Obama and Congress Bring the War on Terror to Your Doorstep

If America is the battleground, nobody has any rights

|

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

Last Thursday—which happened to be the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights—the Senate passed a defense bill that demonstrates just how cavalier Congress can be with our fundamental liberties.

Given the opportunity to clarify existing law and confirm that American citizens are not subject to indefinite military detention at the order of the president—Congress punted.

After a debate in which key members seriously contemplated empowering the president to "Gitmo-ize" Americans suspected of terrorist activity, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 leaves the question open. Maybe he can, maybe he can't, so let's let the courts sort it out.

The legislation is ready for President Obama's signature, the president having caved on his earlier veto threat. Happy Bill of Rights Day!

It could have been even worse. An earlier version of the bill would, according to one of its cosponsors, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have allowed the president to use the U.S. military to seize American citizens on the home front and ship them to Guantanamo.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., cheered the provision, because it would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield." He added that "I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home."

James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, was somewhat less giddy about the prospect of militarizing the home front. "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty," he warned at the Constitutional Convention, "the means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home."

Yet for all the Tea Party-inspired Constitution-waving on the Hill, only a minority of Republicans seem to share the Founders' justified fear of standing armies at home.

An amendment that would have explicitly excluded U.S. citizens from the bill's military detention provisions failed by a 45-55 vote in the Senate, with only a handful of Tea Party Republicans—including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Mark Kirk, R-Ill.,—breaking with their party to oppose selective martial law within the United States.

The language that passed Thursday ducks the issue, stating that the bill isn't intended to change existing law on U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S. But the compromise Congress settled on settles nothing. Existing law is unclear, and the NDAA makes it murkier still.

In 2002 during the Bush administration, federal officials seized Brooklyn-born al Qaeda suspect Jose Padilla, declared him an "enemy combatant," and ordered him held in a military brig without charges.

The Bush Justice Department argued that Congress had authorized military detention of citizens at home when it authorized war against al Qaeda. But fearing a Supreme Court rebuke, the administration transferred Padilla to federal prison in early 2006, so that question has never been resolved by the Court.

But Congress can clarify the issue itself. Paul has joined 12 of his colleagues in backing the "Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011," which insists that congressional authorization for a war "shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen…apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."

A decade into the War on Terror, al Qaeda is a radically diminished force. At home, it's apparently been reduced to a few hapless radicals, too dumb to realize they're being played by FBI informants.

If Congress thinks its necessary to turn America into a battlefield to address that sort of threat, the least they can do is to say so.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power (Cato 2008). He is a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where a version of this article originally appeared. Click here to read it at that site.

NEXT: Banks Are Viewed Twice as Favorably as the Federal Government, Reason-Rupe Poll Finds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But…but…but…MUSLIMS!

    OT:

    Today appears to be “newsletters” day, and honestly it’s not half as bad as I thought it would be.

    And the massive pile-on Paulbot attacks on anyone voicing the newsletter criticism completely dwarfs the 2008 response.

    It certainly helps that the biggest outlet to talk about it – CNN, this morning – basically rolled over and let Paul kick them in the nads when they challenged him on it.

    1. It is all they have are the newsletters. They will do to Paul the same thing they did to Palin. Just keep repeating the same thing over and over again until the average person figures there must be something to it.

      1. POOR, POOR PALIN! SHE WAS BETRAYED BY THE MEDIA!

        John, please. Its not like she had no hand at all in her own downfall. I mean fuck man, she was a one term governor with no particular successes at all under her belt. Give. It. Up.

        1. The tactics are what they are. And when they crucify Paul using the same ones don’t be surprised. Not like he didn’t have a hand in his own downfall. He did publish the newsletters didn’t he?

          1. Gilmore,

            Palin had a “downfall”? I thought it was McCain who unterganged.

            1. I overspoke – to truly have a “downfall” you have to have at least previously risen to some place of importance / power

              she fell flat on her face on her first step out of the gate

              It is telling that those who know her best, now like her least =

              http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/…..in-alaska/

              I personally have nothing in particular against her, but find John’s Palinphilia too ridiculous to let pass.

              I mean, do we have any ardent Rick Santorum supporters in the house? Bueller?…

              1. I point out that the media is going to use the same tactics of lying about Paul that they used on Palin. But I am palinphilia or whatever.

                Palin just allows people to show themselves to be posers and stupid.

                Thanks Gilmore.

