Which traitors in the Senate voted for detaining American citizens indefinitely?


#1

Roll Call for Lee-Feinstein Amendment 3018 to the NDAA | Conbustible

NAY’s :
Ayotte (R-NH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

YEA’s:

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Both of my Senators voted for it. I will vigorously support any primary challenge they face.

And to all potential Rubio supporters, remember how he voted…


#2

Holy cr*p! Even McCain voted against indefinite detention.


#3

Some of the folks who voted Nay, are quite conservative, I would like to know their logic behind the vote…


#4

“Them thar terrorists are goin to blow us to smithereens!”

Actually, here is how Lindsey Graham put it (who isn’t conservative but they listen to him):


#5

Not to diminish 9/11, but I agree with someone I heard who said that we should not give away our Bill Of Rights because a couple of buildings got blown up.

Think of all of American history from triumph to tribulations and ask yourself if giving it up is worth it. Ask yourself Lindsey Graham. If he says “Shut up, you don’t get a lawyer”. I say, “Shut up, you leave my freedoms and country alone.”


#6

Probably those who understand that enemy combatants are a military issue, not a “Civil Rights” issue regardless of whether they were born in America or not.

I have yet to hear of one detainee that has been held “indefinitely” as an enemy combatant without sound reasons for identifying them as genuine enemies to the United States, this in spite of every Terrorist supporting organization from the ACLU to the U.N. trying to find a test case.

The military kills and apprehends enemies, until the conflict is resolved those enemies are not to be released so they cannot replenish the ranks of those we are fighting.

This was just an attempt by the Extreme Left to get Terrorist’s turned loose so they can start killing Americans again, I am physically incapable of even feigning surprise anymore that the PaulBot’s jumped on this Lefty train from day one.

The moment you throw your lot in with entities that have declared war on the United States is the moment you forfeit your Constitutional Right to due process. You don’t get to fight with U.S. Enemies to kill Americans and destroy American Property and then play the Civil Rights card when you are caught.

Could this wartime practice be abused? Certainly.

Is there a mechanism to protect those who might be citizens that are not enemies but are held during war time under this practice? Absolutely.

That is why Terrorist organizations like the ACLU and many others get access to these prisoners while they are held captive, if a test case existed that actually had merit they would cheering for joy with all the Paul Supporters and using it as evidence that every Terrorist be released immediately.

After a decade with no credible evidence, the Liberal’s did the only thing they could do and use the citizenship status of known enemies as a foundation to at least get some Terrorist’s out of military isolation and back to a position of effectiveness in the fight.

And of course the “We are not Liberals because we agree with Liberals on everything for different reasons” crowd broke the sound barrier climbing onto the bandwagon.


#7

Since when are there military powers that revoke the Bill of Rights RET?

Don’t you realize the Founders knew the slippery slope of such things therefore they put in timeless provisions?

If a court can’t find a terrorist guilty, how do we know there is even a legitimate case? You leave out the important fact that we have to prove they are actually a terrorist.

If I rob a bank, lightning doesn’t reign down from the sky and strike me dead as a guilty man.

This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue: Paul, Lee, Demint, Coburn voted for it as well as Reid, Schumer, Durbin, and Boxer.

I will also note that this only applies to American citizens. And enemy combatants, meaning in combat, should be shot dead. Why would they be detained?

Hopefully more people have look at the history of nations and understand that power corrupts absolutely.


#8

Another point: Even if wartime powers were justified, the War on Terror is not a traditional war, furthermore it is never ending as terror will always exist.


#9

Individual Civil Rights have been deemed less important than National Security in time of War since this Nation was founded.

Every single War this has been the case and every single Supreme Court that has faced this issue has agreed that when the Constitutional Charge to defend the Nation is hindered by the recognition of individual Constitutional Civil Rights, the Civil Rights are less of a priority.

Every single Founder who became President acted in this precise way when America was under assault.

