They did this in a closed to the public session.
So now, it is left to a president who has openly said he will veto the bill because it doesn't give him enough power.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Should we detain INNOCENT American civilians for life? 49 senators say yes.
I previously posted about the travesty of S.1867 passing in the senate. It has come to light that Rand Paul has forced congress to record their votes on another bill that would allow indefinite detention of American citizens in placed like Guantanamo Bay and foreign prisons, known as rendition, where torture is very real. If you think you are excluded from torture because you are an American, you haven't been paying attention. Only this time, the bill in question stated that the military could hold Americans, indefinitely, even after they had been acquitted in court.
Even after they were acquitted in court.
Let this sink in.
This bill would have given the military power to hold you in military prison until "you were no longer deemed a threat" (see. for life) even after they were acquitted in court. Innocent. Detained for life.
Repeat that line in your head over and over.
Innocent. Detained for life.
Innocent. Detained for life.
Innocent. Detained for life.
This bill failed in congress since Rand Paul demanded that the senators record their votes. The senate was going to vote on this bill purely on voice alone. This bill failed, thankfully, by 51 to 49.
49 senators think that it is OK to detain and torture innocent Americans for life.
I don't know about you, but it appears to me that we have a systematic problem of traitors in our offices of power.
As for S.1867, the president has vowed to veto the bill. Hooray!
The reasons given? Press Secretary Jay Carney replied:
The president is vowing to veto this bill because it doesn't give him ENOUGH power?! Hooray...?
Even after they were acquitted in court.
Let this sink in.
This bill would have given the military power to hold you in military prison until "you were no longer deemed a threat" (see. for life) even after they were acquitted in court. Innocent. Detained for life.
Repeat that line in your head over and over.
Innocent. Detained for life.
Innocent. Detained for life.
Innocent. Detained for life.
This bill failed in congress since Rand Paul demanded that the senators record their votes. The senate was going to vote on this bill purely on voice alone. This bill failed, thankfully, by 51 to 49.
49 senators think that it is OK to detain and torture innocent Americans for life.
I don't know about you, but it appears to me that we have a systematic problem of traitors in our offices of power.
As for S.1867, the president has vowed to veto the bill. Hooray!
The reasons given? Press Secretary Jay Carney replied:
The president is vowing to veto this bill because it doesn't give him ENOUGH power?! Hooray...?
Saturday, December 3, 2011
On a positive note, a man facing 75 years in prison for recording police and a judge, pardoned
From the article:
An Illinois judge ruled the state’s eavesdropping law unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced up to to 75 years in prison for secretly recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.
(shorter article)
Michael Allison faced 5 counts of eavesdropping, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years each, for "secretly" recording 1 judge and 4 police. What is interesting about this is the man had requested a court reporter to record his trial for another incident with what he called police harassment, and when the judge declined (Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell), he stated he would be recording the proceedings himself. When he arrived for his court appearance, the judge immediately asked him if he had a recording device and if it was on. He stated that yes, he did and it was on, and was immediately arrested for 5 counts wiretapping and eavesdropping.
When he went to the trial for that 'crime', the judge threw the case out of court and said he had absolutely every right to record his trial, thankfully. Considering 75 years is 3 years short of the American national life expectancy, 78.1, in essence this man had the possibility of life in prison for using a voice recorder to record his own trial. Illinois has abolished capital punishment, meaning that this man would have received the same sentence if he had walked into the courtroom and killed the judge and the 4 cops.
Luckily, the second judge (Circuit Court Judge David Frankland) in this instance had a better head on his shoulders and is apparently better fit to be an actual judge than the first pathetic excuse. Whether you agree what he did was lawful or not, there is no denying that the time definitely didn't fit the crime. Setting a precedent that states 'you'll serve the same amount of time if you just murdered the people' is a serious threat to both the public safety as well as safety of police officers. It is for this reason why absurdly malevolent and obviously cruel and unjust punishment and prison terms are bad for a society.