                1. You betcha, bub.

                  I guess you include the 61% of Alaskans in with that, “failure to appreciate palin’s virtues is a character flaw” thing.

        2. That would be something like a one term senator with absolutely no accomplishments other than voting “present.”

          Of course, in that case the media mob aggressively covered up the overwhelming incompetence, and now we’re all stuck with it.

    2. I’m glad you went OT with Paul already, because I was about to.

      Here is an excellent representative comment I found both on The Right Scoop, and RedState (probably the same poster). Emphasis mine.

      kessi7 58 minutes ago in reply to Cheryl Pryor

      I am shocked at the so called pundits who seem to be thinking with their behinds than with their heads. What is it about Ru Paul that is fantastic, even on the home front?
      1. Is it the free marijuana?
      2. Or is it the no religion?
      3. Will not stand with Israel, because we have no money, what else will we not stand with because we are broke.
      falling in love with Paul bc he seems to be frugal is like falling in love with a rapist because he looks handsome.
      Christians, people, better take a good look at this man again before things go really awry.
      Bring it on Paulbots 😉

      So there you have it. Ron Paul either 1) has no religion himself (which the poster probably knows is not true), or (more likely) the poster is somehow upset that Paul won’t force religion on the masses.

      2) It’s important that we “stand by” various things, including Israel, regardless of the economic consequences.

      If I wasn’t going to have so many lulz at the world burning, I’d just shoot myself now.

      1. Yes.

        But.

        Even the RedState guy is whining about the heat he has taken for going out there on the newsletter front again.

        In 2008, I would hang around the Ron Paul Forums and when someone said, “Let’s go kick sand in the face of commentator X” I’d be right there doing it. Me and about 20 other people.

        Now I go to sites and whether they’re DISQUS or Facebook powered or registration-required sites, there are hundreds of guys WHALING on Ramesh or Jonah or Eric or anybody else who tries to pull this shit.

        It’s a different environment.

        And it’s also too late. I was worried two weeks ago or even last week, but now it’s just too damn late. 12 more hours and the nation falls asleep until after Christmas.

        1. Too late for what? If Paul wins Iowa that hardly assures him of the nomination.

          1. Too late for Iowa. And probably New Hampshire.

            I don’t consider the nomination doable.

            I just want Paul to make it to the convention with enough delegates to be a dick.

            1. He will definitely do that. But I thought Mittens was going to crush everyone else in New Hampshire.

              1. If Paul goes into Iowa within 15 points of Mittens in NH, and proceeds to win Iowa, NH becomes winnable. Even with Mittens’ home field advantage.

                South Carolina is a frickin’ brick wall, though. SC will squash Paul.

                But after that, you have a whole lot of proportional-delegates-rules states.

                That’s where it’s fun.

                I think that if either Mitt or Newt drops out after IA or NH, the whole “Paul crisis” ends for the GOP. But the problem is that I don’t think either Newt or Mitt will drop out. Why would they? They’ll still have a chance to win. Their self-interest commands them to stay in.

                And every day they both stay in increases the odds of an interesting convention. The last thing they want.

                1. Mitt will not drop out. Gingrich might or just fall to such a point it won’t matter. I wouldn’t write off the possibility of one of the others making a come back. There are a lot of people desperate to vote for anyone but Mittens or Paul.

                  1. Gingrich isn’t going anywhere. Not with his national poll numbers and his egomania.

                    That’s the thing. There are both solid political reasons AND personal reasons out there for a lot of these candidates to hang on.

                    And the press will LOVE that.

                    Every last member of the political press in the United States will cum in their pants if there’s even a chance of a brokered convention.

                    1. Gingrich isn’t going anywhere. Not with his national poll numbers and his egomania.

                      You left out the fundraising and its opportunities for diversion to cronies and graft.

            2. Whatever happens…the GOP field is weak and will lose to teh wun. Also include a partisan media, who will dig every bit of dirt up,bring every skeleton out, and downplay every obama screw up means the GOP nominee doesnt stand a chance.

              In other words the country is fricked.

      2. I thought Paul was a pretty dedicated Christian? I never understood Paul to be a religious or anti religious.

        1. Paul is a pretty devout Christian. so devout, in fact, that obeys the implied lesson of Jesus’ rejection of Satan’s offer of political power over all the nations of the Earth.

          Less devout Christians who wish to use beatings, jails and bullets to create God’s Kingdom on Earth find this frustrating.

