Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Senate: We don't care about your Constitutional Rights or your right to Due Process," we don't even want a ***currently working counter terriorism system*** we want FACISM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!! WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!!!

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 5:08 p.m. EST by PeoplehaveDNA (305)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am referring to Senate Bill S 1867 Sections 1031-1032 the President of the United States can detain American Citizens "indefinitely without trial" and use force against them in the name of terror. The wording in these two sections open the door to abuse of the Constitutional Rights given to us by our founding fathers, messes up an Already working counter-terriorism system. Hello we killed Osama Bin Ladin!! Currently: The Secretary of Defence opposes this section. The White House threatens to veto this Bill. The FBI says that this bill will deter their counter terrorism abilities. The CIA opposes the sections of this bill because it will harm their efforts on terror. If all these high ranking people oppose this bill and can give proof that the counter intelligence efforts are working why the hell is this even being considered? Secondly, With the proof that we have the lawful Japanese Americans were detained with their Constitutional Rights striped. We also current have the hundred year old Posse Comatatus Act which says that the US military can not police US Citizens and in this case "for very little reason or evidence of substantial terrorist threat." Today: At 2:35 The Udall Amendment that means to keep the war on terror and the detention of terrorist "abroad." Today it was voted down 31-61. Currently the Feinstein Amendment is being considered which would also attempt to protect American's Constitution Rights. DO I NEED TO BRING UP THAT EVEN ONE LINE IN A BILL CAN STRIP AMERICANS OF THEIR RIGHTS. THAT MEANS THAT SOCIAL PROTESTERS SUCH AS THE TEA PARTY AND OWS CAN BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY WITH NO CHARGE AND NO PROOF THAT YOU ARE A TERRORIST. Do yourself a favor watch CSPAN, cold call Senators that opposed Feinstein and Udall amendments make the switch boards light up. MARCH ON CAPITOL HILL GET PUBLICITY GET AMERICANS ALERT. Parts of this bill were debated in secret by MCCain and Levin with out a hearing would you love to know what they were taking about? So let me ask you is any one from OWS or their supporters ready to march on Capitol Hill? Scared? Pay attention to the House please and get active.

83 Comments

83 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by mattpeg (19) 2 years ago

First they came for the terrorists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist. ;)

Then they came for the Occupiers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an Occupier. :)

Then they came for the Tea Party, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one of the Tea Party :|

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. :O

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

good quote

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Uh, that isn't really a quote per se.

[-] 2 points by mattpeg (19) 2 years ago

lol. No. Martin Niemöller modified

[-] 0 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 2 years ago

End the Patriot Act: Osama Bin Laden is dead. It is being used against legitimate political protest in America:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/repeal-patriot-act/JF1pdPKg

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/end-patriot-act/nH20qwfr

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

If all these high ranking people oppose this bill and can give proof that the counter intelligence efforts are working why the hell is this even being considered?

Because it's being sponsored by Republican McCain and Democrat Levin according to RT.com News. It has biparatisan support (a dangerous combination).

[-] 0 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

Oh so now they are bipartisan.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Yep. A Republican and Democrat working together to take-away our right to trial by jury (indefinite detainment by the army if they label you "terrorist"). As Judge Napolitano has observed, these two are really just separate divisions of the same party - the Big Government party.

[-] 3 points by Scout (729) 2 years ago

people are more concerned about dancing with the stars, watching the Kardashians and pepper spraying fellow shoppers to get that Xbox

[-] 2 points by iwillprepare (61) 2 years ago

How true fellow Americans are like Zombies wrapped up in their own little fantasies as the world as we know it is slowly (maybe quickly, look at Europe) starting to unravel, enslaved by technology, television, and commercialism. I actually hope the world unravels so we can pick up the pieces and start over fresh--those of us smart enough to survive it.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 2 years ago

What I notice in that past 5 yrs is that the media pushes these kardasions,dancing with the stars etc. and any other trashy distraction on Americans instead of informing them of what is REALLY going on with our country. Could it be that the government has intructed all media save a few to post such nonsence in,papers,magazines,on websites and the news. All one has to do is look at the yahoo homepage...nothing but gossip and garbage on the entertaing crew!

