???

is just beyond my understanding.

Originally Posted by cmind

Well, I guess this comment:



is just beyond my understanding.

Ok, emotions are difficult to convey in his format, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase: "You're bringing up the confederacy right now? For what purpose?"

I don't understand, the USA already has this policy. It was part of the Patriot Act, Title II, which is also unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Ok, emotions are difficult to convey in his format, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase: "You're bringing up the confederacy right now? For what purpose?"

Someone had said that if the congress passes something unlawful, there are certain things the citizens can do to repeal the law, such as go to the courts or in the extreme case, secede. The civil war forever closed the door on keeping the government in check. The Confederacy was the absolute greatest chance anyone ever had (and ever will have) at a secession. And they failed.

I don't think it is hopeless though. The states can still nullify federal laws and even secede. The problem is that there is no one left who understands this as they all think that states' rights equate to slavery. Those who know better think it is extremism at best.

Many states are waking up though, albeit slowly.

Originally Posted by Never

I don't think it is hopeless though. The states can still nullify federal laws and even secede. The problem is that there is no one left who understands this as they all think that states' rights equate to slavery. Those who know better think it is extremism at best.

Many states are waking up though, albeit slowly.

Repeal the 17th Amendment! Give the States their power back!

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Repeal the 17th Amendment! Give the States their power back!

We need also to revise many others, especially the sections that say "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation".

Oh look,

Paul calls Senate

The Tea Party guy cares more about freedom than democrats.

Spineless cowards. I wish I could get my hands on some of these people, if they can be classified as such.

Originally Posted by cmind

Oh look,

Paul calls Senate

The Tea Party guy cares more about freedom than democrats.

Learned from his father, the main opponent to the PATRIOT Act, and one of the only Representatives to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. I'm glad that he supports freedom, takes balls for a Freshman Senator to actually stand up for citizens.

The amendment is still in there, he just killed the part that would have allowed detainment AFTER a trial to be legal, even if you're found innocent. Now you can be detained... but you HAVE to be released when found innocent (although they don't HAVE to give you a trial.)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Learned from his father, the main opponent to the PATRIOT Act, and one of the only Representatives to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. I'm glad that he supports freedom, takes balls for a Freshman Senator to actually stand up for citizens.

The amendment is still in there, he just killed the part that would have allowed detainment AFTER a trial to be legal, even if you're found innocent. Now you can be detained... but you HAVE to be released when found innocent (although they don't HAVE to give you a trial.)

Still, this kind of news must be giving Obama supporters pause.

I don't think anything but liberty gives them pause.

Originally Posted by cmind

Still, this kind of news must be giving Obama supporters pause.

Mainstream Liberals are just like Mainstream Conservatives; convinced to believe that their party is actually "better than the alternative." Obama hasn't done anything serious that he promised, just like Bush didn't do what he promised (specifically non-interventionism).

People should support PEOPLE, not PARTIES. If Democrats wanted to elect a President they actually AGREED with, they'd support Kucinich. But instead they are bought-over by the big-money candidates like Hillary and Barack who overshadow the candidates that vote with their ideals in Congress, like Kucinich, and Paul, (and now Senator Paul). He is a true Tea-Partier, a Tea Partier who doesn't hate other races, who doesn't call Obama a "Muslim Terrorist," and is actually a low-tax libertarian. Buuut even the Tea Party got bought and sold by "Mainstream" conservatives (something that "Mainstream" liberals are trying to do to #Occupy, but so far no luck.)

/rant

Originally Posted by cmind

The civil war forever closed the door on keeping the government in check.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

So this year's Defense Department Authorization Bill (which passes every year, basically updates the duties of the DoD) has included a change that will allow American citizens to be detained without trial indefinitely, because it would declare American soil part of the "battlefield." The Udall Amendment was drafted to repeal that particular line of legislation, but the Udall Amendment failed.

So, if anyone, for example Occupy protestors, are declared "hostile" (that is the word used, engaging in hostilities) they can be imprisoned without trial.

Chances are good that this will pass... although a couple White House officials are threatening a veto.

Thoughts?

The suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is protected by law; under the United States Constitution, to be precise.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by PR0G4P4RV18

The suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is protected by law; under the United States Constitution, to be precise.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:


Thoughts?

We are not in a state of rebellion or invasion (although if things continue as they are long enough this can only end one way).

Originally Posted by Supernova

We are not in a state of rebellion or invasion (although if things continue as they are long enough this can only end one way).

(I don't see where you're going with that. Please explain.)

Forgive my ignorance, but at the present time, has the government detained someone and violated the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
If so, give a specific instance.

Originally Posted by PR0G4P4RV18

(I don't see where you're going with that. Please explain.)

Forgive my ignorance, but at the present time, has the government detained someone and violated the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
If so, give a specific instance.

As you quoted, US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 states that the privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended if the public safety requires it due to rebellion or invasion. I was just pointing out that neither of those have occurred.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I don't see why you're having so much difficulty with this. The Southern states had grievances, they took them to the highest level and were unheard, so they did the only thing available to them, which was simply secede. In response, the federal government started a war and killed hundreds of thousands of Southerners. They violently forced those states to stay in the Union. Therefore, the federal government proved once and for all that when it came down to it, they would rather go to war than allow a state to secede.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Lol it would surprise me yes but it would also be irrelevant. The emancipation proclamation did not go "And from hence forward we are going to be a corrupt, overbearing and centralized government with no responsibility to the constitution or rights of the people"

While the slave trade in the North was illegal, Northerns were just as racist as Southerners. In fact, the Free Soil party was against slavery because of the plantation system it imposed which gave African-Americans "jobs" that were suppose to be for whites. They wanted to end slavery because they wanted to make land free for white labor. Abolitionists were generally hated in the North because they sought equality between whites and African-Americans. I think people do not really realize this: that there is a difference between being anti-slavery and abolitionist. The former was merely being against slavery, sometimes for racist reasons and the latter is being against slavery and for equality.