From the article: “A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.
Illinois State attorney general Lisa Madigan, you have some explaining to do
Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell, shame on you, you are a pathetic excuse for a judge.
Prosecutor Tom Wiseman, shame on you, call yourself an American? (figures your a crooked lawyer)
and finally
A huge thank you to Circuit Court Judge David Frankland for having a good understanding of exactly how our country is supposed to work, and for making a ruling for the people. I have not researched any of your past decisions, but I stand by you and this decision 110%. You did good.
Tom Wiseman, the prosecutor, has said they are considering appealing the judges decision to a higher court. Michael Allison states he would not enter a plea bargain and fight this to the end, as he believes it is his first amendment right to record public officials doing their public duties, especially if it directly affects him. If this does go to a higher court that could be bad news for either Michael Allison, or he could succeed in getting the obviously unconstitutional law overturned, once and for all.
An Illinois judge ruled the state’s eavesdropping law unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced up to to 75 years in prison for secretly recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.
(shorter article)
Michael Allison faced 5 counts of eavesdropping, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years each, for "secretly" recording 1 judge and 4 police. What is interesting about this is the man had requested a court reporter to record his trial for another incident with what he called police harassment, and when the judge declined (Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell), he stated he would be recording the proceedings himself. When he arrived for his court appearance, the judge immediately asked him if he had a recording device and if it was on. He stated that yes, he did and it was on, and was immediately arrested for 5 counts wiretapping and eavesdropping.
When he went to the trial for that 'crime', the judge threw the case out of court and said he had absolutely every right to record his trial, thankfully. Considering 75 years is 3 years short of the American national life expectancy, 78.1, in essence this man had the possibility of life in prison for using a voice recorder to record his own trial. Illinois has abolished capital punishment, meaning that this man would have received the same sentence if he had walked into the courtroom and killed the judge and the 4 cops.
Luckily, the second judge (Circuit Court Judge David Frankland) in this instance had a better head on his shoulders and is apparently better fit to be an actual judge than the first pathetic excuse. Whether you agree what he did was lawful or not, there is no denying that the time definitely didn't fit the crime. Setting a precedent that states 'you'll serve the same amount of time if you just murdered the people' is a serious threat to both the public safety as well as safety of police officers. It is for this reason why absurdly malevolent and obviously cruel and unjust punishment and prison terms are bad for a society.
From the article: “A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.
Illinois State attorney general Lisa Madigan, you have some explaining to do
Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell, shame on you, you are a pathetic excuse for a judge.
Prosecutor Tom Wiseman, shame on you, call yourself an American? (figures your a crooked lawyer)
and finally
A huge thank you to Circuit Court Judge David Frankland for having a good understanding of exactly how our country is supposed to work, and for making a ruling for the people. I have not researched any of your past decisions, but I stand by you and this decision 110%. You did good.
Tom Wiseman, the prosecutor, has said they are considering appealing the judges decision to a higher court. Michael Allison states he would not enter a plea bargain and fight this to the end, as he believes it is his first amendment right to record public officials doing their public duties, especially if it directly affects him. If this does go to a higher court that could be bad news for either Michael Allison, or he could succeed in getting the obviously unconstitutional law overturned, once and for all.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Vote 93 - 7 (passed) to erradicate the 6th Amendment in the bill of rights. Our senate has failed us.
I would like to recant a previous blog entry. Claire McCaskill voted yes to strike the indefinite detention from S.1867 (known as Amendment 1062) but this measure failed 45 to 55. I would urge everyone to investigate who voted nay on this amendment and vote those traitors out. Yes, traitors. They are actively attempting to undermine the very thing that makes the United States of America a country; our constitution, our social contract, our "law of the land"
However, Claire McCaskill voted on the bill, she voted to yea to pass. So my congresswoman still passed a bill that declares America a battleground and all American potential terrorists for things such as having firearms, having waterproofed ammo, having 7 days food supply, missing fingers, etc. and allows:
Subtitle D: Detainee Matters (sec 1031-1037) reads:
____________________
So the parts highlighted basically state if the executive branch/military *thinks* you are a hostile (no actual evidence needed, go go vague undefined sec. 1031) S. 1867 also states the Armed Forces can hold you indefinitely, as a matter of national security. If you think this can't happen to you, think again.
