And yet it's 1000 pages. Pretty much sums up what's so fucked up about Congress. Why be clear, specific and concise when you can write 1000 page bills that are far-reaching, vague, and more importantly confusing?
S.1867 is the end of America
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
- Status
Works for banks.
According to the OP content, they won't be tried. You can basically just be put in a box and forgotten about.
It's what our process has become. They simply can't sit there and vote for the 2,000 items they need to pass, so they cram them all in one bill. A sub committee of members of congress from both parties put the bill together, then it gets sent to the floor and, for a bill this size, weeks and months of debate, amendments, etc occur. The same happens on a similar but not quite the same bill in the house. Then another committee is formed from both senate and house and they agree on the same set of amendments that makes the bill the same on both sides, then they pass it and it goes to the president.
No single senator is ever going to read and understand the full bill as it was submitted, nevermind the amendments. They use staffers to parse the language and point out anything that might be worth making a stink about. The majority of the bill (90% or so, perhaps) is simple housekeeping, and is generally ignored unless it can be used as a bargaining chip for something else. They fight like cats and dogs over the more precious bits - items that might be turned to their advantage in terms of industries in their states, or political advantage. They insert completely irrelevant stuff simply to get it passed.
This defense bill, for instance, modifies and funds, in part, the clean water act specifically for rural water systems. Why is it in the defense bill? Why not! Further, the President doesn't have line-item veto. He can veto the whole bill, or none of it. It's one of the checks and balances that gives congress real power - Yes, the president can vote against the rural water stuff, but then he also throws away his half trillion dollar military budget. It's an arm wrestling match, and he has to balance the whole against the minor irritations of the little things thrown into the pot along with it. Gumbo is great, but if the cook likes a bit of gristle in their gumbo, you might have to eat some gristle if you want the rest of the gumbo.
It's a ridiculous process. Uniquely American, you might say.
Added at: 19:58
If they only targeted people with no close friends or family, then perhaps there would be no cases. I suspect, however, that even then someone would find out, and get the ACLU and others involved to test out the law, if not friends and family. If it happened to my wife, my kids, anyone in my family, I would not stop until I took it to the supreme court.
Okay, I have to admit, my initial information came from the ACLU. Was it complete? No. But it also wasn't entirely mis-representative; if passed, those provisions to this bill could allow exactly that - disappearing US citizens without any due process. This is the sort of thing that there needs to be the occasional foofaraw about, because ultimately we are responsible for what sort of things become law.
The bill needs better language to define the process for determining a suspect's status as a terrorist or not, and defines what rights they have to clear themselves, get representation, etc. On of the larger problems here is people assume that once they are imprisoned by the military, they have no charges, no rights, etc - which is wrong. They will be able to fight the charges in military tribunals. It's different than civilian courts, but it's not like people are going to be thrown into a pit with no recourse. Due to guantanamo, the gov't has a process in place for detainees.
I used to work for an environmental testing company that had the USAF as a client and you would not believe just how much the military has to do with clean water. Or should I say "contaminated water that smelled so bad you had to plug your nose when you went into the sample cooler even though it was in jars packed in vermiculite inside a cooler inside a refrigerator". Not saying the Clean Water stuff wasn't just tacked on as pork, but it wouldn't be out of place either, depending on the context. It actually makes a lot of sense for the Clean Water Act to show up in a defense bill if it was regarding rural water quality near military installations. Which section of the bill is it?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nati...s-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-20111117
Despite his bloodlust for assassinating US Citizens abroad, it looks like Obama would do the right thing if this passes Congress. Whew.
Despite his bloodlust for assassinating US Citizens abroad, it looks like Obama would do the right thing if this passes Congress. Whew.
Obama cannot orgasm unless a drone blows up a jeep filled with his Moslem brothers.
No wonder the tabloids say his wife wants a divorce.
(the bloodlust part was joking)
M
makare
we need a that was a joke font.
Which side of the Duck has the most feathers? The outside!
Which side of the Duck has the most feathers? The outside!
Uh... no. A military tribunal is essentially being thrown into a pit with no recourse. The jury you have to sway is made up of the people trying to put you away and the burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence. More over, you are likely to be denied adequate representation on the grounds of national security. It's next to impossible to win one of these, especially since the members of the court don't have to answer to anyone but themselves.
Necronic
Staff member
So, everyone put on your Alex Jones shirts for this next one. I wanted to see if any lawyers etc had already started crying foul on the Habeus Corpus problems with this bill. So I googled 1867 Habeus Corpus. As I hit enter I was like "oh snap, 1867 is like a year, but....meh what are the chances that it's some big thing for habeus corpus, this should take me right to S. 1867"
Whelp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1867
In that one it was a movement to expand the power of Habaes Corpus to allow Federal writs on State imprisonment. Calling the house bill S. 1867 is a clear "thumbing of the nose" by the New World Order at us.
