If a jury finds you innocent, you still do life in prison?

nabusa

Registered
Western Government Has Ever Claimed The Power To Do This, Not even Hitler. - YouTube[/url]

So is this real or just some guy talking nonsense on T.V.?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that for real??? I kept looking for an onion news banner but didn't see one:nervous:
 
THere is some truth in the OP. There was a bill attached to the latest defense budget that appears to be, while written with good intent and sponsored bipartisan with Levin/McCain, have a downside that is unpalatable with most Americans (including me) which would appear to give the government the authority to do exactly what the OP alludes. I has not yet passed, and the President has not signed it yet, and several amendments have been proposed to strip those provisions. I don't think it will pass, and SCOTUS would probably strike it down immediately.
 
Fox news spreading more propoganda......:whistle: Yawn..... anytime Fox news goes on a rant about anything without having opposition speakers on the program to refute what is being said to give a different opinion I just lol and turn the channel. this is why I dont watch Fox anymore because they spread more BS then any other broadcast out there.

anyone can go on TV and say what they want but unless you have people on that program that disagree with what ur saying and give reason why then Fox propoganda means absolutely nothing!

there are always two sides to a story....... unless ur watching Fox that is. how lame!:whistle:
 
Fox news spreading more propoganda......:whistle: Yawn..... anytime Fox news goes on a rant about anything without having opposition speakers on the program to refute what is being said to give a different opinion I just lol and turn the channel. this is why I dont watch Fox anymore because they spread more BS then any other broadcast out there.

anyone can go on TV and say what they want but unless you have people on that program that disagree with what ur saying and give reason why then Fox propoganda means absolutely nothing!

there are always two sides to a story....... unless ur watching Fox that is. how lame!:whistle:

I would be careful about framing this into a liberal/conservative issue - the Sponsors were Levin (D) and McCain (R)...I would like to hear both sides. I'm certain that it's original intentions are reasonable (way to capture terrorists who hold citizenship while still on American soil) but I also see how this can be abused. Still think, while on US Soil, this is an FBI responsibility; off US soil, not sure...
 
Pull the bill, read it and decide for yourself.....

you cannot trust an entertainment show to give you facts......

would you watch "Judge Judy" for legal advice?
 
I would be careful about framing this into a liberal/conservative issue - the Sponsors were Levin (D) and McCain (R)...I would like to hear both sides. I'm certain that it's original intentions are reasonable (way to capture terrorists who hold citizenship while still on American soil) but I also see how this can be abused. Still think, while on US Soil, this is an FBI responsibility; off US soil, not sure...

Doesn't matter how you frame it. I will never take anything from fox new seriously - they have absolutely no credibility.
 
obama signed the bill in past couple days to allow the millitary to imprison indefinatly without trial even us citizens...so the concept....exsists and can be used if they want to.
 
Don't believe everything you see on TV. More campaing fodder. The NDAA has been passed every year for nearly 5 decades. It's what defines the budget for the Department of Defence. Obviously there are changes to it every year or hey wouldn't need to vote on it. These are the sections of the NDAA that has everyone up in arms. Are they worded poorly, I'm not a lawyer so I can't judge. Is the intent to be able lock up US Citizens found innicent, absolutely not. Sec 1032.b.1 prohibits that. I believe the Waiver for National Security is what's questionabe, but it is a far cry from an open door to lock up the innocent.
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.

(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes
the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain
covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any
person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent
act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such
enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person
under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the
following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the
end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use
of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code
(as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title
XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section is intended to limit or
expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization
for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United
States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any
other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress.--The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ``covered persons'' for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) Covered persons.--The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or
pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against
the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) Disposition under law of war.--For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of
section 1033.
(4) Waiver for national security.--The Secretary of Defense
may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of
paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a
certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national
security interests of the United States.
(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.
(c) Implementation Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) Elements.--The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not
require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or
intelligence gathering with regard to persons not
already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented
until after the conclusion of an interrogation session
which is ongoing at the time the determination is made
and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply
when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government
officials of the United States are granted access to an
individual who remains in the custody of a third
country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may
be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered
person from a third country if such a transfer is in
the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date
that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall
apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are
taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.
 
Doesn't matter how you frame it. I will never take anything from fox new seriously - they have absolutely no credibility.

If you listen to the broadcast, it seems BHO wrote a law so he could detain people he thought was guilty even though a court found them innocent. There was no mention that this was a bill co-sponsored by a Dem and Rep going through the normal channels. In fact, he made it a point to say the POTUS could not write laws adding more deceptive fuel to the fire.
 
Doesn't matter how you frame it. I will never take anything from fox new seriously - they have absolutely no credibility.
exactly. they are a one sided network and work very hard NOT to hear opinions of anyone other then their liberal guests or speakers.
 
If you listen to the broadcast, it seems BHO wrote a law so he could detain people he thought was guilty even though a court found them innocent. There was no mention that this was a bill co-sponsored by a Dem and Rep going through the normal channels. In fact, he made it a point to say the POTUS could not write laws adding more deceptive fuel to the fire.

True. Congress passes the laws, not the President and sometimes the anger is misplaced. In fact, BHO said he'd Veto it if it came to his desk.

But, I will also bet you, that if this same law was proposed with GWB in office, BHO, the Nancy/Harry Circus, Code Pink and that man-child Rachel Maddow at MSNBC would be screaming at the top of their lungs that this was a Right Wing Hitler youth assault on their freedoms....and you know it. Fox news was came into existence and soared in popularity specifically in reponse to the Communist News Network...if CNN had been 'balanced', FXN would never had come into being.

Bottom line, it should not be passed or signed by the President in it's current form. and SCOTUS is the last line of defense.
 
Back
Top