          1. That is a pretty ignorant and low blow. Paul is a Christian. No one ought to have their faith questioned over political differences. The poster is an ignorant asshole.

        2. Paul is a very dedicated Xtian. He just feels that that’s a private matter.

      3. He’s not even a very good liar. Many of the anti-paultards are just as annoying as the worst of the paultards. JP on Hot Air is a good example. The guy is more dedicated and obsessed with spewing non-sensical shit than even the worst of our guys from ’08 (and some were pretty awful in ’08).

      4. She must be a feminist, to compare frugality with rape.

    3. Today appears to be “newsletters” day, and honestly it’s not half as bad as I thought it would be.

      Check out what Andrew Sullivan had to say:

      “But ask yourself: you’ve now heard this guy countless times; he’s been in three presidential campaigns; he’s not exactly known for self-editing. And nothing like this has ever crossed his lips in public. You have to make a call on character. Compared with the rest on offer, compared with the money-grubbing lobbyist, Gingrich, or the say-anything Romney, or that hate-anyone Bachmann, I’ve made my call.”

      1. Sounds he has his meds tweaked juuuust right.

        It has to be killing him that Palin has gone stealth.

        1. Good thing Paul doesn’t have a vagina for Sullivan to obsess over.

      2. Sullivan is a really weird guy. He should probably stop letting his daddy-bear fetish interfere with his political cometary.

  2. obama cant be fond of this site or the terrorist posters here. true americans foresee enhanced interrogation followed by sodomy at those black sites.

    1. …..followed by sodomy at those black sites.

      It always gets back to the sodomy with you doesn’t it?

    2. RACIST!!!

      1. nah, its a pulp fiction kinda thang

  3. A decade into the War on Terror, al Qaeda is a radically diminished force.

    C’mon Gene…it was never for them….it was always for us. Wait till this economy finally grinds to a halt.

    I should get measured for my orange jumpsuit early.

  4. Despite some TEAM RED people’s claims to the contrary that no liberal will ever support RP, I already know several who will be voting for Paul because of Obama’s policies on civil liberties, war and marijuana. Him backing out of his veto threat was the straw that broker the camels back for some of them (some had already been done in). But I’m sure you know my friends better than I do and will tell me that they are just liars who will vote for Obama anyways.

    1. That is what you guys keep saying. But lets see what the polls look like. Everyone seems to have a liberal “friend” who is leaving Obama over this except me. And I have a lot of liberal friends.

      1. My wife and my best friend’s girlfriend (both very liberal) have both recently registered as republicans so they can vote for Paul in the primary.

        I’d like to think that my reasoned arguments combined with their own common sense was finally so convincing that they came around, but more likely they’re doing it just to shut me up. Either way, a W is a W.

        1. I will be voting for Paul or I won’t vote at all. My wife, my father, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law all voted for Obama last time around and are fed up with him. They are looking at the GOP to run anyone somewhat palatable i.e. not Romney or Gingrich. They will be voting for Paul if he gets the nomination, but will probably vote for Obama otherwise. Seriously, there are a lot of traditional Dem voters out there who are looking for something new.

        2. I’ll be voting for Paul in the primary here in Michigan. I consider myself a local socialist and a federal libertarian. The only way things are going to get better in this country is if we starve the beast. Paul is the only one who will do that.

      2. It might be an age thing. I’m 25 and the polls do show Obama losing support in my age range. Even liberals are starting to see that we are getting the short end of the stick with SS and they don’t have any loyalty to TEAM BLUE beyond one or two presidential elections.

        1. I think it is an age thing. All the liberals I know are over 40. And obama is losing the youth vote because the youths are mostly public school victims who don’t know enough to be particularly attached to an ideology and Obama’s handling of the economy has hurt them worse than anyone.

          1. Haha, John is old!

            1. I am not that old. And I would rather be in my 20s. But not if it meant being part of the current generation squatting in Zucotti Park.

              1. I was just giving you a hard time. You’re not old, you’re experienced.

                1. Age is a state of mind. And my state is about two hundred years out of date I think.

                  1. What, you hate black people? *rimshot*

                    1. I am not a liberal. Of course I hate black people. Don’t all nonliberals?

                    2. *checks* Yep, you’re right. How do you feel about Catholics?

                    3. I love papists as long as they know their place. For example the woman who cleans my chamber pot and the man who polishes my monocle are both Papist. They seem okay as long as you keep the whiskey under lock and key and don’t leave any change lying around.

