[mattduke]

Obamas bill of right shredding power grab National Defense Authorization Act has been met wih open defiance by at least 16 counties.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... ects-ndaa/

[Cloud9]

This is an age old argument that has been going on since the inception of the government. The Federalists never wanted a Bill of Rights. They only agreed to one because they needed the Antifederalists to sign on in order to get the Constitution ratified.

The concept of federalism as borrowed from the Iroquois Confederation can best be modeled by a tetrahedron. A tetrahedron is a four sided pyramid. It is one of the most stable and durable geometric forms. The three visible sides of the pyramid represent the three sources of power in the federal system. The first and most obvious side is the federal government. The second is the state governments. And the third is the people themselves.

The fourth side, the base of the pyramid, represents the fourth estate, the press, the internet. It is the medium in which the free flow of ideas and information interact. Without the fourth estate the three visible sides cannot appropriately appraise their situational environment and make informed decisions.

Since the inception of the republic, the Federalists have gone about garnishing more and more power for themselves at the expense of the people and the states. Decisions beginning with Marbury v. Madison and military expeditions like the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War have shrunk the state’s side of the pyramid and the people’s side of the pyramid to mere shadows.

The NDAA was the final victory of the Federalists over the Antifederalists. It stripped the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. I suspect it is a pyric victory. The system is out of balance. The states and the people know this. The original agreement between the Federalist and the Antifederalist has been broken. The social contract between the federal government and the people has been shredded.

Balance will be restored. We are in the initial stages of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Those were the first steps toward civil war. At some point, the heavy hand of the Federalists will come down on sections of the population they deem to be dangerous to their interests and the status quo. This will marginalize the support for the ruling oligarchy. Given a legitimate electoral process, the required balance will be restored by the ballot. If the electoral process is thwarted by blatant and obvious corruption then the ballot will be replaced by bombs and bullets.

In the last civil war, the Federalist were able to wrap themselves in the flag of the Union and claim the righteous stance of abolitionists. They were able to couch their power grab in the terms of liberators. The shredding of state’s rights at Appomattox was seen by the majority as blow for liberty. The nation celebrated union and the end of slavery.

Today, the endless growth of petty fiefdoms within the federal bureaucracy has brought the federal government into every aspect of our daily lives. The salaries and pensions of those bureaucrats cannot be sustained in a contracting economy without the continual and perpetual debasement of the currency.

This debasement will collapse the system. The vision of total control so dear to the Federalists is an illusion. The closer they come to their goal, the closer we come to the collapse of the system. The day that socialism succeeded in the Soviet Union was the day the system collapsed.

[dinopello]

Balance will be restored.

Damn right. Although it could be quite unbalanced just at the local level as well. Most local governments have ceded responsibility for much of their infrastructure to the state and federal governments. They have been unwilling to tax their citizens at the level needed to maintain many of the following: roads, bridges, street lights, and signals, electric grids, sanitary and storm sewer and drinking water systems, police, fire, schools, courts, jails etc. Yet, I believe the citizens kind of want most of this stuff. A corollary to this is that most local government and civic institutions that I have seen are practically infantile in their ability and approach to making basic governing decisions. Their practical experience and processes at obtaining citizen consensus is immature to non existent. It will be interesting to see what happens when their infrastructure falls further into disrepair and starts failing.

[Pops]

Nice, cloud.

-- Matt
Silly to title the thread with the name of the Other since the argument goes that the statute simply reiterates the post 9/11 Authorization of Force law.

So vacate Os NDAA sacrilege and lets get back to good old fashioned Bushco AUMF, is that your point?

Divide and conquer is the best tactic so score one for the conquers.

[SeaGypsy]

The definitions are no different in their deliberate total vagueness. My favourite is: "To hold the person/s until 'hostilities cease'. Given that we are entering an age 'the long emergency' where there will be an endless stream of people going nuts at TPTB; this term could easily be taken as 'for the natural term of life'.