Every single previous War in American History had FAR greater Civil Rights compromises than this effort we are fighting today, all of those evaporated when the threat was dealt with.

This is nothing but another attempt to help restore the ranks of Terrorist’s and further erode the moral of the troops who are still in harms way.


#10

They may be deemed less important, but the Constitution gives no indication of that, in fact it does the opposite.

Some Founders did do what you suggest, such as John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Act, which Jefferson and Madison opposed with the Kentucky and Virginia nullification.

I am quite confident America can be safe and free at the same time, and if not, so be it. But I am pretty sure that America won’t be less safe if we don’t take away their freedoms. There are 8 billion people in the world, any of which could perform a terrorist act.

Most of the terrorists we deal with are foreigners anyway.

Looking at history, you give the government an inch and they take a mile. And the other problem I brought up: This “war”, if you can call it that, is endless.


#11

There is a reason why we separate the military from the fray of common police actions…and also why I am opposed to using military as police. We are NOT policemen, we are war fighters, but difference, we have our own rules the UCMJ…which I expect Congress/Obammy is going to attempt to rewrite, Klinton wanted to!

War fighting is not in itself a criminal act, robbing a 7-11 store is…if we bring them into the world as crime we will never get a conviction.

UBL could NOT or EVER have been convicted in a US court. Obama killed his as it was his only choice, he could not have let him go to court, he would have walked. One might notice Obama’s actions in the ME since the death of UBL, he has been in a MAJOR payback to the Muslim Brotherhood ever since as evidenced by Benghazi and his denial of any problems in the ME…and the MURDER of 4 Americans was: “just a bump in the road” Think they were coughed up for his killing of UBL???


#12

The Constitution charges the Federal Government with certain responsibilities, when those conflict the Supreme Court determines if the Executive Solution was appropriate or not.

Claiming that the Constitution does not mention or claiming that the document at large claims the opposite is ridiculous. If that were the case there would be no Judicial Check and Balance and our Founders would not have supported National Security exceptions themselves.

Contradictions must be addressed, it is entirely logical to conclude that if America falls to an enemy ALL Rights are lost FOREVER so when that is the circumstance civil rights are less important that National Security.

EVERY Founder who experienced a threat during their lifetime supported National Security over absolute civil rights until the threat was dealt with.

And every single Founder, President, Congress and Supreme Court in American history has determined otherwise in times of war.

Thank God they ALL also disagreed with your flippant “but if not then so be it” attitude as well.

We would not even have the Liberties we have today if they thought losing a war was less important than making sure Terrorist’s got a “Speedy Trial” and we would have lost every war if our military was made to gather evidence before firing every shot or detaining any enemy that survived the field of battle.

Oh, well then never mind.

As long as you are “pretty sure” then we should toss out all the aggregate wisdom of our Founders and every President, Congress and Supreme Court that have determined otherwise and preserved our sovereignty for over 200 years.

They all made great arguments for their actions, I don’t remember any of them saying “I am pretty sure this will work out” as a component to those arguments. Just as I have never heard a compelling argument from their opponents as to how the Nation can be effectively defended by making our military operate as domestic police operate.

And that has what to do with incarcerating known Terrorist’s?

And that has what to do with the debate regarding how to deal with known Terrorist’s?

Not regarding temporary exceptions to civil rights in times of war, if that were true then these tiny matters that are being debated today would never have been necessary because FAR GREATER EXCEPTIONS were made in all previous wars. If these exceptions never expired they would not have to be reinstated every time another war broke out.

If the Extreme Left and the Paulbot’s win in the court of public opinion then yes, these Terrorist’s will gain control of enough of the worlds energy supply to fund their efforts and starve enough other Nations into abandoning the United States as an ally, this will render the conflict endless or provide an ending that will remove all Rights from everyone.

If that were my goal then I would cheer these efforts from the Extreme Left as well, but that is not my goal.


#13

One is a charge, the other is a prohibition. The charge is subservient to the prohibition.