(another source)
(chilling tale of an 89 year old man with dementia held in Guantanamo Bay)
(another chilling tale of an innocent 14 year old boy, who was kidnapped from his father, raped by militants, and when their base was raided, left as a scapegoat with a weapon that was not fired to throw the American military off. The American military then sent him to Guantanamo Bay because of his possible knowledge on Taliban leaders. Yes. you read that right.)
So here we are. We, as a nation, have voted for evil and corruption, and we are reaping what we sow. Do not kid yourself either by assuming if you uphold onto any sort of conservative, liberal, socialist, authoritarian or fascist social views that you will be part of the "exempt from indefinite detention and torture" team. If you give the government and/or the military the power to torture and detain indefinitely, as we as a nation have, they will use and abuse that power.
I would like to personally thank the 7 senators who stood with the American People to vote against this travesty. You are true patriots, and further investigating some of your voting records, it is safe to say we desperately need more people like you. Especially Senator Rand Paul. Thank you.
The following voted NAY on S. 1867
However, Claire McCaskill voted on the bill, she voted to yea to pass. So my congresswoman still passed a bill that declares America a battleground and all American potential terrorists for things such as having firearms, having waterproofed ammo, having 7 days food supply, missing fingers, etc. and allows:
- indefinite detention of American citizens by executive order
- allows the use of all federal military branches as use of a domestic police force
- undermining amendment 6 of the bill of rights, actively suppressing due process of law and our Writ of Habeas Corpus.
- the ability to detain American citizens in places such as Guantanamo Bay and foreign prisons, a process known as "rendition"
- declaring the entire American countryside a "battlefield" (see point 2)
- To simply put it, the United States Military/Executive branch, acting under suspicion only (no evidence needed) can detain an American Citizen, indefinitely, domestic or abroad, without a fair trial by their peers
Subtitle D: Detainee Matters (sec 1031-1037) reads:
____________________
Subtitle D: Detainee Matters - (Sec. 1031) Affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for U.S. Armed Forces to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war. Defines a "covered person" as a person who: (1) planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for such attacks; or (2) was part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Requires the Secretary to regularly brief Congress on the application of such authority.
(Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest. Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens. Outlines implementation procedures.
(Sec. 1033) Prohibits FY2012 DOD funds from being used to transfer any individual detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Guantanamo) to the custody or control of that individual's country of origin, other foreign country, or foreign entity unless the Secretary makes a specified certification to Congress, including that the transferee country or entity is not a state sponsor of terrorism or terrorist organization and has agreed to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States or its citizens or allies in the future. Prohibits any such transfer if there is a confirmed case of an individual who was transferred to a foreign country and subsequently engaged in terrorist activity. Authorizes the waiver of such prohibition in the national security interest.
(Sec. 1034) Prohibits FY2012 funds from being used to construct or modify any facility in the United States or its territories or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for purposes of detention or imprisonment by DOD, unless authorized by Congress. Provides an exception.
(Sec. 1035) Directs the Secretary to submit to the defense and intelligence committees procedures for implementing the periodic Guantanamo detainee review process required under Executive Order.
(Sec. 1036) Directs the Secretary to submit to such committees: (1) procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and (2) any modifications to such procedures.
(Sec. 1037) Allows a guilty plea as part of a pre-trial agreement in capital offense trials by military commission.
____________________
So the parts highlighted basically state if the executive branch/military *thinks* you are a hostile (no actual evidence needed, go go vague undefined sec. 1031) S. 1867 also states the Armed Forces can hold you indefinitely, as a matter of national security. If you think this can't happen to you, think again.
