This week the SCOTUS is going to decide whether or not to hear a lawsuit from Steven Howards. If you recall, as I do, Howards was the idiot that saw (then) Vice-President Cheney in a Colorado shopping center and approached him and gave him a piece of his mind (apparently the only piece he had remaining) on his disgust with the war in Iraq. During the confrontation Howards either touched, grabbed or shoved the VP on the shoulder – accounts vary. As a result, Howards was arrested and detained by the Secret Service detail. Originally Howards was charged with assault, but it was later downgraded to harassment, a misdemeanor which was later dropped by the local prosecutor and not pursued by the federal prosecutor.
Now, originally the Secret Service detail did not think this was an incident to warrant an arrest, but the fact that they overheard a cell phone call from Howards saying that he was going to ask Cheney “how many kids he killed today”, and the actual confrontation included ‘touching’ the VP, the Secret Service detained and interviewed Howards. Howards denied the ‘touching’ and used the interview to rail on against the war in Iraq and the administration. That is when he was arrested and charged with assault.
Shortly thereafter, all charges were dropped. Howards then filed a civil rights lawsuit. He claimed that he was only arrested for speaking out and that the government was trying to make it easier to arrest and detain people for speech. He also laments that his son, who was with him, saw him arrested and taken away in handcuffs.
A few thoughts on this. First – this Steven Howards is one colossal moron, and I only say that because I don’t want to call him a fucking idiot. What sort of dumbass blatantly confronts the Vice President of the United States of America, in a shopping center, and starts to rant against the war? I think I know……Steven Howards is an ‘environmental consultant,’ a job title that, to me indicates that he isn’t to firmly anchored to reality……. he is a ‘greenie.’ What he did was just stupid. If you don’t agree with governmental policy, then protest it with all of your like- minded whackos, like those in the OWS movement…..but don’t confront an individual in a public place and start your shit. And DO NOT touch or or even act like you MIGHT touch ANY President or Vice President unless you want to be led away in chains (or worse) …..everybody knows that. A bit of free advice, as well – if you want to make an ass of yourself, don’t take your eight year old child with you and then lament that your own actions enabled the boy to see you led away in cuffs. Howards may be a chronological adult, but he is a mental infant; actions have consequences and Howards paid them.
And if Howards only ‘thinks’ that the government is trying to make it easy for law enforcement to detain Americans for speech, he hasn’t been keeping up with current events. Last week the Senate passed a bill that, if reconciled with the House version and signed by the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS), will make it possible for the MILITARY to detain US citizens; to arrest them right here in the homeland, hold them without charging them and hold them without trial, indefinitely (Senate Bill 1867). I’d say Howards could bitch about something else, something more important than being arrested, charged with a misdemeanor that was not even brought to trial……he could bitch about something real…..like say, this government’s increasingly public efforts to turn this country into a dictatorship.
When I say that, about the dictatorship, I don’t say it lightly. This nation is in decline; you know it, and I know it….and sadly the world knows it. The Obama generation of malcontents is carrying the day right now and the Steve Howards are part of that. Our founders knew that this could happen if what we now call progressivism was allowed to take root in this country, and it has. In a single administration we have gone from vigorously preventing the military a hand in domestic law enforcement, to wanting to sign that ability into law. Sound like a republic to you? Not to me.
When my brother was a kid, he and a friend were walking home from a pizza joint at night. We lived in a small town, where at the time not a damned thing ever happened. A police car pulled up to the curb, a cop jumped out and put him and his friend in the back seat and drove off. While driving then to the new location the police officer said that they were being detained in suspicion of involvement in an assault. My brother was in the 4th grade and he was terrified. The police pulled up in front of a house and a father and his son walked out. The boy looked in the window at my brother and his friend and said to the police officer, ‘No, it’s not them.’ When the policeman got back in the car he apologized and drove then home. When my brother told our parents what had happened, my dad asked if he had done anything wrong, and he replied ‘No, he had not.’ That was the end of it. Back then.
I find it ironically tragic that much of the youth of this nation, and people like Steven Howard, are idiots that dodged all sort of honorable responsibility, are railing against all of the things that have made this nation great, and paying no attention to the efforts to destroy this country from within. People like Howard will vote for Obama next year, because of the promises he makes to the ‘green sector,’ because of the handouts, and they will IGNORE the fact that Obama is enslaving them, will IGNORE the hypocrisy of what our government says and then does. If Howard thinks a few hours in a cell for being an idiot is bad……he should just wait until an Army captain and a platoon of infantry soldiers show up at his front door.