Ok, taking my Alex Jones shirt off now.
Whelp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1867
In that one it was a movement to expand the power of Habaes Corpus to allow Federal writs on State imprisonment. Calling the house bill S. 1867 is a clear "thumbing of the nose" by the New World Order at us.
Ok, taking my Alex Jones shirt off now.
Necronic
Staff member
If this were true then "A Few Good Men" would have been the most boring movie in the world.
Also the critically acclaimed "JAG" never would have come out, which would have set western civilisation back by at least 10 years.
M
makare
I found out A Few Good Men is based on a true story. I thought that was fun.
M
makare
I never watched it and when I saw JAG i didn't even think of a show. lol.
It's understandable. JAG was a show mostly watched by people only slightly younger than Dave.
M
makare
It was the show that spawned NCIS though right? now that show i love. mmm DiNozzo.
Technically those aren't military tribunals, they are court marshal. The difference being that a tribunal prosecutes non-citizen soldiers, while a court marshal prosecutes soldiers of our own forces.
They may well be nearly the same process, but those shows don't show military tribunals (although perhaps they had one in a given JAG episode?).
From the wiki you posted.
Basically, Military Tribunals don't remotely resemble Common Law courts. They look more like the Guantanamo military commission.
Zappit
Staff member
tldr; RTFLegislation - Citizens and lawful resident aliens are explicitly disallowed in the bill that was actually passed. The previous language was amended, and people shouldn't be so up-in-arms about it any longer.
.
You guys suck. Seriously. Read the bill that was actually passed and you'll find, in quite plain language:
I suppose you can be annoyed about the possibility of illegal aliens disappearing now.
But the actual language of the bill that was passed does NOT allow citizens to be detained under these rules.
Here's the full text of the relevant sections for those interested (which can be found by going here, clicking on"Text of Legislation", searching for "Detainee" and clicking on "Subtitle D: Detainee Matters") - there is more to subtitle D about detainee matters, such as transporting them, etc, but it's not relevant to this discussion:
.
You guys suck. Seriously. Read the bill that was actually passed and you'll find, in quite plain language:
Alright? All this section does now is give a clear path for them to consider existing and future detainees who are NOT citizens or lawful resident aliens.
I suppose you can be annoyed about the possibility of illegal aliens disappearing now.
But the actual language of the bill that was passed does NOT allow citizens to be detained under these rules.
Here's the full text of the relevant sections for those interested (which can be found by going here, clicking on"Text of Legislation", searching for "Detainee" and clicking on "Subtitle D: Detainee Matters") - there is more to subtitle D about detainee matters, such as transporting them, etc, but it's not relevant to this discussion:
M
makare
Also 1000 pages for a bill like that doesn't seem all that bad to me. I mean it is a lot of pages but vagueness in legislation is not a good thing. If the bill covered 50 issues that would only be 20 pages an issue so some are more some are less but it works out about right.
And before anyone points out "great things" that are less than 5 pages like the bill of rights or whatever, believe me more than 1000 pages have been written clarifying the bill of rights probably more than 10,0000. Less is not really more in legislation.
And before anyone points out "great things" that are less than 5 pages like the bill of rights or whatever, believe me more than 1000 pages have been written clarifying the bill of rights probably more than 10,0000. Less is not really more in legislation.
Yeah, but they tend not to spend 1000 pages clarifying those issues; if anything, it makes the law more vague with the wording, and they sneak in a bunch of unrelated bullshit.
I'm so sick of Congress, more than any other section of our government. Maybe it's because I've been living nearby for too long. I didn't feel this way in New York. It was a bunch of bitching about Bloomberg then.
I'm so sick of Congress, more than any other section of our government. Maybe it's because I've been living nearby for too long. I didn't feel this way in New York. It was a bunch of bitching about Bloomberg then.
M
makare
I don't understand what you mean. I am saying that they do in fact write thousands of pages clarifying those issues.
And I'm saying I don't think it clarifies anything. I highly doubt that if individual members of Congress are too busy to vote issue-by-issue that they take the time to read every page of every bill when the bills get to be hundreds of pages long. I don't think it's to clarify anything. I think it's to make the bill intimidating so it's less likely to be gone over carefully, which is why we get shit hidden inside like the water situation mentioned earlier in the thread. Most bills have unrelated crap like that, with everything getting piled together. I don't believe our elected representatives actually wade through all that to know exactly what they're voting on.
So no, I don't think it clarifies the issues of the bill.
So no, I don't think it clarifies the issues of the bill.
- Status