"USA... A Police State?" -- Robert Folsom.. Bill S 3081

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Scataphagos, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. By Robert Folsom
    Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:30:00 ET

    Suppose the U.S. Senate passed a law which gives the Federal Government the power to do the following to American citizens who are suspected of a crime:

    1. Forbid interrogators from telling the person of their right to remain silent.
    2. Forbid interrogators from telling the person of their right to legal counsel.
    3. Deny the person habeas corpus protection (the government cannot keep a person in custody without charge).
    4. Do all the above not only to a person suspected of a crime, but also to a person who may know about a possible future crime.

    Note that I began with "Suppose," because the U.S. Senate has not passed such a law. But I know for a fact that the Senate is considering a bill that undeniably will grant the government those powers and more. Senators McCain and Lieberman introduced the legislation early last month (March 4).

    Not much information is available about the bill (S 3081), apart from snippets on blogs and websites I've never heard of. You may find my description too outrageous to accept: I understand. I didn't believe it either. That's why I went to the Library of Congress database (THOMAS), found the bill and read the language myself.

    Your initial response to such a law may be a loud "Why?" If so please keep reading -- I can at least offer a very plausible explanation regarding "Why now?"

    In the interest of accuracy, the bill's title is "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" -- in other words, how to treat terrorists. Yet the supposed purpose of a law is one thing, while the actual language may be a different thing indeed.

    In this case, the bill's broad language is different from its purpose in the same way the Mississippi River is different from a spring-fed creek. For example:

    * "An individual who is suspected...shall not, during interrogation...be informed of any rights...to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona."
    * "An individual, including a citizen of the United States...may be detained without criminal charges and without trial..."
    * It even says that a citizen can be designated a suspect based on "uch other matters as the President considers appropriate."

    You read that right: "Such other matters as the President considers appropriate." Broad enough for you? Why has the mainstream media said virtually nothing? Good question; this bill came to my attention about 10 days ago, and I expected the stuff was surely about to hit the proverbial fan. But it's no more on the radar now than it was then.

    Habeas corpus protection is far older than the Constitution, dating from the Magna Carta in 1215. The bill's sponsors are surely aware that much of the language is flagrantly unconstitutional. They introduced it anyway.
  2. Did you know that if you live within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border it is already considered a "constitution free zone"? USA is already a police state there.

    I started a thread saying this a long time ago and got bashed as a lunatic. Fact is they are taking it away so slow that people dont notice. We are all a bunch of boiling frogs witnessing the eclipse of liberty.

    "if you give up liberty in the name of safety than you deserve neither"
  3. Don't forget about the national ID card that douche bag dick durbin is proposing and the black boxes in cars.

    I guess only citizens can be documented while it's inhumane to ask illegals for proof of citizenship.

    The democrats are such a bunch of fucking morons.
  4. Joe Public says:

    "This doesn't concern me at all.
    I'm not a terrorist, nor have I ever been one. Therefore I have absolutely nothing to worry about."

    (Joe Public isn't very bright.)
  5. Why don't you go back to $^%$ Isreal and stop complaining about this country. :confused:
  6. Illum


    This one is introduced by McCain isn't it? Whoever is behind it, probably the biggest traitor in our history.
  7. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2700923#post2700923

    Not all Jews are bad, you know.
    Karl Marx also wanted to 'even things out' by bringing everyone else down to his level... and he was a Jew.

    "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."

    ~Abraham Lincoln
  8. Ricter


    Just a couple of observations. Marx's critique of capitalism, and his desire for social justice, had nothing to do with religion. In fact race and religion are two topics nearly undiscussed in his volumes.

    That quote from Lincoln, it must be out of context? Yes, you would strengthen the weak, relatively speaking, perhaps strengthen them to the tipping point, which is the point of conflict.
  9. You see it that way because you are not a racist.

    I was speaking to Walter in his own terms. To envy-consumed antisemites like him, a Jew is still a Jew, no matter how many servings of pork he chooses to eat on Yom Kippur.
  10. Blotto


    I wonder if there is yet an informal society of prosperous free thinkers who are working behind closed doors on ways and means of avoiding as much as possible the creeping tentacles of The State.

    If there isn't, there ought to be. Perhaps there ought to be a group of interested individuals who start working together on planning, pool resources, expertise, etc. Perhaps also research folk like JJ Luna, Bruce Schnier, etc with a view to retaining them as consultants.

    Obviously we cannot rely on Joe Public to be sensible, and have little to no chance of stopping the underlying political agenda. The only real chance of living free is to understand the weaknesses in the protocols adopted by those who seek to rule over us. Thankfully what they have in mind is enslaving the average Joe, so there ought to be ways the more intelligent and courageous amongst us can get on. Especially those who are not and will never be employees.
    #10     May 1, 2010