Recommended Posts

Obama's Bill: Global Poverty Act

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. [more]

Well everyone here was wondering what types of things Obama will want to do. Here is one of the first, a bill that would require the US to spend money on foreign aid dependent on the U.N. whether we wanted to or not.

And look at this part:

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

So not only does Obama want to tax you to pay "poor helpless people" around the world, but he wants to take away your only method of resistance, the right to bear arms.

This is sickening. First Bush takes away many of our Civil Liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, specifically the right to Habeas Corpus, and now Obama is going to come in and start taxing us to the hilt at the same time taking away our weapons. We are going to be left in a police state. They should just call this bill the "US to Poverty Act".

--Dustan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael; Re the giving back which is including with scholarship which will be some sort of National Service.

Be afraid! Be very afraid.

Hey guys, if I had young children today, I would be getting the hell out of Dodge and living like in the movie "Off the Map". The problem would be could you connect with the net by solar powered generators and not give away your position?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Brazil is a great option. There are many more laws and regulation down there, but punishment is arbitrary and everybody fudges on principle.

If you do it right, Brazil is one of the freest countries on earth. If you do it wrong and try to be a good law-abiding citizen, it is pure bureaucratic hell.

Here they actually want you to obey the law. (That was hard to adjust to after 3 decades... :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is sickening. First Bush takes away many of our Civil Liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, specifically the right to Habeas Corpus, and now Obama is going to come in and start taxing us to the hilt at the same time taking away our weapons. We are going to be left in a police state. They should just call this bill the "US to Poverty Act".

--Dustan

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is habeas corpus extended to non-citizens. Legal non-citizens in the past have received this right, but it was never mandated by the constitution itself. So it is more of a privilege extended to legal resident non-citizens. One cannot take away a right one never had.

And habeas corpus is not a natural or absolute right. It can be suspended in times of war or rebellion. Indeed, habeas corpus was suspended during the American Civil War.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent Ba'al

Right on point.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is sickening. First Bush takes away many of our Civil Liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, specifically the right to Habeas Corpus, and now Obama is going to come in and start taxing us to the hilt at the same time taking away our weapons. We are going to be left in a police state. They should just call this bill the "US to Poverty Act".

--Dustan

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is habeas corpus extended to non-citizens. Legal non-citizens in the past have received this right, but it was never mandated by the constitution itself. So it is more of a privilege extended to legal resident non-citizens. One cannot take away a right one never had.

And habeas corpus is not a natural or absolute right. It can be suspended in times of war or rebellion. Indeed, habeas corpus was suspended during the American Civil War.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/st.../rte-italic.png

Italic

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am sorry but the denial of habeas corpus to US citizens has already happened twice:

Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_enemy...t#United_States

Yaser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was taken to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but was transferred to jails in Virginia and South Carolina after it became known that he was a U.S. citizen. On September 23, 2004, the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to Saudi Arabia, where he is also a citizen, on the condition that he gave up his U.S. citizenship. The deal also bars Hamdi from visiting certain countries and to inform Saudi officials if he plans to leave the kingdom. He was a party to a Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which issued a decision on June 28, 2004, repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

On May 8, 2002, José Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, was arrested by FBI agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held as material witness on the warrant issued in New York State about the 2001 9/11 attacks. On June 9, 2002 President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant". The order legally justified the detention by leaning on the AUMF which authorized the President to "..use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons..." and in the opinion of the administration a U.S. citizen can be an enemy combatant (This was decided by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex Parte Quirin)[42]. Padilla is currently being detained in Miami and is accused of supporting terrorism.

* The November 13, 2001, Military Order, mentioned above, exempts U.S. citizens from trial by military tribunals to determine if they are "unlawful combatants", which indicates that Padilla and Yaser Hamdi would end up in the civilian criminal justice system, as happened with John Walker Lindh.

* On December 18, 2003, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days[43]. But agreed that he could be held until an appeal was heard.

* On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal.

* The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28 it was thrown out on a technicality. The court declared that New York State, where the case was originally filed, was an improper venue and that the case should have been filled in South Carolina, where Padilla was being held.

* On February 28, 2005, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him[44]. He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the parallel enemy combatant case of Yaser Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), in which the majority decision declared a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

* On July 19, 2005, in Richmond, Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began hearing the government's appeal of the lower court (the District of South Carolina, at Charleston) ruling by Henry F. Floyd, District Judge, (CA-04-2221-26AJ). Their ruling Decided: September 9, 2005 was that "the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed."[45]

* In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (June 29, 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.

Also see the Lakawanna Seven who were black mailed into pleading guilty, because if they didn't they would be declared unlawful enemy combatants and hauled away to jail to be held without habeas corpus.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003...lo_6/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is

engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because

it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.

As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.[28] Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful combatant, it is impossible to know where the battlefield is and who combatants are. Also, she notes that most of the detentions are already unlawful.[29]

The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to any person

who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that if the President says you are an enemy combatant, then you effectively are

Also Lincoln was wrong for suspending Habeas Corpus. But Bush especially is since we are not at war or invasion or at rebellion:

US Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2

And Bob, I have no idea where you get the idea that the Constitution is not extended to non-citizens, all law in the US is applicable to anyone within our boundaries. That is why they have the main terrorist jail at Gitmo, Gitmo is not within the US' boundary.

--Dustan

Edited by Aggrad02
Link to post
Share on other sites
And Bob, I have no idea where you get the idea that the Constitution is not extended to non-citizens, all law in the US is applicable to anyone within our boundaries. That is why they have the main terrorist jail at Gitmo, Gitmo is not within the US' boundary.