Here is an example: If there was a very large white nationalist movement that rebelled against the government, and the government declared “military powers” (which are not in the Constitution), and said for the safety of the nation firearms would be confiscated from all white people, like you and myself, would that be legal?

No of course not. You cannot temporarily repeal the 2nd amendment.

And every single Founder, President, Congress and Supreme Court in American history has determined otherwise in times of war.

Thank God they ALL also disagreed with your flippant “but if not then so be it” attitude as well.

We would not even have the Liberties we have today if they thought losing a war was less important than making sure Terrorist’s got a “Speedy Trial” and we would have lost every war if our military was made to gather evidence before firing every shot or detaining any enemy that survived the field of battle.

People in power always go with the statist position. That does not surprise me in the least.

You are simply strawmanning. This is not about justifying shots on a battlefield, that is allowed via a declaration of war. Nor does it concern POWs. This is about arresting American citizens without due process.

There is no war that would have been lost by denying American citizens due process.

Oh, well then never mind.

As long as you are “pretty sure” then we should toss out all the aggregate wisdom of our Founders and every President, Congress and Supreme Court that have determined otherwise and preserved our sovereignty for over 200 years.

They all made great arguments for their actions, I don’t remember any of them saying “I am pretty sure this will work out” as a component to those arguments. Just as I have never heard a compelling argument from their opponents as to how the Nation can be effectively defended by making our military operate as domestic police operate.

Considering attacks have nearly exclusively come from the outside, I am more than pretty sure.

And I don’t consider the ability to lock me up in a prison, without the ability to defend myself a good argument. It may be more convenient for them to do their job, but not essential. No thanks. At that point, government has broke the social contract and they deserve the finger.

And that has what to do with incarcerating known Terrorist’s?

The point is, this idea that if we wait long enough to try an American (unproven/suspected) terrorist by jury, or wait long enough to revoke citizenship by finding them treasonous, that we will not longer be safe is simply wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with a combat situation.

And that has what to do with the debate regarding how to deal with known Terrorist’s?

Because this amendment concerns the indefinite detention of American citizens.

You make it sound as if I am advocating we go capture members of Al Qaeda and bring them before a small town jury. This is not what I am saying at all.

Not regarding temporary exceptions to civil rights in times of war, if that were true then these tiny matters that are being debated today would never have been necessary because FAR GREATER EXCEPTIONS were made in all previous wars. If these exceptions never expired they would not have to be reinstated every time another war broke out.

Regardless, I don’t want them instated in the first place, and secondly this war has no defined end by your own admission I believe.

If the Extreme Left and the Paulbot’s win in the court of public opinion then yes, these Terrorist’s will gain control of enough of the worlds energy supply to fund their efforts and starve enough other Nations into abandoning the United States as an ally, this will render the conflict endless or provide an ending that will remove all Rights from everyone.

If that were my goal then I would cheer these efforts from the Extreme Left as well, but that is not my goal.

I don’t even know what this means. Paul supporters support expanding the free market of energy(as opposed to restrictions) and are against foreign aid to Middle Eastern(and all) countries.

If I didn’t have to deal with all of these ridiculous strawmen ideas it would save me a lot of time.


#14

That is completely ridiculous;

  1. No such criteria exists to make this determination
  2. No “Rights” of any sort will endure if we fail to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic
  3. No serious individual or group has ever offered a defensible argument for ignoring the security of the Nation to make sure Terrorist enemies are not inconvenienced for too long.

Your analogy would be accurate if you said;

“A large militia group within the U.S. declares war on the U.S. and begins killing citizens and destroying property, the military is summoned to fight this group but is told that before every shot is fired they must gather enough evidence to prove that this was in defense and before any enemy combatants can be detained or interrogated they must receive an attorney and be availed of a speedy trial”

That is the case you are arguing to defend, not a ridiculous fantasy about ALL AMERICANS losing a Right as a result of few being pursued for solid reasons.

