Header Image (book)


Friday, December 16, 2011

Indefinite Detainment

At Infidel Bloggers Alliance, Midnight Rider states the following:
If you don't already realize it, the measure passed yesterday all but scuppers the Bill of Rights. Off the top of my head the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth can ALL be swept aside and denied to American Citizens if they are deemed to be substantially supportive of Al Qaida and their ilk.


This is not a slippery slope. It is a landslide threatening to engulf your Constitutionally protected Freedoms.

This could make Waco and Ruby Ridge look like a sandlot scuffle.
Find out how your Congress critter voted HERE.

Video below the fold:

Typically, those of an opposing political party get downright paranoid at times. We see both the Right and the Left decrying an executive of the opposite political party as "Stalin!" and "Hitler!" All of us have observed and even participated in such rhetoric for several years now.

Here is my question to my readers: Is it paranoia to be concerned about this piece of legislation that potentially shreds our Constitution?


  1. Over at IBA, I see that Epa has commented as follows:

    This law, similar in nature to what Abraham Lincoln did 61-65, is a danger to the USA.
    Just as that was.
    The self arrogated right to imprison at will, really, ended with Lee's surrender.
    Google "Vallandigham" and General Charles Stone
    Adams tried something similar with Alien and Sedition, so this is not our 1st dance with this sh[*]t.

    One these times we are going to leave ourselves in trouble.
    One of these times this is going to be used as Richard Nixon might have used it, and as some of Obama's people view the 'real' threat.

    This is clearly unconstitutional, and dangerous.
    Rand Paul is right
    McCain is TOTALLY WRONG.

    The big govt is a bigger threat to the nation than Al Qaeda.

    With our own arrows.....

    Clearly, from the way I phrased the question at the end of this blog post, I have my own views on this legislation. In fact, I wasn't objective with my question -- and that was an intentional lack of objectivity on my part.

    Readers, you are free to agree or disagree with my view on this topic.

  2. Are our political "leaders" really so intellectually bereft that they think the only solution is to shred the constitution?

    Our political "leadership" has lost its will. They are useless. Why not just officially put the bankers and the police in charge and close down Washington?

  3. I don't think it is paranoia at all!

    I see in Ohio every single Dem voted no, while all but one Repub voted yes, with the one abstaining.

  4. "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty". ~ Plato.

    I think Plato just gave the answer.

  5. Read the new version and it states repeatedly that the law applies only to those who fight with Al Qaeda and Taliban and not U.S. citizens.

    This contradiction is squared by a provision in U.S. code that those who fight with foreign enemies lost their citizenship.

    Thus, the U.S. has killed enemy combatants in the war on terror, but no American citizens, properly speaking.

  6. My post today at Infidel Bloggers Alliance):

    Obama Campaign: Supporters Should Snitch On Their Republican Friends

    You can't make this stuff up!

  7. Bipartisan support.

    If you didn't believe there isn't much difference between the two parties, this may help your focus.

  8. Duck,
    Yes, the bill passed with the support of many in the GOP.


    FYI....I've never been a member of either party. I'm registered as an Independent. For a reason.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.