What happened to the ‘edit’ option? I apparently don’t know the difference between THEN and THEM!
What sort of dumbass blatantly confronts the Vice President of the United States of America, in a shopping center, and starts to rant against the war?
An American who isn’t afraid to speak his mind?
Last week the Senate passed a bill that, if reconciled with the House version and signed by the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS), will make it possible for the MILITARY to detain US citizens; to arrest them right here in the homeland, hold them without charging them and hold them without trial, indefinitely (Senate Bill 1867).
Fun fact – Obama has threatened to veto that bill since it is unconstitutional and contrary to American values.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/obama-threatens-veto-defense-bill
Obama has threatened to veto that bill since it is unconstitutional and contrary to American values.
1. Does that Serwer post anywhere attribute Obama’s threatened veto to alleged incompatibility w/ the constitution or “American values”? If so, where?
2. Although the Statement of Administration Policy (*) does threaten a veto of S.1867 due to the detainee provisions, it’s not ‘cuz the SAP deems those provisions “unconstitutional and contrary to American values.” Rather, the SAP finds those provision problematic ‘cuz they “challenge[] or constrain[] the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation . . . .”
3. Here is the entirety of the SAP’s concerns re. sec. 1031 (the detention-authorization provision):
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
See pp. 1-2. Based on the above, it appears Obama et al are primarily concerned that sec. 1031 might prompt reconsideration of the last decade’s worth of court decisions regarding AUMF-based detention authority. I see nothing in there suggesting that sec. 1031 is constitutionally problematic.
4. The only constitutional issues mentioned anywhere in the SAP concern sec. 1033 (which, the SAP contends, “would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.”), and “sections 233 and 1241, which could intrude on the President’s constitutional authority to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive diplomatic communications.” See pp. 2 & 4.
(*) whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
last sentence should be outside be blockquote, obviously.
Just in case you forgot, we live in the US. Anyone should feel free to approach and address a public official, whose salary we paid, in public. We dont have royalty.
“Last week the Senate passed a bill that”
Did you look at the vote count on that bill? Who voted for it and who did not? Look that up and then get back to us. Also, what John said (though I expect he will give and sign it so he does not look weak on defense and give something to the GOP to campaign on).
Steve
I expect he will give and sign it so he does not look weak on defense and give something to the GOP to campaign on)
ROFL…. I think the GOP has plenty to campaign on, Steve….
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/1/votes/218/
FUN FACT: 93 Senators voted ‘yea’……. I think any presidential veto could be overturned based on that… Below is a letter written to the two California Senators who voted YEA, as well as to this gentleman’s Representative:
S.1867 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
I am writing as your constituent in the 11th Congressional district of California. I oppose S.1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and am tracking it using OpenCongress.org, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability.
I have reviewed, in its entirety, Senate bill 1867.Today, thanks to all of you, the sun has begun to set on our republic. Once the bill gets passed into law(and it will), the floodgates allowing the misuse of power by law enforcement officials. Abuse brutality and death of the Sovereign Citizens of this nation will surely follow on a scale no less appalling than genocide. You have unanimously begun the dissolution of the principles the founding fathers gave their lives for. You have usurped, defiled and committed an act of terror against we the people .
ALL OF YOU SHOULD BE INCARCERATED, WITHOUT FORMALLY BEING CHARGED, DENIED THE RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL AND EXECUTED FOR GRAND TREASON AND SEDITION using the provisions set forth by senate bill 1867. We the people would like to make a citizen’s arrest against the progenitor’s of Fascism, Our Elected Officials!
While I am not alone in my sentiments for your decision, at least I have the guts to say it to your faces. Oops freedom of speech fail, I’m a citizen terrorist for being angry and expressing myself. Incarcerate me and ruin yet another American family
Sincerely,
JOHN N DEUTENBERG
http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/14252-S-1867-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-for-Fiscal-Year-2012
FUN FACT: 93 Senators voted ‘yea’……. I think any presidential veto could be overturned based on that…
So who are the Bad Guys in this situation? I
Is Obama correct on this issue or incorrect?