Utterly ridiculous, evidence to the contrary is overwhelming even in this day of Traitors passing themselves off as Constitutionalists.

No, you are “Straw Manning” by emphasizing the “citizen” element instead of the “Enemy Combatant” element to those being held as part of the War on Terror.

If you or any of the Leftist advocates for these Terrorists could produce one shred of evidence that any detainee was being held for reasons that did not rise to enemy combatant status they would have long ago, after a decade of trying and failing they have now resorted to trying to release their Terrorist buddies this way.

That opinion plus a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.

The fact is every one whose opinion on this matter would actually make the difference of winning or losing a war has thought different, just as every electorate since America’s Founding has thought different. The results of all those “opinions” has been the preservation of the United States.

If your “side” ever develops a compelling argument for freeing Enemy Combatants during a war or granting them full Constitutional Rights (which includes tying the hands of our military like the police are tied) then your “opinion” will get the opportunity to destroy us all.

Until then you are just going to have to live without the Terrorists that are captured.

So, are you willing to submit a list of all the property and citizens that can be destroyed by the “few citizen Terrorists” so we can all see why your “Most of them are foreign” comment is relevant?

That is not the argument, that is your argument.

Everyone else knows that the military kill and apprehend the enemy using far different techniques than the local police, these techniques are designed to be effective and fast not meet the criteria and minutia of a corrupt Judicial system that frees known guilty perpetrators for technicalities.

Everyone knows that allowing a Terrorist a platform of a public trial endangers the entire community.

Everyone knows that our military does not catalog the necessary minutia to meet the demands of a civil trial and expecting them to do so would render them unable to defend the Nation.

Everyone knows that a Terrorist has no “Right to remain silent” before interrogators.

Everyone knows that putting State enemies in jail with anti social citizen criminals just creates more domestic opportunity for Terrorist organization.

Everyone knows that you cannot fight wars with the same concepts that you balance the need to protect store owners from armed robbery while protecting the store owners other Rights.

Those are some pretty damn good arguments that I could expand on for pages, I have yet to hear a legitimate challenge to any of them from the “No, we would be fine without these exceptions” crowd.

Another great argument I see, it is just “convenient to fight this way, not essential”.

It has to do far more than a “Combat Situation” if you would think about it for a few seconds.

It has to do with gaining intelligence, much of which we don’t even know we are after until future events instigate suspicions.

It has to do with not making our military worry about civil court justifications as they fight our enemies or else they will have to release them to kill again.

It has to do with keeping as much Terrorist organization off of American soil as possible.

Wrong, this Amendment has to do with making sure that citizens who have joined enemy combatants in trying to destroy Americans will either released to resume fighting because our military captured them without the needed structure to meet the demands of civil court. It also means that any citizen who decides to join the enemy will know that upon capture they will never be interrogated or convicted as long as the military captures them.

Enemy Combatants have forfeited their citizenship and all the Rights that go along with citizenship, after the war concludes they can make their case just like all war criminals but while the fighting is going on they are entitled to nothing but what the military thinks will help our war effort.

No, you are claiming that an Al Qaeda member who is taken captive by our military should be given all the Rights of citizenry as long as he is a citizen of the U.S. You are choosing to emphasize his citizenship status and ignore his Terrorist status.

You want him tried in a civil court when you know damn good and well that our military does not and can not dot the I’s and cross the T’s as they conduct our defense in a manner that would meet the criteria of a civil court.

It ends when the Terrorist’s are dead or so ineffective and unable to influence world governments that they can barely keep themselves alive.

Their only hope is the voices like Ron Paul and Diane Feinstein who fight to get decent Nations to surrender to them, they know if they hang on long enough these cowards will finally convince enough voters to support walking away while the opportunity to rebuild still is viable.

Paul supporters want to let the Terrorist’s rule the oil producing Nations so they will have unlimited financial resources and they can influence world policy with a turn of the spigot.

