I meant checks and balances in a much broader "branch of government" sense. The bill has essentially gone through the standard legislative branch process to date. The executive branch check is next, and then there the judicial check would be next if there are judicial branch actions to be taken due to this new law. As we've discussed.
Yeah, I think I was trying to get at that. I just don't know if Obama is going to veto the bill, and if he does he's not going to veto it to kill it as it sounds like he has no trouble with the bills concept, he has trouble with the execution.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Again, Obama never said he would veto it based on what the bill will do. He said he would veto it because he doesn't want to micromanage the war on terror.
Again, Obama never said he would veto it based on what the bill will do. He said he would veto it because he doesn't want to micromanage the war on terror.
There seems to be confusion on whether or not this bill applies to American citizens. The mainstream media has claimed it does not, however the members of the house insist that it does.
Carl Levin;
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Senator Lindsey Graham, said it does during speeches on the Senate floor.
“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”
- Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial.Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment. In fact, applying Section 1031 to citizens was requested by the Obama administration:
Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”
There seems to be confusion on whether or not this bill applies to American citizens. The mainstream media has claimed it does not, however the members of the house insist that it does.
Carl Levin;
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Senator Lindsey Graham, said it does during speeches on the Senate floor.
“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”
- Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial.Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment. In fact, applying Section 1031 to citizens was requested by the Obama administration:
Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”
Nice.....
mikey, do you see any correlation between this issue and american armed forces being able to work within canadian borders? link
mikey, do you see any correlation between this issue and american armed forces being able to work within canadian borders? link
Admittedly I have not read up on that specific issue, but it wouldn't surprise me. I have heard A.J. yack about that but I have not checked for myself. Thanks for that link btw....forgot about NORTHCOM.
I posted in the "Wheat Board Aristocracy" thread about the "harmonization" council being set up under the latest SPP (NAU) agreement that Harper/Obama signed last week.
They stated that American "law enforcement" (Homeland Security) can operate on either side of the border under the excuse of international terrorism I suppose.
I am quite disappointed by this. I don't want anything to do with Amerika and their police state. Harper is selling our sovereignty down the river in order to "harmonize" with America, which mostly means that we take on American standards.
Food standards are an example of that. In the early 2000's they changed our Canadian standard to allow for more chemical residue on fresh produce.
I think the real reason for allowing foreign troops into Canada/America is to suppress unrest. America's military is pretty busy building empires right now, so if the economy continues to falter and Americans start rioting they will need someone to come in and manage the crowds.
Last edited by mikey_the_redneck; 12-14-2011 at 05:05 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
hahaha..I now realize that this bill is actually so stupid, and dangerous. WTF. It violates so much basic rights.
You have to see the DailyShow (its either Dec8,7, or 12th) and appriciate just how dumb some senators are in US defending this.
Admittedly I have not read up on that specific issue, but it wouldn't surprise me. I have heard A.J. yack about that but I have not checked for myself. Thanks for that link btw....forgot about NORTHCOM.
I posted in the "Wheat Board Aristocracy" thread about the "harmonization" council being set up under the latest SPP (NAU) agreement that Harper/Obama signed last week.
They stated that American "law enforcement" (Homeland Security) can operate on either side of the border under the excuse of international terrorism I suppose.
I am quite disappointed by this. I don't want anything to do with Amerika and their police state. Harper is selling our sovereignty down the river in order to "harmonize" with America, which mostly means that we take on American standards.
Food standards are an example of that. In the early 2000's they changed our Canadian standard to allow for more chemical residue on fresh produce.
I think the real reason for allowing foreign troops into Canada/America is to suppress unrest. America's military is pretty busy building empires right now, so if the economy continues to falter and Americans start rioting they will need someone to come in and manage the crowds.
I think you're reading too much into this.
There has been an informal agreement between Canada and the U.S. in terms of shared deployment of troops in time of a national emergency or an invasion.
IE Canadian Fighters deployed into American Airspace during 9/11 and were given landing rights as required.
Canadian Troops have been theoretically deployed in America with American units under the conditions of both troop exchanges and active duty for example under the terms of Norad.
Canadian Naval ships and personal were deployed into New Orleans.
American Troops deploy for long term exercises in Canada
I doubt very much that there is something sinister afoot in terms of Canadian Troops busting skulls in New York or American Troops rounding up dissident Canadians in Toronto.
The Mexican element is new, but the Canadian element is formalization of assumptive agreements and requirements.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
^^^ Well hypothetically what if the U.S. broke down like Greece and asked Canada to contribute troops to watch over some kind of domestic protest, if it went nation wide for example?
That's some scary territory if some American citizens fire on them.....
I don't see how you have to formalize giving your neighbor a hand in a bad situation.
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
Well if Occupy 2.0 ever happened after this Bill...it probably would be pretty nasty.
I am no tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist...but I bet the contingency plans the Government has in place just in case of a civil emergency (i.e. plague, civil revolt, zombies) would be pretty alarming to civil libertarians.
And frankly...the Government isn't doing their job if they aren't thinking about how to manage a worse case scenario...it just needs to be balanced with a free press.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
I don't see why Calgarians would be all that worked up about the Constitution. It doesn't apply to them.