[autonomous]

In addition to the aformentioned counties, there are cities and states that have passed legislation "nullifying" the NDAA:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/ndaa/

[mattduke]

Nice, cloud.

-- Matt
Silly to title the thread with the name of the Other since the argument goes that the statute simply reiterates the post 9/11 Authorization of Force law.

So vacate Os NDAA sacrilege and lets get back to good old fashioned Bushco AUMF, is that your point?

Divide and conquer is the best tactic so score one for the conquers.

Pops, this will be nearly impossible for you to fully contemplate so I suggest you sit down before reading the next sentence. I think that both Obama and Bush are horrible presidents. Calling out crimes of the current president does not mean I absolve the crimes of the prior (investigation into which Obama halted).

[SeaGypsy]

In Australia various state governments have been trying to introduce 'Anti Bikie' legislation/ amounting to 'crime by association'. New South Wales (the biggest pop state/ home of Sydney) it is a crime to associate with anyone who has a criminal record, more than 3 meetings and you are a criminal for knowing one. Absolutely ridiculous law, if you are friends with someone who is convicted of a crime you must write them off and never associate with them again. I bring this up because similarly to the Bush/ Obama Homelands security bills/ laws which do away with ordinary freedoms are being put through with nary a whisper of dissent. The gullible public assume that trust can be fairly placed with the authorities to not abuse these laws. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Government taking enormous liberty to destroy freedoms, which they may at any future time begin to use as they see fit. Whether talking about crime in general (including stupid drug laws etc.) or 'terrorism' (politically motivated violence)/ the state should have to prove a crime before they can convict or punish a criminal/ terrorist. These laws are about being able to arrest and detain on suspicion; wildly open to interpretation.

[Pops]

Nice, cloud.

-- Matt
Silly to title the thread with the name of the Other since the argument goes that the statute simply reiterates the post 9/11 Authorization of Force law.

So vacate Os NDAA sacrilege and lets get back to good old fashioned Bushco AUMF, is that your point?

Divide and conquer is the best tactic so score one for the conquers.

Pops, this will be nearly impossible for you to fully contemplate so I suggest you sit down before reading the next sentence. I think that both Obama and Bush are horrible presidents. Calling out crimes of the current president does not mean I absolve the crimes of the prior (investigation into which Obama halted).

So why not a thread title like 16 counties defy Bush/Obama indefinite detention?

Your link said nothing about Obama or how hard he's fighting for the statute, in fact it actually berated the republican platform chair for backing the law.

But you mentioned Obama twice as if he thought it up.

See I have no problem "contemplating" O co-signing W's crimes any more than I have faulting O for continuing W's tax dodge for the rich or his backing the Heritage Foundation / Romney plan to make the moochers buy medical insurance or pretending we can "stand up" afgans and on and on.

What I have a problem with and where I usually speak up is the straight party-line blather a la Plant because as long as the plutocrats can keep the proles stonewalling each other with partisanship they can have free rein.

[mattduke]

Take a moment for introspection into your own knee-jerk reaction to a post highlighting resistance to NDAA tyranny. You are hesitant to decry the crimes of Obama because you hate the Republicans more. And thus the crimes continue, while always a full one-half of the population remains silent.

[Cloud9]

We must understand that both parties are dominated by Federalists.

[SeaGypsy]

Who are as much as they dain to admit, duty bound to multinational corporatism.

[Pops]

Take a moment for introspection into your own knee-jerk reaction to a post highlighting resistance to NDAA tyranny. You are hesitant to decry the crimes of Obama because you hate the Republicans more. And thus the crimes continue, while always a full one-half of the population remains silent.

Take a moment to review my thread on the subject from a year ago, then tell me again how I am the one trying to pit one half against the other by how I frame the topic.

[mattduke]

If you are against NDAA why did you vote for Obama? A simple veto from your dear leader is all it would take. I can't recall Obama as having ever vetoed anything at all! I can't believe you rubes voted for him. The next time I see a Obama sign adjacent to an anti war sign I'm going to lose my mind.