You have already “saved too much time”, some legitimate study and critical thinking long ago would have kept you off the bandwagon you are riding on to begin with.

Actions have consequences, we have thousands of years worth of human history to see how certain actions cause consistent reactions. Your ideas applied the way that you want them applied always bring about the same result.


#15

You do know that less than 15% of US oil consumption is from oil from the Gulf, right? “Oil producing nations” when considering US oil consumption refers to the US (we produce almost half of the oil we consume), Canada (23%) and Mexico (13.5%).


#16

The Bill of Rights was put in place to stop the government from infringing on them. The government must operate within the Bill of Rights.

Your analogy would be accurate if you said;

“A large militia group within the U.S. declares war on the U.S. and begins killing citizens and destroying property, the military is summoned to fight this group but is told that before every shot is fired they must gather enough evidence to prove that this was in defense and before any enemy combatants can be detained or interrogated they must receive an attorney and be availed of a speedy trial”

That is the case you are arguing to defend, not a ridiculous fantasy about ALL AMERICANS losing a Right as a result of few being pursued for solid reasons.

There is no need for permission to engage in defense. But you would try these people, not put them somewhere out of sight and mind. That’s ridiculous. Domestic terrorists from John Brown to Timothy McVeigh have been on trial.

They are obvious terrorists, but what of accomplices? I can’t believe I have to explain how a legal process works. The government has to prove somebody did something, this was the wisdom of the Founders and why it takes up 3 amendments, not some revisionist history of war powers. In fact, this is basic common law predating our country.

Anybody can be called a terrorist and be withheld without a trial. That is the problem. The Bill of Rights was not designed to protect guilty people, but innocent people.

Utterly ridiculous, evidence to the contrary is overwhelming even in this day of Traitors passing themselves off as Constitutionalists.

Even the best Presidents, Congresses, and SCOTUS’s deviate from limited government.

No, you are “Straw Manning” by emphasizing the “citizen” element instead of the “Enemy Combatant” element to those being held as part of the War on Terror.

If you or any of the Leftist advocates for these Terrorists could produce one shred of evidence that any detainee was being held for reasons that did not rise to enemy combatant status they would have long ago, after a decade of trying and failing they have now resorted to trying to release their Terrorist buddies this way.

I emphasize citizen because that is who I care about, not terrorists as you put in my mouth.

My concern is not releasing terrorists. I want terrorists found guilty. I also don’t want one person as the arbiter over who is a terrorist or not.

That opinion plus a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.

The fact is every one whose opinion on this matter would actually make the difference of winning or losing a war has thought different, just as every electorate since America’s Founding has thought different. The results of all those “opinions” has been the preservation of the United States.

If your “side” ever develops a compelling argument for freeing Enemy Combatants during a war or granting them full Constitutional Rights (which includes tying the hands of our military like the police are tied) then your “opinion” will get the opportunity to destroy us all.

Until then you are just going to have to live without the Terrorists that are captured.

Again, the fact “enemy combatants” that are American citizens are so rare makes your sensationalism sound ridiculous.

We actually interned 110,000 Japanese Americans during WW2. Guess what, your “war powers” screwed all of those people over, it had no outcome on the war, and they were not dangerous. They never got a jury trial or treason hearing.

Ronald Reagan actually signed a reparations bill, though I disagree with reparations, the bill described the situation as: “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership”.

So, are you willing to submit a list of all the property and citizens that can be destroyed by the “few citizen Terrorists” so we can all see why your “Most of them are foreign” comment is relevant?

I don’t have a list. But I’m pretty sure shoulder fired rockets are not being fired into Pennsylvania.

That is not the argument, that is your argument.

Everyone else knows that the military kill and apprehend the enemy using far different techniques than the local police, these techniques are designed to be effective and fast not meet the criteria and minutia of a corrupt Judicial system that frees known guilty perpetrators for technicalities.

Everyone knows that allowing a Terrorist a platform of a public trial endangers the entire community.