[-] 0 points by Scout (729) 2 years ago

I think it's more like those that own and have paid for the politicians also own the media so they can write their own script

[-] 2 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 2 years ago

Now it's being reported that anyone with more than a 7 days supply of food can be considered a terrorist. During World War II, there were similar restrictions on the amount of food any family could have. Are they anticipating World War lll in the near future? Banking collapses are, it seems, most often followed by major wars.

[-] 2 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 2 years ago

that's true.World War I and II.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

"Are they anticipating World War lll in the near future?" In a short answer YES! World War III is in the works follow the news articles it is all there.

[-] 2 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Okay, I am bumping this up.

[-] 2 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

This little-known Supreme Court decision created the environment that emboldened Congress to push for bigger violations of rights, such as these current defense bill provisions:

Law making it a crime to talk to people on the terror list is upheld. In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld the material support law making it a crime to give 'advice' to groups on the terrorism list. Those who oppose terrorism asked if counseling groups to use legal means to attain political goals would be permitted. The court said no. It is now a crime to tell so-called terror groups that they should give up terrorism and try to fight for their rights in legal ways. The court reasoned that counseling against terrorism could give 'legitimacy' to those labeled terrorists.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) by John Roberts, with Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Stevens, June 21, Dissent by Breyer. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

So let me get this straight, just so I'm clear on what your are saying. You are upset because they made it illegal to talk to or give advise to someone who is on a terrorist watch list? Why exactly do you think that is a bad thing. I don't want people giving advise to terrorists who are hell bent on destroying us. Especially ones inside our country.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and all i have to do is say that you are the terrorist. you are gone.. no phone call. thats ok with you? they need no warrant no investigation.. no lawyers. as long as your ok with that..

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

I know the process used to determine who is and who isn't to be on the list. It is not even close to your OMG they can just put me on the list if they want theory. Do some research on it, start with a State Department FOIA.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you are naive if you believe in the due process.. you are nothing an no body to the government just as the cops would raid your house for drugs on the word of a neighbor.. they would make you disappear but thats ok for some one that would give up liberty for the sake of security.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Welcome to Conspiracy Theory 101, there comming to get me, there comming to get me. LOL, atleast you can make me laugh.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thats not the point the point is that that they Can come for you you are willing to give away your freedom. hope it works out for you

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

No, the point was, there are ways that you can get the information to actually inform yourself of what the law says they can and can't do instead of trying to push BS PR tid bits out.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i have read the law just the same as you. are you one of those that thinks if some one doesnt laugh at your joke its cause they didnt get it?

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

What joke are you refering to? If it's the conspiracy theory 101 thing that is by far not a joke. Problem is, the basis of a consiracy theory is an unprovable statement. It leads to just enough believability and lacks fact. By the way, which law are you refering to that you read?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

by joke i meant.. if someone doesn't react the way you expected, it must be because they do not comprehend what you said..and do you think that way..... /. the patriot act , and a few other executive orders. i have not read the bill referred to in this post but it seems to be worded the same. i.e. that american citizens can be targeted by the american government in the name of 'security'.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

It is alot more specific than that. There needs to be inconclusive evidence that you assisted or contacted a known group or individual associated with terrorism. They have actually had several cases that have refused the right of the government to do so. F Courts are actually very good at pulling the BS claims from the real ones and it has worked very well. There are many case studies that show the system works and although nothing is ever full proof, it has been contested and upheld several times because of it's effectiveness.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

this law will be used in the future against people revolting against our government. and there will be a time in the future when this will be necessary to restore freedom. but by then.. people will not remember that revolt is not terrorism because they accept laws like this. this is the wrongness in this type of legislation. like people have forgotten that taxes were implemented to only tax 'profit' then extended to 'income' that seems ok now.. each little chip , chipping away.. until people do not know that they use to be free.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Conversly, it is required driven by events of the day. If you have no law then you open the door for free reign to those that would do us harm. It's hard to say that in the future someone might try to push the limits of such a law, to date (law has been in effect for almost 10 years now) it has not been abused (or atleast has not been reported to have been). As well, it has been upheld and reinstated by both parties in congress.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and this is to protect us from those that run and hide in holes in the sand? you are scared of these people? you believe the government is scared of these people? so much so that the sacrifice of freedom is required to protect me from them? pulease

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

its hard to say alright...do don't even put these new laws in place. How do we know it has not been abused if judges keep dismissing cases due to pressure from higher ups? We have too many laws in this country already.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

laugh now, when they come to get you you won't be laughing.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

I'm not paranoid enough to worry about it. It's a simple scare tactic used to instill fear and uprisal. It's been tried thousands of times and will be tried thousands more with the same result....failure.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Because the terrorist watch list includes people who are not terrorists. (1) They have never been proved to be terrorists and (2)(a) There are many names on there that don't belong - i.e. grandmas and kids - by mistake. (2)(b) And members of the Teaparty and Campaign for Liberty and NRA.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Have you seen the list?