For most Americans, Canadians and Calgarians, the biggest issue working everyone up is this: It is Wednesday and Survivor and America's Next Top Model are both on in the same time slot.
"Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) John Cornelio, Public Affairs Officer for NORTHCOM/NORAD in Colorado Springs agreed with Libby in a telephone interview with the Fort Fairfield Journal. “The CAP is merely an agreement between the U.S. and Canada where Canadian troops will assist the states when asked,” said LTC Cornelio. “They are not intended to be used for law enforcement purposes.”
However, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) seems to contradict Libby’s and Cornelio’s position by placing the sole determination and use of the U.S. military for law enforcement purposes within a state with the President alone. Section 1068 of the NDAA (H.R. 1585) says, “The president, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy...”
The Canadian military’s agreement with NORTHCOM may allow them into the State under the President’s authority in the NDAA to “suppress in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, if it so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State.” Clearly this portion of the NDAA is intended to authorize the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement within a State, under the President’s discretion, and allows the Canadian military to also be used upon request from NORTHCOM under the CAP.
There is no mention in the NDAA of a State governor’s input in the determination to use U.S. troops within his/her State. Instead, those measures are left solely to the U.S. President alone. The language, “or any other means,” in the law seems to imply the use of foreign troops in addition to, or in lieu of, U.S. troops to enforce the laws of the State and the United States in the event the state’s constituted authorities are either unable, or refuse to provide said enforcement."
They stated that American "law enforcement" (Homeland Security) can operate on either side of the border under the excuse of international terrorism I suppose.
Where did it say that? I understood the agreement to be about intelligence sharing and streamlining certain things. Not about allowing Homeland Security agents to operate in Canada.
I would love proof on this. As would the Liberals and the NDP, since they could hammer the Conservatives right into the ground with that point. So me thinks you're fear-mongering again.
Where did it say that? I understood the agreement to be about intelligence sharing and streamlining certain things. Not about allowing Homeland Security agents to operate in Canada.
I would love proof on this. As would the Liberals and the NDP, since they could hammer the Conservatives right into the ground with that point. So me thinks you're fear-mongering again.
Homeland Security is law enforcement.
We are already sharing our private information with Homeland Security under the Secure Flight Program.
"In November of 2007, the Conservative government expressed concerns over privacy implications associated with the U.S. Secure Flight Program and filed objections with the Department of Homeland Security. They were urging an exemption on a measure that would require Canadian airlines to turn over information on passengers flying over the U.S. en route to other destinations. Despite their grievances being dismissed, they eventually caved in to U.S. demands. In a move to further bring Canada in line with American air travel security rules, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act was introduced in Parliament on June 17 of last year. With little media attention, it passed through the House of Commons on March 2, 2011, by a vote of 246 to 34. On March 23, it received royal assent and became law. Under Bill C-42, Canadian airlines are required to send traveler information through the Secure Flight Program 72 hours before departure. The Transportation Security Administration checks the data against security watch lists which could result in passengers receiving extra screening or even being barred from boarding their flight."
Haha ...you think the Liberals/NDP wouldn't go along with it??
"As you discussed earlier today, the creation of “NextGen” teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime."
-A.G. Eric Holder (aka the gun smuggler)
Last edited by mikey_the_redneck; 12-14-2011 at 10:35 PM.
"More than a dozen Canadians have told the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office in Toronto within the past year that they were blocked from entering the United States after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Lois Kamenitz, 65, of Toronto contacted the office last fall, after U.S. customs officials at Pearson International Airport prevented her from boarding a flight to Los Angeles on the basis of her suicide attempt four years earlier."
"Kamenitz was eventually allowed to board a plane to Los Angeles, four days after missing her initial flight. But in order to do so, she had to submit her medical records to the U.S. and get clearance from a Homeland Security-approved doctor in Toronto, who charged her $250 for the service."
“The CAP is merely an agreement between the U.S. and Canada where Canadian troops will assist the states when asked,” said LTC Cornelio. “They are not intended to be used for law enforcement purposes.”
Just a quick comment on this:
This line of thinking is in my opinion stupid, ignorant of history and as such extremely dangerous. (Unfortunately it's also common.)
First of all, you can never know what the intentions of others are. History is full of examples where deals or laws were made supposedly without Intent X, and immediately or soon after used exactly and specifically for X.
As an example, an internet censorship law was recently passed here in Finland. It was sold on the premise of fighting child pornography in the internet, in a truly classical "think of the children" tactic. Those for the law were adamant that the law was not intended to be used to suppress uncomfortable criticism or censor legal material.
Yet it was immediately used to shut down websites that critiqued the actions of the Finnish central police, plus numerous gay sites.
Second, if you make an agreement or a law for an extended period of time, there's no way to be sure what the next people in power will use them for, or the ones after that. Loosely written laws are especially dangerous, because if you write enough of them, over time you create a system where anything is legal for those with money and power.
Anyone talking about what a law or an agreement is intended or not intended for is basicly counting on the goodness of men. We all know this is foolish, and laws and international agreements are written specifically because people have learned that you can't trust intentions.
Everything needs to be written down, specifically, as intended, and so that it can not be (easily) used for other purposes. It sucks, but that's life.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