Everyone knows that our military does not catalog the necessary minutia to meet the demands of a civil trial and expecting them to do so would render them unable to defend the Nation.

Everyone knows that a Terrorist has no “Right to remain silent” before interrogators.

Everyone knows that putting State enemies in jail with anti social citizen criminals just creates more domestic opportunity for Terrorist organization.

Everyone knows that you cannot fight wars with the same concepts that you balance the need to protect store owners from armed robbery while protecting the store owners other Rights.

Those are some pretty damn good arguments that I could expand on for pages, I have yet to hear a legitimate challenge to any of them from the “No, we would be fine without these exceptions” crowd.

I, along with the rest of America, will not America to be the battlefield.

You seem to think throwing the word terrorist around eliminates the danger from giving the power to the government to literally lock up people forever without accountability.

Domestic terrorists have always been tried and have always been convicted. People committing acts of violence, should the situation arise where they can be stopped with deadly force, deadly force has always been used on them.

You seem to really think I care about domestic terrorists, but I don’t. I hate them. I care about restraining government from destroying the liberty of the people. There is nothing moral about liberty being destroyed by the government rather than some other entity. I just support common and natural law.

Another great argument I see, it is just “convenient to fight this way, not essential”.

It has to do far more than a “Combat Situation” if you would think about it for a few seconds.

It has to do with gaining intelligence, much of which we don’t even know we are after until future events instigate suspicions.

It has to do with not making our military worry about civil court justifications as they fight our enemies or else they will have to release them to kill again.

It has to do with keeping as much Terrorist organization off of American soil as possible.

I would hope our military branches and department of justice are competent enough to prove people are indeed terrorists. If not, we cannot expect to fight off anybody. There is nothing stopping the President from taking out the local Bircher meetup and calling them domestic terrorists.

In fact, and I should have brought this up earlier, right wing groups are on terrorists watch lists.

Enemy Combatants have forfeited their citizenship and all the Rights that go along with citizenship, after the war concludes they can make their case just like all war criminals but while the fighting is going on they are entitled to nothing but what the military thinks will help our war effort.

Citizenship can only be forfeited by a treason hearing. You may want it to be forfeited, but saying it doesn’t make it truth.

Have you seen NOTHING of the totalitarian nations of the world who have abused their powers incrementally???

No, you are claiming that an Al Qaeda member who is taken captive by our military should be given all the Rights of citizenry as long as he is a citizen of the U.S. You are choosing to emphasize his citizenship status and ignore his Terrorist status.

You want him tried in a civil court when you know damn good and well that our military does not and can not dot the I’s and cross the T’s as they conduct our defense in a manner that would meet the criteria of a civil court.

Unfortunately, yes that situation could happen. But if you reformed the judicial system, it wouldn’t have to. The Bill of Rights sets the guidelines for the judiciary, not the specifics. Get rid of those technicalities you mentioned.

Also, Article 3, Section 3 is known as the Treason Clause:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

It ends when the Terrorist’s are dead or so ineffective and unable to influence world governments that they can barely keep themselves alive.

Their only hope is the voices like Ron Paul and Diane Feinstein who fight to get decent Nations to surrender to them, they know if they hang on long enough these cowards will finally convince enough voters to support walking away while the opportunity to rebuild still is viable.

In other words, decades if ever.

Paul supporters want to let the Terrorist’s rule the oil producing Nations so they will have unlimited financial resources and they can influence world policy with a turn of the spigot.

If you mean the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I don’t believe they were big on oil. Other Muslims, but not terrorist organizations are however. But strawmen aside Paul supporters are antithetical to terrorists.


#17

[quote=“17Oaks, post:3, topic:37324”]
Some of the folks who voted Nay, are quite conservative, I would like to know their logic behind the vote…
[/quote]I would say that McCain being a prisoner of war had a lot to do with why he chose what he did.


#18

[quote=“samspade, post:17, topic:37324”]
I would say that McCain being a prisoner of war had a lot to do with why he chose what he did.
[/quote]Previously he fought hard against it. Not sure why he switched.