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Bits and pieces of it, yes. It's been leaked and published to the press.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Really, please give us the link to go to it. Also, who do you know that was on it that wasn't suppose to be? The only case I have heard of were that happened was a guy who had the same exact name as the person who was suppose to be on it. Usually you hear that someone who is and is suppose to be on it didn't get caught comming in not the other way around.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

i have a friend who the govt wont let fly because he is online speaking against the govt on a regular basis. He tried to sue but they wont let him and they wont let him see the actual no fly list or who put him on it. How is that not unconstitutional? And the costs it would take to hire a good lawyer to take this public and expose the govt is insane.

[-] 2 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Yes, everyone who reads this needs to call their Congressmen tomorrow. I am going to read more about the Feinstein and Rand Paul amendment.

EVERYONE FLOOD YOUR SENATOR'S PHONE LINES. Read Dutchess's post below, we should also call Sen. McCain, Sen. Levin, and Sen. Graham and demand that they DON'T push through with this bill because it is unconstitutional. Please educate yourselves on the Feinstein and Rand Paul amendment and say yes to one of them. We must make our voices be heard. They can't get away with this!

[-] 1 points by ldyday (1) 2 years ago

sign the petition for POTUS veto of NDAA here: http://wh.gov/jhT

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

And surprise, surprise it passed without the amendments.

What do we expect from a Senate that has not represented us in 30 years. Shameful!

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

So here is the latest the passed with out any amendments on detainee provisions being passed or even taken serious. This includes the Udall, Feinstein, Leahy, and Paul amendments to protect or lessen the extent of which this bill can affect Americans. Well I am going to tell you that this bill has to now go to Congress so we still have time to put pressure on them but the word needs to get out in a huge way. The White House said that they would veto the bill but you can not rely on that because Obama is going into a election year.

[-] 1 points by radarluv (1) 2 years ago

AWESOME! Thanks for making it even MORE clear cly you should live in a dune

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 2 years ago

I am Ready! Occupy Congress!

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 2 years ago

Too busy sleeping.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/196427-senate-ready-for-showdown-with-obama-over-detainees

Here is the latest article on this. The bill is set to pass tomorrow and their may or may not vote on the Feinstein and Rand Paul amendments. I hope it get vetoed. Let's wait and see.

[-] 0 points by winwinforall (-13) 2 years ago

Hi there,

Please see my comment above for info and solution. Whatever these traitors want to pass is fraudulent under our republic US constitution. Get the sheriffs educated (like sheriff Mack has been doing) and arrest all those "lawyer" politicians at all levels immediately!!!!!

Thanks for all the work you do similarly to what I do

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

hope obama gives them a kick in the nuts. while 1032(b1-3) retains citizens rights, i still think the bill sets bush like precedent and should be tosses in the trash with bush.

[-] 0 points by winwinforall (-13) 2 years ago

Please see my comment above. Please review the proofs below carefully and you will see that these guys never have worked for us but for the british:

1) Here’s the document that shows the comparison of the two constitutions:

http://phoenixmaterials.org/pdf/100616.pdf

2) American flag with Gold fringe is not our US Flag. See the following links for more info into this "foreign flag":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTrwQP0LkQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=2AQwolz6c50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0BUGSrkvTM&feature=related

http://apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm

Please let me know if you need more info about these traitors - - we need to arrest them asap because whatever they pass is fraudulent because they never have worked under the US Constitution but the british owned USA Corporation's corporate one.