(another source)
(chilling tale of an 89 year old man with dementia held in Guantanamo Bay)
(another chilling tale of an innocent 14 year old boy, who was kidnapped from his father, raped by militants, and when their base was raided, left as a scapegoat with a weapon that was not fired to throw the American military off. The American military then sent him to Guantanamo Bay because of his possible knowledge on Taliban leaders. Yes. you read that right.)
So here we are. We, as a nation, have voted for evil and corruption, and we are reaping what we sow. Do not kid yourself either by assuming if you uphold onto any sort of conservative, liberal, socialist, authoritarian or fascist social views that you will be part of the "exempt from indefinite detention and torture" team. If you give the government and/or the military the power to torture and detain indefinitely, as we as a nation have, they will use and abuse that power.
I would like to personally thank the 7 senators who stood with the American People to vote against this travesty. You are true patriots, and further investigating some of your voting records, it is safe to say we desperately need more people like you. Especially Senator Rand Paul. Thank you.
The following voted NAY on S. 1867
Amending Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (IT Professionals READ THIS)
Currently there is a bill (S.1747) to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 which would exempt IT professionals from overtime pay. This means that an IT professional can be forced to work an unlimited amount of hours without receiving additional pay for doing so.
Surprisingly, I am torn about this. The small government-minded person in me says this is a good thing, as forcing companies to pay people extra for more than 40 hours a week is bad, as it is not the federal government's job to do so (at least as it was intentioned)
But obviously, as an IT Professional, there is a part of me that is definitely opposed to this idea. Why just IT professionals? Is the government going to start playing favorites, dictating that teachers are exempt too? Librarians? Police? Military? (in full disclosure I have no idea how the military is paid) Does the government have something against IT Professionals? Do they think we are overpaid? The highest paid IT professional I know makes MUCH less than the lowest paid US senator. Who is overpaid again? I guess it would be hard to get overtime if you take an incredible amount of vacation time. If I took that much time off and my employer was historically upset with my performance, I probably wouldn't be employed for much longer, especially making the salary of $174,000.
When you give the government the power to dictate these things for a certain group of people, in this case IT Professionals, you give the government power to dictate these things for ALL groups of people. History has shown this time and time again. This is the same for torture, indefinite detentions, murder, war, and countless other atrocities that governments across the world commit to this day. If you allow the government to control certain aspects of your life, it will attempt to control all aspects of your life.
I would strongly consider contacting your senator if you do not think the government has the right to play favorites between professionals (or even inject themselves into private enterprise at all) as it is a very slippery slope to a corrupt system of state-controlled crony capitalism.
Surprisingly, I am torn about this. The small government-minded person in me says this is a good thing, as forcing companies to pay people extra for more than 40 hours a week is bad, as it is not the federal government's job to do so (at least as it was intentioned)
But obviously, as an IT Professional, there is a part of me that is definitely opposed to this idea. Why just IT professionals? Is the government going to start playing favorites, dictating that teachers are exempt too? Librarians? Police? Military? (in full disclosure I have no idea how the military is paid) Does the government have something against IT Professionals? Do they think we are overpaid? The highest paid IT professional I know makes MUCH less than the lowest paid US senator. Who is overpaid again? I guess it would be hard to get overtime if you take an incredible amount of vacation time. If I took that much time off and my employer was historically upset with my performance, I probably wouldn't be employed for much longer, especially making the salary of $174,000.
When you give the government the power to dictate these things for a certain group of people, in this case IT Professionals, you give the government power to dictate these things for ALL groups of people. History has shown this time and time again. This is the same for torture, indefinite detentions, murder, war, and countless other atrocities that governments across the world commit to this day. If you allow the government to control certain aspects of your life, it will attempt to control all aspects of your life.
I would strongly consider contacting your senator if you do not think the government has the right to play favorites between professionals (or even inject themselves into private enterprise at all) as it is a very slippery slope to a corrupt system of state-controlled crony capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)