#19

What on earth does that have to do with anything I have written in this thread and the global oil market in general?

Or any global market of any commodity for that matter?

These are serious questions by the way, I am really interested in your understanding of global markets and the intellectual criteria that flows your mind until you conclude that Terrorists controlling a significant portion of this global supply of oil would have little to no effect on U.S. economic and national security.


#20

And the Government MUST provide a defense sufficient to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic in order for ANY Rights to endure for ANY American.

You ignore that just as you ignore the element of a particular citizen being a Terrorist and just pretend that they are a citizen only.

If your position had merit you would be able to encompass ALL the facts that must be dealt with instead of misrepresenting the situation in order to justify your view.

McVeigh and Brown had not joined foreign based Terrorist groups that had declared war on the United States and then killed thousands of our citizens, they were American grown and based fringe movements. There was no existing military war going on against them and they were not arrested as a result of military activity in time of war.

That is a Straw Man comparison.

And I can’t believe you think a declaration of war from a foreign source and a military commitment to deal with this threat is in any way similar to a nutjob from the States who manages to blow something up.

The military do not do their job via the “legal process”, they are called to action when the threat is beyond what can be handled by local authorities. The fact that some of these Terrorist’s are citizens makes no difference, if you want to cite some examples try finding traitors during any previous war and see if the military handed them over to the police for a “trial” while the war was still going on.

You can’t find a relevant example so you bring up isolated domestic events that had no connection to any foreign groups who we were at war with.

When we are at war the military is under no obligation to do anything but kill people and break things until their orders say differently or they are defeated in battle.

No “anybody” cannot be called a “Terrorist”, only “Terrorists” are called “Terrorists”. That is why the Extreme Left had to pass this bill, if they could have found any actual evidence after a decade of looking to support your claims they would have produced it long ago in their battle to discredit the U.S. military.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul believes our military just randomly hangs the terrorist label on U.S. citizens for the fun of it or to perpetuate some political agenda but Ron Paul is a Traitor who votes to send troops into battle then condemns them and votes to cut the funding they need while they are still dodging bullets.

Not much credibility there and its looking like Rand is picking up the dung torch as Benedict Paul retires.

Defending the country is not Unconstitutional and protecting war criminals is not Patriotic to anyone but Terrorist groups.

Name one single non terrorist citizen that has been detained in this war then.

So why don’t you describe what it would look like as our military got approval for each act of national defense to insure that if any citizens were among the enemy ranks enough care would be taken to not hit them with bullets and all necessary evidence was preserved to satisfy a civil court while they are trying to destroy all the non citizen terrorists present.

I am sure you have given this much thought, maybe you can offer an analogy or comparative to the 1920’s domestic bootleg whiskey industry. That would be no more ridiculous and irrelevant than comparing Timothy McVeigh to Al Qaeda.

So what is your number of how many innocent Americans must die before your assessment of “rare” become “regular” enough to treat them as the enemy combatants they are?

That is your point right? That a citizen who joins forces with an entity that America is war with should not be treated like all enemy combatants but be dealt with like a shoplifter?

You are a spoiled child that reads history as if the filters of today’s reality have always been so.

You have never once laid your head down at night with the knowledge that superior military forces were joining together to destroy and conquer your nation. You have never breathed a single breath of air in a world where America was not at the very least a co super-power.

It is easy to sit in your spoiled chair and condemn the internment of Japanese citizens when you never awoke on a Sunday morning to hear the entire Pacific Fleet was sank and several thousand military soldiers and citizens were slaughtered just a few hours earlier.

You never had to face a war with insufficient weaponry and the relevant naval fleet to deal with the aggressor under water and full of the corpses from the crew. You never had to hear a short time later that not only is this impossible task before you but Nazi Germany has seen your weakness and declared war on you as well.