God Bless,

[-] 1 points by Lazaruz (3) 2 years ago

I just have to ask this, how many of you have actually read the sections in question here? It states right in the text of the bill that this does NOT apply to United States citizens.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: Sec 1032 Subsection b under Subtitle D--Detainee Matters "(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112gCbqpW:e462417: I'm not sure if the above link will continue to work or not because of the "temp" part.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

translation. it is not a 'requirement' as far as a citizens go.. but it is 'allowable'.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

I read both sections 1031 and 1032 where it states such as the military detainee does not apply to Americans. However, I am going to say it like this section 1031 wording as to the definition of a "covered person" says that "any" persons can be held with out trials until the end of hostilities with out due process. The wording in 1031 is soo controversial that several Senators posed Amendments to change the wording of these two sections to alleviate the burden of such sections on Americans constitutional rights. Now if this was not a big deal why would a handful of Senators propose amendments and stress that this section that holds Americans without trial without charge and without due process. Do you not think that Senators would have a better handle on what is in the bill. Secondly, why would the media (maybe not all of the mainstreet pascify the public media but alot.) report that this section takes away American's rights to due process. With that being said I am going to tell you this; you can not have even one unchallenged line in a bill ......one line in a bill makes a big difference.

[-] 2 points by Lazaruz (3) 2 years ago

I'm not saying that the wording should not be changed, I also found the information alarming. However, I think it is way over hyped. People see this kind of stuff and act like the government is going to start black bagging people like in the movies.

As far as the media goes, I don't really trust ANY media source. If I see something interesting in media, I do my own research. I have yet to find a media source that is not either "everything is ok, here is a cute puppy" or "Run for your lives the sky is falling".

Honestly I would be more concerned about the subsection saying it does not apply to American Citizens being silently taken out than the wording of the main body.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 2 years ago

YES PEOPLE-- this is SERIOUS.

Rebellion now. before it's too late.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Looks like a military coup to me. What we have is a constitutional-republic-deception, a democracy-deception.

[-] 1 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

"...Messes up an Already working counter-terriorism system. Hello we killed Osama Bin Ladin!!"

Trololol.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

I think that every one needs to pay attention to this today, tomorrow, and etc. This bill still has to go through Congress it is time to let them know that your constitutional rights are not a fantasy and they took an oath to the constitution.

[-] 0 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Calling All US Armed Forces Personnel!

The Senate has given the US Military the right to arrest and indefinitely detain all members of Congress and lock them up in Guantanamo Bay.

Men and women of the armed forces, who sent you to Iraq to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction? Congress!

More American servicemen and women were killed fighting in Iraq than Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

US Military, save your country, arrest all Congressmen and imprison them in Guantanamo Bay.

[-] 0 points by winwinforall (-13) 2 years ago

Please look at the bigger picture and the following info that they always have wished we do not know. We must expose the following as far and as wide / viral as possible:

1) They work for the british crown's USA Corporation (i.e. the fraudulent federal gov't that we think they are). We have traitors / domestic enemy that we must expose and get rid of.

http://tinyurl.com/3gknzpx (USA is a corporation)

http://tinyurl.com/3b24esb (USA is a british colony)

12 yr Girl Discovers ALL U.S. Presidents Except One Related to One British King (David Icke said they were selected by bloodline and not voted by ballots... a long time already).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6PxbEH_3A&feature=related

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946 (USA Corporation...disguised as Federal Gov't - - using a fraudulent constitution.)

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS) For Profit General Delaware Corporation Incorporation Date 7/12/33 File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve) Non-profit Delaware Corporation Incorporation Date 9/13/14 File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA) For Profit General Delaware Corporation Incorporation Date 3/9/83 File No. 2004409

Lots of politicians are lawyers who took a secret oath called kol nidre (israeli) and work for the british crown – - -> BAR = British Accredited Registry (http://tinyurl.com/2ds553d)

Here’s the document that shows the comparison of the two constitutions: (probably the most important document that USA patriots entrusted the Contact paper to publish it - - it's pure "proof" and should be used to take back the USA.

http://phoenixmaterials.org/pdf/100616.pdf

Suggested solutions using our real US Republic Constitution:

It takes 34 states with their sovereignty restored to form a new and real federal governernment under the US Constitution:

http://phoenixmaterials.org/pdf/090812.pdf (Page 13 to 15)

How do states restore their sovereignty? Use the 10th Amendment !!! Here’s an update of where we stand:

http://committeesofsafety.org/sponsors-co-sponsors-states-rights-sovereignty

Current state resolutions so far:

http://committeesofsafety.org/tenth-amendment-0

Please study the info below to see that we can use the sheriffs to arrest these traitors of the british's USA Corporation:

The sheriff in his/her turf has more power than the president:

