Feinstein Amendment Further Entrenches Power of Military Indefinite Detention

[CuteOldGuy]

I know most of you are ok with the elimination of certain, if not all, rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. (Please note that the Constitution does not grant rights, but only guarantees them. Our rights come from simply being human, otherwise known as "natural rights". The Constitution was designed to prevent government from infringing on rights we already have.) But for those of you who would like to remain free, another amendment has passed that will further entrench the power of the government to detain you without due process.

From the article:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has put forward a flawed and dangerous amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. It passed on Thursday and purportedly aimed to prevent United States citizens from being detained indefinitely by the military. What it did was further entrench the power of military indefinite detention and make it more likely the power will be used against immigrants in the United States, even though that has historically been unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Human Rights First, Japanese American Citizens League, Physicians for Human Rights and various other organizations have condemned the Feinstein Amendment:

And later on the article states:

According to [Bruce] Afran, “The new provision gives US citizens a right to go to civilian (i.e. Article III) court based on ‘any [applicable] constitutional rights,’ but since there are are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military.”

Really? The military detains you, and you have a "right" to a civilian court? How do you exercise that right, since you don't have a right to counsel in a civilian court? You don't have Miranda rights in a civilian court? You don't even have the right to contact your family to let them know you're detained!!

Now most of you find this ok. For those of you who are concerned, the rest of the article is here:

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/201...ite-detention/

[cptjohnstone]

pic's say it better, the light weight donkeys can better see a pic than read

[Seedy]

Yep, all these fucking libtards can drop their drawers, and grab their ankles, not me, they will have to shoot me first, communist cocksuckers.....

[acp5762]

This is a pretty good video on this Threads subject matter. In it Obama statesthat he has an issue with our Constitution, he says that it is an imperfect document. Well Sorry about that chief but it's what this country lives by. By him saying that, I would have to surmize Obama doesn't believe in nor will he uphold the Constitution of These United States Of America which he took an oath. To me that spells Impeachment.


http://youtu.be/NW-e7z7S6VI

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by acp5762

To me that spells Impeachment.

If you can't beat the President at the ballot box, you might as well try the "Impeachment" process.

That seemed to work so well with Clinton, didn't it?

Do any of you guys know how to define the term S-O-R-E L-O-S-E-R-S?

If not, I will help you guys out! (See how thoughtful I am?)

1. SORE LOSERS

A sore loser is someone who loses in a fair competition but whines about it on a constant basis, blaming everyone around them for their loss except themselves.

2. SORE LOSERS

Fun to taunt, but no fun to play with.

3. SORE LOSERS

Someone who can't take a loss in stride.

4. SORE LOSERS

Someone who can't simply be honorable, by accepting defeat and/or trying again. On the contrary, said individual or group engages in childish pissing and moaning; bitching about how it's not fair and the other side cheated, etc.

Which is your personal favorite? I believe I prefer what's behind Door #4!

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If you can't beat the President at the ballot box, you might as well try the "Impeachment" process.

That seemed to work so well with Clinton, didn't it?

Do any of you guys know how to define the term S-O-R-E L-O-S-E-R-S?

If not, I will help you guys out! (See how thoughtful I am?)

1. SORE LOSERS

A sore loser is someone who loses in a fair competition but whines about it on a constant basis, blaming everyone around them for their loss except themselves.

2. SORE LOSERS

Fun to taunt, but no fun to play with.

3. SORE LOSERS

Someone who can't take a loss in stride.

4. SORE LOSERS

Someone who can't simply be honorable, by accepting defeat and/or trying again. On the contrary, said individual or group engages in childish pissing and moaning; bitching about how it's not fair and the other side cheated, etc.

Which is your personal favorite? I believe I prefer what's behind Door #4!

Oh go fuck yourself. The Ballot Box doesn't mean shit.

[Whirlaway]

Winning an election isn't Carte Blanche to reign as Empirical Ruler.