--Dustan

Show me the section and the paragraph in the U.S. Constitution that says non-citizens have the right of habeas corpus. I await with bated breath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me the section and the paragraph in the U.S. Constitution that says non-citizens have the right of habeas corpus. I await with bated breath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that it says that any law is applicable or non applicable to non-citizens inside the United States. Or better yet show me where the U.S. Constitution says that White People, or Black People, or Women, or Children have the right of habeas corpus.

I await with bated breath.

BTW: I could careless about non-citizens, especially ones who were found to be attacking the U.S., such as the Taliban. What I do care about is the law the lets the President of The U.S. declare anyone (including citizens inside the US) who he would like as an unlawful enemy combatant, and stripping them of all of their rights, including habeas corpus.

-Dustan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the Military Commissions act also suspends the 5th and 6th amendments:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Also the FISA bill violates the 4th amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Also Bob, I just found that in Article III, Section II, the judicial power of the federal courts extend to all cases in which the United States is a party, meaning that any citizen or noncitizen that is to be tried for treason, or of being an unlawful enemy combatant, should be covered by the federal courts, which would include the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to be presented with evidence against you, the right to defense counsel and the right to a trial jury, all things that are denied by the Military Commissions Act.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Also Bob you have the 14th Amendment, Section 1: which explicitly states that all persons are covered under the Constitution:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me the section and the paragraph in the U.S. Constitution that says non-citizens have the right of habeas corpus. I await with bated breath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that it says that any law is applicable or non applicable to non-citizens inside the United States. Or better yet show me where the U.S. Constitution says that White People, or Black People, or Women, or Children have the right of habeas corpus.

I await with bated breath.

BTW: I could careless about non-citizens, especially ones who were found to be attacking the U.S., such as the Taliban. What I do care about is the law the lets the President of The U.S. declare anyone (including citizens inside the US) who he would like as an unlawful enemy combatant, and stripping them of all of their rights, including habeas corpus.

-Dustan

Gentlemen:

Can we agree on some assumptions:

1) If it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it reverts to "the people" which, I, and many Constitutionalist argue, means specifically the individual.

e.g., see current pending D.C. gun case and Silberman decision;

2) Under certain enumerated "situations", the Constitution gives the executive branch the power to "suspend" the right of habeas corpus, e.g.

"The name given to a variery of writs... In common usage, and whenever these words 'are used alone' [*] they are usually understood to mean the habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (see infra). U.S. v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 44 S.Ct. 54, 57, 68, L.Ed. 221. The primary function of the writ is to release from unlawful imprisonment. People ex rel. Luciano v. Murphy, 160 Misc. 573, 290, N.Y.S. 1011." Black's Law Dictionary.

* http://supreme.justia.com/us/263/149/case.html < link to Tod decision

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Also the Military Commissions act also suspends the 5th and 6th amendments:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Also the FISA bill violates the 4th amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Also Bob, I just found that in Article III, Section II, the judicial power of the federal courts extend to all cases in which the United States is a party, meaning that any citizen or noncitizen that is to be tried for treason, or of being an unlawful enemy combatant, should be covered by the federal courts, which would include the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to be presented with evidence against you, the right to defense counsel and the right to a trial jury, all things that are denied by the Military Commissions Act.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Also Bob you have the 14th Amendment, Section 1: which explicitly states that all persons are covered under the Constitution:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One of the goals of those involved in the Ron Paul grassroots effort is to call for the repeal of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. If enough Ron Paul supporters can become delegates to the Nominating Convention to be held in September in Minneapolis, they will be able to submit and pass such resolutions which will become part of the Republican Party Platform.

DId you know what is the worst they can do to a delegate bound to vote for McCain on the first ballot who casts his ballot instead for Ron Paul? They will not let you be a delegate again! In the meantime Ron Paul will become the nominee of the Republican Party and will certainly go on to become the next president!

galt

Edited by galtgulch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent Ba'al

Right on point.

Adam

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy

from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is reputed to have said that "You are your brother's keeper, but you have not given enough yet!"

If Obama gets elected hold on to your wallet.

The choices in this election have dwindled down to a no win situation for freedom loving individuals. No wonder that the Ron Paul supporters are not willing to concede or accept that "IT IS OVER!" I know because I am one of them.

It is worth a shot to have a march on Washington, D.C. which Ron Paul supporters plan to do on June 21st. Preferably wearing V for Vendetta masks and costume! I tend to think that effort will be largely ignored although Ron Paul may actually show up and speak!

The nominating convention in Minneapolis will also attract a contingent of Ron Paul supporters inside the convention as delegates, whom I hope will behave themselves when McCain speaks, but then assure that he does not get the nomination! Ought to be an enormous crowd waving Ron Paul signs outside the convention as well.

If Ron Paul supporters succeed in getting enough delegates to nominate Ron Paul those who have tried to discourage them will be shown up. Many voters will be pleased to have Ron Paul as a choice in November and he just might get elected if his name is on the ballot. Many will write his name in but I think they will not be counted.

Ron Paul remains in the race, has not suspended or withdrawn from his candidacy, and odds of his being chosen are positive thought slim. As I understand it Abraham Lincoln entered the nominating convention with no delegates at all but ended up being chosen. So there is a precedent. i think Ron Paul supporters are even more enthusiastic and impassioned than Lincoln's were.

IT AIN'T OVER!

galt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now