                    4. In that case, I guess we can let in the Irish…we just have to keep out those damned Eastern Orthodox.

                    5. somethingsomethingBeware of Greeks bearing giftssomethingsomething

                      Or was it just…beware of Greek?

          2. Anyone watch Cenk Uygur, the “Young Turks” guy?

            He hinted recently that he will support Paul over Obama because of this NDAA bullshit

      3. I have a lot of liberal friends.

        I doubt that very much.

      4. No, John. Living in DC you don’t have ANY liberal friends.

        You have statist, tax leech, government employee friends who will always for Team BLUE because it’s about job security for them.

        1. Incidentally, I have no friends.

    2. My liberal facebook “friends” who act like their major issues are anti-war, civil liberties and corporate welfare are all attacking Paul as the worst GOP candidate and shaming their fellow liberals with reposted “Obama has really accomplished a lot” re-elect the President posts.

      The occutard shit has totally disappeared.

      1. That is why my friends are doing. I think libertarians are kidding themselves.

        1. That was happening with mine as well. Right up to the idefinite dentention bill. Now, many are starting to come around.

          1. I’m planning for the distant future and planting libertarian seeds in my co-workers. I do what I can.

        2. Everyone is kidding themselves…teh wuns gonna win and the donkeys are gonna take back the house cause Team Red sucks.

    3. I have a couple liberal friends who will be leaving Obama for whoever the Green Party fields. Not a one that will go with RP.

    4. I’m a (classical) liberal, and I would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama.

  5. You cannot treat American citizens in America as combatants. That is a line you cannot cross.

    The reason why you can’t apply due process on the battlefield is that it is a battle field. Gathering evidence and such is a bit hard. But last I looked the US is not a battlefield. There is no reason why Americans who decide to become terrorists in the US can’t be caught and tried like everyone else.

    If they are foreigners and affiliated with a foreign government, fuck them. If they are Americans running around a battlefield causing trouble, too bad. But Americans in America must be accorded due process. This bill is insanity.

    1. Why?

      America is harboring the enemy. You can kill anyone in America. Fair game. Or do you not know international law?

      1. If America were harboring an enemy of a foreign power and refused to turn them over or do anything to stop said enemy from attacking that country, that country would have every right to take matters into their own hands and defend itself against those enemies even if that meant violating American sovereignty.

        Now, this is a case where the enemy on American soil is not an enemy of a foreign nation. He is an enemy of America. Thus, how we treat that person is not a question of international law but the Constitution.

        So ends your daily international law lesson.

        1. If another country is harboring someone we think is terrorist, we don’t necessarily ask the host country to turn him over, nor is that person necessarily trying to attack this country. But we will take the matters in our own hands anyway.

          Is that a violation of international law?

          1. We owe them asking first. If they harbor that person and that person is doing things against us, we can attack them.

    2. You don’t understand, John. Let me spell it out for you.

      – Terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanastan should be tried in federal court.

      – American citizens suspected of planning terroristic plots go straight to Gitmo.

  6. I remember after 9/11 when congress stood on the capitol steps with their hands on their hearts and sang “God bless America”. I saw that on the TV, got sick to my stomach and thought ‘We are fucked now’.

  7. the homeland is part of the battlefield

    I challenge you to find a more insane or chilling thing that’s been recently said by a politician. I fucking challenge you.

    1. Too easy, Warty.

      Karl Rove: “George Bush, what is best in life?”

      GW: “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.”

      1. Cheney, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That’s what’s important! Valor pleases you, Cheney… so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to hell with you!

      2. Or this works, too.

        Obama: Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they learn why they fear the night.

        1. Of course, there was that time that Reagan forgot the microphone was still on, and admitted to raping and then devouring numerous children over the course of his long life. Sometime back in the 80s, it was, but I remember it clearly.

          Ollie North took the fall for him though. Good guy, loyal.

          1. That wasn’t much of a secret. How did people think he kept his skin so waxy, anyway?

            1. This is all I have to say about that.

          2. Well, Reagan did say this.

            1. Yeah, that was pretty stupid.

          3. Of course Reagan cooked and ate small children. And it was Goldwater who turned him on to it.

    2. I used to think the War on Terror was fun, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

      1. Psst…I know who you are. Hail Obama.

      2. Lol.

        Great Skyrim reference.