[dissident]

One would have to be detached from reality not to a smell a rat with all of these police state laws. What is the new threat that requires change in the legislation this deep? Don't tell me it is Islamic terrorists. Any 9/11 repeats yet? How about thwarted ones more substantial than the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber?

The only logical conclusion is that the deciders know that social breakdown is in the pipeline. These laws are designed to protect the US government from its own people. It is good to see that some people are at least half awake, but unfortunately the majority are not. Also, it does not matter who you vote for, the agenda is always the same as evidenced by actions and not words.

[Pops]

If you are against NDAA why did you vote for Obama? A simple veto from your dear leader is all it would take. I can't recall Obama as having ever vetoed anything at all! I can't believe you rubes voted for him. The next time I see a Obama sign adjacent to an anti war sign I'm going to lose my mind.

So, did you look at that thread?

Did you note the date?

Has there been an election I missed?

More to the point, will Mitt do anything different considering he is now a severe conservative?

The AUMF in 2001 was the law that originated indefinite detention not the NDAA!

You must know that and is this just more of the new "I'm rubber and you're glue" strategy by the right to click their heels and hang the tragic Bush and the neo-con travesties on Obama?

Here from the blog, RightWingNews

Last week, the Senate voted 93-7 to pass S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. ..
The ACLU, Occupy San Francisco and other left wing groups are hysterically protesting that one of its provisions encroaches on civil liberties, and Obama has threatened to veto it. Section 1032 states that suspected terrorists related to al Qaeda and 911 shall be detained indefinitely by the military without a civilian trial until the end of authorized military hostilities.

The Senate Foreign Service Committee leadership asserts that the controversial provision merely codifies existing law. Liberal columnist Glenn Greenwald writing for Salon agrees, “…it doesn’t actually change the status quo all that much.” In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist Yaser Esam Hamdi could be held indefinitely as an “illegal enemy combatant.” However, the court qualified it by saying that U.S. citizens have the right to challenge their enemy combatant status before a judge. U.S. citizen and accused terrorist Jose Padilla, aka the dirty bomber, was arrested in the U.S. and held by the military without a trial for three and a half years. The Fourth Circuit has upheld his detainment.

Section 1032 applies to both terrorists arrested overseas and on U.S.soil. An amendment failed that would have exempted U.S.citizens. U.S.citizens are not included in the mandatory detention provision, instead the bill states that they may be detained, and an amendment was added giving the president the option to give them a civilian trial instead.

A compromise amendment was adopted which recognizes that existing laws regardingU.S.citizens suspected of terrorism shall be respected. An amendment by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to limit military detentions to only those captured overseas failed by 55-35, and an amendment by Mark Udall (D-CO) to strip out the entire detention provision failed by 67-31.


Some on the right are also speaking up against the bill. A writer for Forbes has labeled it “the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans face.” Senators Rand Paul (R-TX) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) were the only Republican Senators to vote against it.

You are trying to spin this as some evil Obama plot, when in fact the underlying document is the Authorization to Use Force of 2001, somewhat before Obama's tenure.

[mattduke]

The simple fact is that you vote for presidents that sign Patriot Act and NDAA into law and I do not. You are the problem. I'm surrounded by people like you that keep voting for these criminals, starry eyed and dazzled every four years, fooled every single time.

[Pops]

Ah, so the problem is people who vote?

Got it.

[Cloud9]

Why not punish the guy who signed it by voting for the other guy. Would Romney another Federalist have signed the same legislation? Probably, but probably doesn't out weigh did.

[mattduke]

Ah, so the problem is people who vote?

Got it.

In a sense, yes. The government needs your vote to lend legitimacy to their actions, and to implicate you in the process. If you vote for either of these "choices" you will have very real blood on your hands. If everyone refused to vote for them, they would make voting required by law, like the democratic republic of north Korea. I am wracked with enough guilt that ive submitted to being their war slave, but at least I can say I never gave it my approval, unlike you, who votes for war, torture, spying every time they give you an opportunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_North_Korea