You are damn right we used “racial profiling” to minimize the domestic threat while we scrambled to build a military fast enough to put up a fight, we also took every domestic staple for the war effort and everyone just made do with whatever they could scrounge up.

You sit in the safety and security of the reality that those you CONDEMN have provided so that you never have to know a morning or a mindset like that and you condemn them from this princess seat.

FDR was RIGHT to intern the Japanese and Reagan was RIGHT to pay reparations to their families. You do what you must to preserve the Nation and you right the wrongs as best you can after the threat has been dealt with.

Then you listen to those so ungrateful for the sacrifices that EVERYONE made (not just Japanese citizens) that they sit in the safety and security of a dominant America decades later and condemn you for your efforts.

You clearly belong in the Ron Paul Camp.

Or the Twin Towers, or the Pentagon, or the Jet that went down in a field in PA.

I am “pretty sure” none of that was from a “Shoulder Fired Rocket” either, and every one of those monsters was here legally.

You want all terrorist’s captured by our military in the war who turn out to be citizens to be turned over to a civil court knowing full well that our military does not conduct a war in such a way as to gather evidence for a jury. That means they will walk and rejoin the Terrorist effort that they are committed to.

Maybe that is because we have never had our military operate as our domestic police operate in all of American history and these war time policies have always ended with the war.

You preach conspiracies while ignoring ALL the evidence through ALL America history to the contrary and you support ideas that no military could incorporate while fighting to win.

But you know that don’t you? Just like Ron Paul knows it.

There is a huge difference between “Domestic Terrorists” and “Foreign Terrorists that have declared war on the United States and are committing terrorism on Domestic Soil”

But you know that as well don’t you? You are just hoping I won’t see the obvious difference between of a war that the U.S. military is engaged in and scumbag local who builds a fertilizer bomb in a rental truck.

So much that you want our military’s hands tied so that they must release them to civil authorities knowing full well that they will return to kill more Americans and never give up any helpful intelligence in the meantime.

Yeah, sound like hate.

You care about restraining the government from defending America from enemies that have declared war on us via violent attack and you care about the Liberty of any citizens that have joined this enemies cause.

Oh that is what it takes, “competence”?

Our military is not “competent” if they do not follow domestic police procedures before they act in any way just to insure that if any citizens are among the combatants their “Rights” are protected? They should never fire a shot unless fired upon first and only having yelled FREEZE?

Apparently America has no choice but to experience the hell of what it is like to be an inferior nation under attack from a superior foe again before the last couple of generations will be able to grasp the obvious fallacy of their ideas.

Too bad we live in the Nuclear age now, that does not leave much time for “education the hard way”.

Except every single person between his “order” and the hands who carry out the actual task.

As are “Left Wing” groups, eyeballs are everywhere since 9/11.

Seems like there would be some examples by now of abuse but the last one I know of was Waco Texas and that was way before 9/11, way before before a “Patriot Act” was law or a “Dept. Of Homeland Security” existed.

Traitors are shot on site in war quite often and a “hearing” has nothing to do with whether a citizen who joins Americas enemies to kill us is guilty of Treason.

Truth does not wait for your pencil pushers and Armies do not get permission from judges before carrying out their orders. You keep using non wartime examples to justify what you want to happen during a war that our military is still fighting.

Have you seen NOTHING of our own history from every single war we have ever been engaged in?

You use apples and oranges comparisons everywhere else so I guess using other Nations as examples because your own would disprove your point should not surprise me.

Yeah, I am sure your hero Diane Feinstein is working on that right now with Rand Paul and they have an agreement that they will both support this “reform” so that Americans are not slaughtered by the bill you are praising.

Would you like to bet everything you own against everything I own that not one of these Extremist Liberal’s has had or will ever have any intention of reforming the judicial system in any substantive way?

I just wanted to quote this line by itself so that everyone could enjoy it.

You are the only one who has interjected Straw Men and Paul supporters are judged just like Paul.

On their decisions to support what they support not the excuses they offer for what they support.