[markroxny]

Well COF, your buddy Rand Paul seems to be ok with it. And it's not just a Fienstein amendment, Mike Lee co-sponsored it...a REPUBLICAN.

Football, it is said, is a game of inches. And anyone who has played the game can tell you that a rush up the middle for three yards is usually more valuable than a 60-yard bomb that is almost caught for a touchdown.
In the case of the recently passed (and much maligned) Feinstein-Lee Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), spokesmen for Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) see the measure they co-sponsored as a successful movement of the ball a little farther down the field toward the goal of restoring due process to all persons.
In an exclusive conversation with The New American, Doug Stafford, chief of staff for Senator Paul, and Rob Porter, general counsel for the office of Senator Lee, defended the Feinstein-Lee Amendment as a step in the right direction, though admitting that it did not go nearly as far as either lawmaker would prefer.
“Colored by our experience with the due process amendment to the NDAA we offered in 2012, we knew that we would have nowhere near the number of votes needed to pass an amendment that guaranteed due process for all persons detained under the NDAA,” Stafford explained.
Both men reiterated that they recognize that the Feinstein-Lee Amendment was not the ideal attack on the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA. Senators Lee and Paul believe, the spokesmen assured The New American, that “the full panoply of due process rights should apply to all persons, not just American citizens.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-positive-play

[CuteOldGuy]

I've never been comfortable with Rand Paul. He was looking like he was more of his father's son than I thought, but now I'm not so sure. I think Feinstein was trying to do the right thing, because she had been opposed to indefinite detention in the past, but she blew it with this amendment.

I honestly don't know what the hell they're doing. But you're right, KarlMarxRoxny. Rand Paul can't be trusted. Too bad. He had some potential to do some good.

Congress is not going to turn this country around, it's going to be up to the people, and I don't think the people are in tune enough to do it. By the time enough of us wake up to what's happening, it will probably be too late to turn it around.

[satexasguy]

Notice that our fellow liberals don't address the issue but rather point out other issues, such as their old "he did it too" or "a Republican did it too"? Typical liberals, they NEVER face the issue at hand but try to avoid it by bringing up something else.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by satexasguy

Notice that our fellow liberals don't address the issue but rather point out other issues, such as their old "he did it too" or "a Republican did it too"? Typical liberals, they NEVER face the issue at hand but try to avoid it by bringing up something else.

The real ISSUE of this thread is that a "liberal" was being blamed for an amendment that the OP disagreed with. That assertion was shown to be false.

got it?

[CuteOldGuy]

I did, and have, blamed ALL OF THEM for this. If you had read my past posts on this subject I have clearly blamed the Democrats, Republicans and Tea Partiers for supporting this outrageous attack on liberty. This is Feinstein's amendment. I didn't decide this, she did, and the Democrats, Republicans and phony Tea Partiers supported her.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How do you exercise that right, since you don't have a right to counsel in a civilian court? You don't have Miranda rights in a civilian court? You don't even have the right to contact your family to let them know you're detained!!

Who said one doesn't have a right to counsel or ...

.... "Miranda rights" in a "civilian court"?

[CuteOldGuy]

Those rights only arise in criminal cases, LL. You don't have them in a civil court. The irony is that the right to counsel arises because your liberty is in jeopardy. In a civil court, they can't take away your liberty. So how is it that the remedy to indefinite detention can only be litigated in a civil court? Only Congress could do something this stupid.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Those rights only arise in criminal cases, LL. You don't have them in a civil court.

That is incorrect.

People even exercise those rights before Congress.

The primary right protected by the "Miranda" warnings is the right to keep one's mouth shut ...

.... some call it the "5th amendment" ... I call it .... stfu.

And it can be asserted in a civil case ... and is a sufficient number of times.

Also, if one has the threat of incarceration in a civil court they are entitled to counsel. For instance the most common circumstance is contempt for nonpayment of child support.

Granted they more frequently "arise in crimiinal cases," but to the extent that the civil case has a potential for affecting a criminal case or one's freedom to move "about the country" ...

... those rights are protected by the civil court judges.