If only we can get the sheriff (has more power than the president in his/her turf) to arrest these bastards, that would be great. We just have to inform the non-bought out sheriffs to be aware of their powers under the US Constitution. See some links below about this power:

http://newswithviews.com/Stang/alan192.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oxoqw6gWVdo (Part 1/5 )

http://youtube.com/watch?v=h-_uGjZiyE8&NR=1 (Part2/5 )

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EGBEvE28q5Y&NR=1 (Part 3/5 )

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LJSUAJFOfp8&NR=1 (Part4/5 )

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NdI2Pb-gBSs&NR=1 (Part5/5)

Sheriff Mack is educating and training sheriffs to understand their powers under the Republic US Constitution and in their turfs: They have more power than the president of the USA Corporation (operating under the fake constitution)

http://www.countysheriffproject.org

http://phoenixmaterials.org/pdf/090902.pdf

So, you should be curious as to when these british bastards took over our USA legally (not "lawfully") on paper??? It was 1917

http://phoenixmaterials.org/pdf/070523.pdf (quoting from Page 3 on)

"WHEN THE TAKEOVER OF YOUR AMERICA BEGAN

In actuality the conquest of the United States of America started right after its conception—and the realization that the “New World” was not just some little island in the West Indies. The more land you conquered from your Native American brothers, the more the elite Club Of Rome understood what they had to contend with. America (“Heaven on Earth”) was not just a vast mineral and agricultural resource to be plundered and raped—it was the beginning of the end of the elite’s rule over the “Old World”.

So all their know-how and cunning went to stopping this young REPUBLIC (NOT DEMOCRACY!) from coming into being. The Federal Reserve was the tool that was going to do it for them. By creating a “central bank” (something everyone was running away from in Europe) in this “Free” Nation, it would be possible to win a war with America ECONOMICALLY, even though you might not win militarily. But the real takeover started in 1917 with the loss of America’s true ally—Czarist CHRISTIAN Russia."

Please wake up and expose / expose / expose today !!!!

The above information can be found at:

http://reclaimearth.blogspot.com

[-] 0 points by w9illiam (97) 2 years ago

I just read the section of the bill you were talking about and it says this I ll just cut and paste (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require ment to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22 ment to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the

extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

ofcourse...I posted phone nr s of senators to call here earlier today but nobody responded!

IMPORTANT AND IMMEDIATE!! Call the 3 senators who are pushing for all Americans to be stripped of all their rights to a trial, FOREVER, in our country, in an amendment they just introduced in this bill: OPPOSE S. 1867 The National Defense Authorization Act Bill - 8am (est) - Sen. McCain (202) 224-2235 -- Lindsey Graham @ (202 224-5972 -- Carl Levin @ (202) 224-1221 & fax (202) 224-1388

Senator Rand Paul has an Amendment #1062 to KILL "indefinite detention." Call your senators and tell them to SUPPORT Senator Paul's Amendment #1062!!

What is included in the NAZI BILL S 1867... Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Sec. 1032. Requirement for military custody.

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force...includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons...

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Senator Rand Paul

I stand with my Wall Street brothers. I have zero interest in what that whackjob (or his dad Ron Paul) have to say. He's one of those Teaparty shits. WORSE. He's a damn republican.

We'd all be better off if the Congress had no republicans whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

wow, I am not a Rand Paul fan since he is half neocon but...he is spot on on this one.

Why is it people never research?

[-] 2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Even if Rand Paul said, "I want to join the Occupy movement," I wouldn't support him. He and Republitards can all quit Congress and become janitors as far as I am concerend. Repubs are worthless pieces of shit!

And any WS protester who claims to support the Repubs or regsiters with that party is also a pie of shit, and should be considered s traitor to the cause.

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

well, i guess its better to have rand paul gone than have him do his best to protect our constitutional rights...i guess those arent as important to you,or not that important compared to taxing the rich more

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I have a right to free hospitals, free pills, free college degree, free home, free food at the grocery store, and so on. The Republicans will only stand-in the way of my getting that stuff which I deserve.

That means Rand Paul and all the rest of them Repubs need to go until there;s none of thsoe bascstabbing baby-killers left in congress.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

than this movement is not about the 99%

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Don't forget that Obama and Holder and Napolitano all think this is great.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

Have you even watched Napolitano show no way would he support this bill.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

I mean the head of the so called Homeland Security. Gestapo/KGB/ whatever.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

Sorry, I was talking about Judge Napolitano on Fox News I got confused with another post. Never-mind carry on.