R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011

Military. Foreign. That would sabotage and espionage just like the spys captured during WW2

Yes. Europe. Various, and FDR detained people without suspicion.

No we have NSA, CIA, DIA, Homeland security, Justice Department and on and on

What is the premise of your painting me as a "state-worshipper" whatever that is?

Do I see what you assert? No and that you assert it doesn't make it true.

No Congress has been fully involved and we the people can always vote them out of office.

 

What does it have to do with the size of government?

Apparently all the "big-government" liberals are not fine with it.

Wrong, it's the abortion rooms where we want the government.

 

except that you won't.

 

Locking American citizens up indefinitely without due process is hardly what was intended. Perhaps that person might be innocent? Why is it that you are incapable of believing that there is the distinct possibility that an innocent individual might be detained? Isn't the reason why we have three branches of government in large part due to the fact that mistakes occur and than any single branch might in fact abuse its power? What we are talking about here is effectively removing the judicial branch of the government from the equation. Are you really certain that is what was intended? I'm not.

 

Anarchism isn't the answer. Everytime it appears, it gets very ugly very fast.

 

You haven't been looking very hard.

Celtic Ireland was an anarchic society that lasted, peacefully, for about a millennia. Then there was Medieval Iceland that existed as a anarchic society for about six centuries. The concept that government is necessary is a myth perpetuated by a state that needs you to fear it in order to exist.

 

It's safe to say that the world was much bigger back then.

Trade relations were a lot simpler as well.

 

The world may have been perceived as bigger, but it wasn't. And trade may have been perceived as simpler, but it isn't.

Trade should be a voluntary contract between individuals, why have a government intervention?

 

If we don't need to we won't.

 

The government holding you indefinitely without a trial seems like a problem if you are in favor of small government.

So you are fine with gay marriage. I applaud you for that. Now, what are your reason(s) for being against abortion, and do you allow exceptions?

 

Sounds like you're pro Oath Keeper.

 

That is the purpose of the Constitutional clause. It does not apply to criminal matters, it applies to national security matters, foreign invaders and citizens you fight with them.

Now you know, don't engage in acts of war against us especially with our foreign enemies.

And again, were we able to hold American citizens fighting for the Nazi's during WW2? Indefinite detention without a trial?

 

What's really surprising are the liberals who spent the better part of 8 years whining that Bush was crapping all over the constitution, now seem perfectly comfortable with Obama taking steps that are 100 times worse than Bush ever did.

But I had always suspected that it was never about Bush's policies, it was only about Bush.

And the past 3 years have proven me right.

 

Winna

Winna

Chicken

Dinna.

 

I'm a liberal and I'm not OK with it. Nor are a lot of other liberals on here OK with it. And some conservatives have come out in favor of it. So it is what it is.

 

Although I disagree with the conservatives who support this, at least their support is both bipartisan and consistent. They are supporting it even though Obama requested it.

And although there are principled liberals who oppose this, and have said so, I don't think that makes anywhere near a majority of liberals. That majority, who opposed Bush detaining enemy combatants seem to now have no problem with Obama assassinating American citizens without due process or detaining American citizens.

How am I supposed to square the circle of liberals who don't want foreigners detained, but have no problem if Americans are?

 

Those liberals are not worth listening to .

 

Wait, I thought you just said every time anarchism appears things get "ugly."

 

This bill doesn't specify and battlefield or tribunal. It says the president can detain people he says are terrorists.

That was a battlefield then. Not that I'm saying that necessarily makes it right, but the NDAA bill doesn't require it be on battlefield, let alone define what "battlefield" is.

Are you kidding me? So if that bunch in unbiased and infallible, why do we have courts then? Why not just give the above unbiased and infallible bunch power to decide who are rapists, muggers, and shoplifters too? Good grief, you state worshipers get my gall. The CIA alone is responsible for a laundry list of dark deeds that should make any decent human being's hair curl. Yeah, I sure trust this bunch to tell us who they need to cage up.

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

No answer I see. When do you think the "war" will end? Five years? Fifty? If it never ends and we don't have a Bill of Right until it ends, I guess we don't have a Bill of Rights, period.

Oh, yeah, sure, vote the bums out, right, that always works Right up until they start "detaining" their political enemies, oh, I mean those nasty, durned ol' terr'rists. Thank goodness fewer and fewer people buy what your selling. It's simply stunning that they ever did.

 

Obama wants no part of Ron Paul.Check this Radio show.

 

Tell me more about this "Celtic Ireland" cos that sounds like nothing I've ever heard about in irish history.

 

Do you not have a "google" button?

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/celtic_anarchism

Ireland was an anarchic society for a millennia.

 

Rothbard interprets medieval Ireland as an essentially stateless society:

The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath....

....Chiefly, the king functioned as a religious high priest, presiding over the worship rites of the tuath, which functioned as a voluntary religious, as well as a social and political, organization. As in pagan, pre-Christian, priesthoods, the kingly function was hereditary, this practice carrying over to Christian times. The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.

....the law itself was based on a body of ancient and immemorial custom, passed down as oral and then written tradition through a class of professional jurists called the brehons. The brehons were in no sense public, or governmental, officials; they were simply selected by parties to disputes on the basis of their reputations for wisdom, knowledge of the customary law, and the integrity of their decisions....Furthermore, the brehons had no connection whatsoever with the individual tuatha or with their kings. They were completely private, national in scope, and were used by disputants throughout Ireland. Moreover, and this is a vital point, in contrast to the system of private Roman lawyers, the brehon was all there was; there were no other judges, no "public" judges of any kind, in ancient Ireland....Furthermore, there was no monopoly, in any sense, of the brehon jurists; instead, several competing schools of jurisprudence existed and competed for the custom of the Irish people.

How were the decisions of the brehons enforced? Through an elaborate, voluntarily developed system of "insurance," or sureties. Men were linked together by a variety of surety relationships by which they guarateed one another for the righting of wrongs, and for the enforcement of justice and the decisions of the brehons. In short, the brehons themselves were not involved in the enforcement of decisions, which rested again with private individuals linked through sureties. There were various types of surety. For example, the surety would guarantee with his own property the payment of a debt, and then join the plaintiff in enforcing a debt judgment if the debtor refused to pay. In that case, the debtor would have to pay double damages: one to the original creditor, and another as compensation to his surety. And this system applied to all offences, aggressions and assaults as well as commercial contracts; in short, it applied to all cases of what we would call "civil" and "criminal" law. All criminals were considered to be "debtors" who owed restitution and compensation to their victims, who thus became their "creditors." The victim would gather his sureties around him and proceed to apprehend the criminal or to proclaim his suit publicly and demand that the defendant submit to adjudication of their dispute with the brehons. The criminal might then send his own sureties to negotiate a settlement or agree to submit the dispute to the brehons. If he did not do so, he was considered an "outlaw" by the entire community; he could no longer enforce any claim of his own in the courts, and he was treated to the opprobrium of the entire community.

There were occasional "wars," to be sure, in the thousand years of Celtic Ireland, but they were minor brawls, negligible compared to the devastating wars that racked the rest of Europe....

What, you think your Irish state-funded school is going to teach you about how Ireland got along just fine without it for centuries???

 

Yeah, when fascists from outside roll in with the tanks to stop it.

 

This is stupid.

This is all about those terrorists in gitmo.

Obama needs to grow a pair, and give em closed door tribunals and execute them.

If they were free in pakistan he'd have no problem calling in a drone...