  8. For the record, Obama didn’t threaten a veto because it violated the civil rights of the citizenry.

    Rather, he opposed it because it tied his hands.

    Yep, Obama wanted a free hand in the fatherland. What an authoritarian little shitstain Barry turned out to be.

    1. Hope and Change Tarran! Hope and Change…..

  9. An amendment that would have explicitly excluded U.S. citizens from the bill’s military detention provisions failed by a 45-55 vote in the Senate, with only a handful of Tea Party Republicans?including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Mark Kirk, R-Ill.,?breaking with their party to oppose selective martial law within the United States.

    Praise ye gods for Rand Paul adn those he was able to convince to show a modicum of respect for the Constitution. With his father retiring, he would be the only one left as the gatekeeper for freedom.

    1. There are some good newbies in the House. They still have to prove themselves but we won’t be going entirely without.

    2. Let’s just hope that KY doesn’t get stupid by voting him out in 2016.

      In fact, hopefully he’ll be able to manage both a senate run and a presidential run in 2016.

  10. I ask again, who says it takes an amendment?

    Anyone else getting a BO ad at the top of this page? The hilarity!

  11. the republican party must be destroyed

  12. Oh, speaking of Homeland, I thought the season finale was excellent. Best new show on TV, IMO.

    1. I can’t imagine anything being better than Breaking Bad.

      1. Ah, guess that isn’t quite “new”, but…

  13. Here it is in all of its gory glory of Lindsey Graham defending this shit.

    He says that American citizens have nothing to fear from this law…until they are designated “enemy combatants” at which point your rights to due process are in the shitter.

    Fuck me, I need a drink and South Carolina needs to be carpetbombed.

    1. I think Graham takes the title of “Worst Republican Senator”. And he is definitely in the top five for “Worst Senator”. Hard to think of anyone on either side of the isle that is much worse. Schumer, Reid, Boxer, and that is about it.

      1. Dick Durbin would like a word with you.

        1. Sorry Dick. You shouldn’t be left off a list you have spent a career trying to make. My bad.

    2. South Carolina: home of reasonable people and measured responses since 1861!

      1. Too small to be a country. Too big to be an insane asylum.

        1. To be fair, Yankee states blow considerably more. So let’s just compromise and carpetbomb DC.

          1. Yeah. South Carolina is like Pericles’ Athens compared to California, Illinois, New York or Massachusetts.

            1. I haven’t been to Illinois or Massachusetts recently, but I agree on all of urban (and much of rural) California I’ve seen, New York’s New York City, Buffalo, and Syracuse.

              So there’s lots of shit awfully wrong with both blue and red fortress states. What else is new?

              1. The Red fortress states are not going broke. And at worst they are just conservative and boring. The blue states are completely collapsing. Why would anyone ever live in Illinois or upstate New York?

              2. And the red of all red state, Texas, seems to be doing quite well. And North Dakota is booming. That is due to oil. But California has oil too. They just won’t drill for it.

                1. Oil? In the states? Do these states need to be freed? Are Californians being oppressed? We can send in the 10th Mountain Division and bring freedom to those poor people. Fire up the tanks, time for another Freedom Mission (TM).

                  1. Well, California can charitably be described as a failed state. Lets make a run to Sacramento.

                2. I’m not one of those stand-in-the-corner-and-hiss-at-EVERYTHIIIING types, John. Blue sucks far more balls than red, but red still sucks, and we need to fix all of it.

          2. To be fair, Yankee states blow considerably more. So let’s just compromise and carpetbomb DC.

            I’d rather live in the People’s Republic of Cambridge, MA than anywhere in the Bible Belt.

            Evangelicals…*shudder*

            1. May I suggest Asheville NC? Beats the shit out of anywhere north of Ohio.

    3. South Carolina needs to be carpetbombed.

      Zombie General Sherman would like to hear more of your ideas.

    4. Come for the racism, stay for the zealous jingoism!

      1. You’re not one of those delicate dandelions that suffered 400,000 aneurysms when the Confederate Battle Flag was raised at the Confederate Soldier’s Memorial on the State House’s lawn, are you?

        1. Absolutely not. I just hate Graham, and will denigrate him and the people who vote for him any chance I get.

          And I fucking loathe Steve Spurrier.

          1. Same with me. The guy’s a fucking prick. An overt, statist prick. And the smug look on his face when he spews the bullshit just seals the deal.

