Go, Ron Paul, Go!

kokonut said:
I think an American should lose his/her citizenship status and lose any and all constitutional protection once war is declared against the U.S. by engaging in deadly terrorism.
Click to expand...

An American citizen committing acts of mass murder against the American population (which a terrorist act would be) should be charged with a criminal charge, tried in a court of law, and convicted and sentenced. It is a CRIME that needs to prosecuted as such.

This is no different than nutters who plant bombs in public places, not for a cause, but apparently for a thrill. It is a crime that needs to be dealt with as such.

Crime is different than war. It is handled by society differently.
 
DeafBadger said:
An American citizen committing acts of mass murder against the American population (which a terrorist act would be) should be charged with a criminal charge, tried in a court of law, and convicted and sentenced. It is a CRIME that needs to prosecuted as such.

This is no different than nutters who plant bombs in public places, not for a cause, but apparently for a thrill. It is a crime that needs to be dealt with as such.

Crime is different than war. It is handled by society differently.
Click to expand...

That person would have to be a part of an organized military outfit even if they don't wear uniforms (e.g. al Qaeda) who are actively waging war against the U.S. Not about a single, lone nutter which is why I brought up Hamdi as a case example.
 
TXgolfer said:
That was the concern.....which is why they clarified before passing the bill. I stated as much in post 92.



WH OKs military detention of terrorism suspects - CBS News

Again, nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

As long as that bill refrains from stating indefinite detainment without a trial is restricted to non-US citizens, there's a problem. I've already explained that Title X was worded very carefully to avoid saying Americans are exempted, only that it's not a requirement to detain them indefinitely, doesnt mean one CAN'T. Only that they are not required to but can if they want to. You can post links to what people say about the bill all you want but in the court of law, it's the bill itself that's applied, not politicians' quotes.

your second quote - "The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved."

ok....
 
DeafCaroline said:
As long as that bill refrains from stating indefinite detainment without a trial is restricted to non-US citizens, there's a problem. I've already explained that Title X was worded very carefully to avoid saying Americans are exempted, only that it's not a requirement to detain them indefinitely, doesnt mean one CAN'T. Only that they are not required to but can if they want to. You can post links to what people say about the bill all you want but in the court of law, it's the bill itself that's applied, not politicians' quotes.

your second quote - "The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved."

ok....
Click to expand...

Yeah, nothing to worry about. :roll:
 
DeafCaroline said:
As long as that bill refrains from stating indefinite detainment without a trial is restricted to non-US citizens, there's a problem. I've already explained that Title X was worded very carefully to avoid saying Americans are exempted, only that it's not a requirement to detain them indefinitely, doesnt mean one CAN'T. Only that they are not required to but can if they want to. You can post links to what people say about the bill all you want but in the court of law, it's the bill itself that's applied, not politicians' quotes.

your second quote - "The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved."

ok....
Click to expand...

10 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in11
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
12 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
13 Force.
14 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.
Click to expand...

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/HR1540conf.pdf

Rights of U.S. citizens assured in defense bill
The Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act is on the way to President Obama’s desk. The Senate passed the final version today and the House passed it yesterday. The bill would authorize money to continue paying the troops, operating weapons systems, funding engagements in Afghanistan and other national security programs.

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R- Wyo. voted in favor of the bill, but acknowledged constituent concern about anti-terrorism measures in the legislation. Some contend the bill would change the law to allow the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

“We should rightly be concerned about any possible infringement on our constitutional rights, but this bill contains specific provisions to ensure the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are upheld,” Enzi said. “People are hearing the pundits, but they aren’t reading the actual bill.”

Enzi said during debate on each of the Senate and House versions and the process of reconciling them, changes were made to ensure
this bill would not change the rights U.S. citizens already have.


Page 655 lines 14-18 state, “(e) AUTHORITIES.---Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of the United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Page 657 lines 10-22 state, “(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— (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. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement 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.”
Click to expand...

News Releases - News Room - United States Senator Mike Enzi

As I said in post #92
 
Apparently, the political forum and threads on AllDeaf will be closed in January 2012, so I'm going to post a few links to Ron Paul websites in case anyone reading this thread next year wants to check them out. Don't let the media define what he is in your mind. Check things out for yourself. Then your opinion will truly be yours, and that's what counts. :)

Official Sites:

Unofficial Sites:
 
Last edited:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqWWQZM3IHg]Signing the message about the Media Blackout on Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

Can anyone confirm what the conversation is here? I don't know ASL well enough yet. I made out a few signs, but not enough.
 
Ron Paul interpreted! From 2008.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6Sa38T5Ls&feature=plcp&context=C313014fUDOEgsToPDskLSZb_19PGAlFpyBe2Ua8vf]Ron Paul in Missoula for the Deaf | ASL | Part 1 of 8 - YouTube[/ame]

More here: TheMissoulian2's Channel - YouTube
 
He doesn't get my vote, however he is lesser extreme compared to other republicans. I only support Huntsman for GOP president candidate.
 
Did anyone see the debate? Did you notice how they go to commercial when it is Paul's turn to reply? :roll:
 
I only saw the highlights on YouTube, but it doesn't surprise me. They did the same thing in 2008. Except now, the Doctor seems to be unstoppable.
 
Last edited:
Beowulf said:
Did anyone see the debate? Did you notice how they go to commercial when it is Paul's turn to reply? :roll:
Click to expand...

Did you watch it live? There were only 3 breaks in the live debate. And there weren't really any "turns" in this style of debate. Paul was second in minutes behind Romney.
 
TXgolfer said:
Did you watch it live? There were only 3 breaks in the live debate. And there weren't really any "turns" in this style of debate. Paul was second in minutes behind Romney.
Click to expand...

Second in minutes behind Romney???? Oh pleeeeease. I saw the whole debate and twice they went to commercial just when Paul was about to speak. *grumbling* :lol: It appears that the others had a lot more time speaking than he did, though I didn't have my stopwatch with me at the time.
 
Back
Top