On this particular issue, who appears to care more about the rights of the American People, Obama, the Republican members of Congress, or the Democratic members of Congress?
Sen. Jeff Sessions attached an amendment to the bill for clarification of how this particular part of the bill would work – it was voted down on a nearly straight party line vote
Sessions Amdt. No. 1274
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00217
You can answer your own questions, based on this.
You aren’t even willing to type it? …come on, your fingers won’t fall off…
Which of the three have shown respect for the rights of Americans on this issue…
[ ] President Obama
[ ] Senate Democrats
[ ] Senate Republicans
Come on, take a risk – pick one.
Try saying something positive about a politician you don’t generally say anything good about – you might feel a little naughty afterwards…
ummmmmmmmm… the Republicans
Well that’s a start, I guess….So how did the Senate Republicans show more respect for the rights of Americans on this issue than President Obama, keeping in mind that Obama has threatened to veto the measure because of the militarization provisions you have condemned.
Bonus question – are you and President Obama on the same side of this issue, based on the statements expressed by both you and him?
As noted in my 9:01 comment above, the concerns expressed in Statement of Administration Policy re. sec. 1031 (the detention provision) make no mention of “respect for the rights of Americans” or “militarization.” The concern is that sec. 1031 might call into question settled jurisprudence regarding the particulars of detention policy. Basically, they’re worried that sec. 1031 will create more work for government lawyers: they don’t want to have to re-litigate points of law that existing, AUMF-based court decisions have already settled.
Do you have some other source to support your contention that Obama et al’s oppose sec. 1031 because “it is unconstitutional and contrary to American values”?
MI, I’m trying to see if Firebird’s head will explode when confronting the idea that she and Obama both agree that this is undesirable legislation.
she and Obama both agree that this is undesirable legislation.
LOL – ain’t gonna happen! I’ll argue in a complete circle first! (which I’m apparently already doing)
This reminds me of when Herman Cain was questioned about Obama’s Libya policy. In the interview, he wanted to know what it was first so he could be against it.
I thought he had trouble figuring out what and where Libya was!!
the Senate passed a bill that, if reconciled with the House version and signed by the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS), will make it possible for the MILITARY to detain US citizens; to arrest them right here in the homeland, hold them without charging them and hold them without trial, indefinitely (Senate Bill 1867).
Queries:
1. In your view, does the 9/11 AUMF (Pub. L. No. 107-40) authorize detention of US citizens within the United States?
2. What provision (if any) in S.1867 prohibits judicial review for domestically detained US citizens?
#1 – NO
#2 – as the answer to #1 is NO, question #2 does not apply
“Myth: Section 1031 is inconsistent with the AUMF and Constitution ‘because it would authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.’
[Letter of Senate Democrats to Senate Majority Leader Reid, Oct. 21, 2011, http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=f0f3bb47-a38b-47da-a619-abf609510a5d ]
Fact: First, the Supreme Court has already rejected this argument against Section 1031, when it held in the Hamdi case the detention of enemy combatants without the prospect of criminal charges or trial until the end of hostilities to be proper under the AUMF and the Constitution as long as there is a procedure in place for prisoners to challenge their classification as an enemy combatant. Those procedures currently exist. Notably, the person challenging his detention in that case was a U.S. citizen. [Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 519-20 (2004)]
The Obama Administration, with some Senate Democrats as their proxy, has launched several misleading arguments against these sections of the bill. The arguments are undermined by Supreme Court precedent, past practice, or common sense.”
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PolicyPapers&ContentRecord_id=46e33006-5492-45df-bc8e-44a3aae31280
If, as you concede, the 9/11 AUMF doesn’t authorize domestic detention of US citizens, then your concern that “will make it possible for the MILITARY to detain US citizens; to arrest them right here in the homeland, hold them without charging them and hold them without trial, indefinitely” appears misplaced. 1031(d) states, “Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand …the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” 1031(e) states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” Hence, ISTM sec. 1031 doesn’t authorize any action not already authorized under the AUMF. So if the AUMF doesn’t authorize such detentions, then sec. 1031 doesn’t either.
As an aside, the Hamdi case involved detention of a US citizen captured in an overseas battlefield, not here in the US. Hence, it is arguable (at best) whether Hamdi by itself sanctions domestic detention of US citizens.
True……. and arguably true….. thanks for your comments