            1. Spurrier? Or Graham?

    5. The funny thing is that Graham has no real allies. Much of the far right absolutely hates his guts (Ann Barhnardt’s screed against him is a hoot) and libertarians and liberals don’t care for him either.

      1. From Lindsey Graham’s Greatest Hits:

        Free speech is a great idea, but we’re at war.

    6. I was so disappointed when Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney for POTUS.

      1. I think the real question there, though is: does that affect whether or not you would sleep with her?

        THIS commentater says: no!

        1. OK – I admit you got me there. But that’s not saying much…for me, anyways.

  14. Over/under on how many Americans get fucked by this new law before SCOTUS strikes it down? They will, right?

    1. zero real amerikans. as for the scum pretenders…

  15. It would be pretty hilarious if a 10,000,000-man militia showed up at the capitol and told Congress to try to detain them and go fuck itself.

    /Fantasy.

    1. *SWAT team rushes in and hogties RPA while gunships circle overhead*

      1. FUS DOH RAAAAAAAAH, MOTHER-FUCKERS! *Takes out SWAT team*.

        1. Shoulda linked to this.

    2. Hilarious isn’t the word I’m thinking.

      Righteous. Deserving. Necessary? Those all come to mind, however.

      The problem is that there will only be about 17 libertarians, with the other 9.99 million being “America, Fuck yeah!” Conservatives who, low and behold, are the same fuckers who send dicks like Graham to DC.

  16. The NDAA only goes to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot…..years.html

    1. Gee, thanks for clearing that up. We had no idea about any of that until just now!

      (blogspot is dead. All good little hipsters use Tumblr or WordPress).

    2. Fuck that, I consent to both laws. You’re just a losderdopian, that’s all.

  17. The language that passed Thursday ducks the issue, stating that the bill isn’t intended to change existing law on U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S. But the compromise Congress settled on settles nothing. Existing law is unclear, and the NDAA makes it murkier still.

    Today on the Joe Pags radio show (Houston’s resident neo-con), he was arguing with someone about the NDAA, asserting that the bill did not mention that American Citizens could be indefitively detained. What he neglected to mention was that the original bill had language that would’ve made ANY American Citizen the subject of detention on a mere suspicion.

    I mean, this guy doesn’t care that his acquiescence would give the Obama administration almost limitless powers. He only cares about the Team Red narrative of “Ayr-abs” wanting to kill us and make our women done burkhas… or something.

  18. My over/under bet is on how much this law will be used for War on Drugs purposes, using sleight-of-hand and sleight-of-language to designate drug dealers as terrarists.

    1. kinda like the Patriot Act was used against people that had nothing to do with terrorism… ie selling knock-offs.

      1. Authority loves ambiguity. They can spin whatever to mean whatever they want it to, whenever they want to.

  19. The NDAA only goes to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot…..years.html

  20. With breasts that seem to defy gravity Gabriella was surely destined to be a nude model. One hundred percent natural, Gabriella tells us she inherited her incredible assets from her mother. Although mum’s are apparently twice the size!

    This Brazilian beauty is as passionate and temperamental as they come and has lots of life experience for her age. She loves to dance, can mix the best cocktails and at the end of a long day likes to relax by sucking on a fine cigar! The only problem for Gabriella appears to be that she is unlucky in love…

    Although established as a popular model for car shows around the world this was her first time ever doing full nudes. Gabriella however took it all in her stride – as the results show!

    And you won’t want to miss her videos, when the camera started rolling Gabriella turned into a wild cat in the springtime.

  21. The NDAA only goes to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot…..years.html

  22. The ‘Patriot Act’ trumps US Law and US Constitution. All this new movement does is say that they (congress folk) agree with all prior laws concerning detaining American citizens. In other words, detaining anyone, any time or reason, in isolation with no lawywer, no outside contact and no explaination of why you are being held and what you are accussed of, has been supported by the ‘Patriot Act’ which was thought of prior to 9/11. Some in the Bush admin. wanted a “Pearl Harbor-like incident” to give them a reason to invade Iraq…and they got what they asked for. Keep in mind, those in Nixon’s circles had been trying to have the power to make the US president King, with unlimited powers, they were still upset Nixon was told he couldnt and didnt. These folks included Cheney, Ashcroft, Rummy and many others for GW Bush’s administration that supported the creation of powers that state the US President can do whatever he wants with immunity. Welcome to Nazi America, thanks conservatives, you got what you wanted, and now we are hated more and less safe here on our own soil and around the world.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.