You need to read this.

[smokingman]

Senate Bill 3081
S.3081: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT AND RIGHTS- A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.

And high value detainees E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

Read the whole thing.This goes far beyond the small talk of the patriot act.
I posted the link directly from congress,this is not second hand information.It looks on the surface to be a great piece of anti terrorist legislation,but then this "An individual, including a citizen of the United States" and the fact the President can consider any US citizen an Enemy belligerent.If this passes anyone at any time anyone could lose all there rights,even the right to remain silent even if you are just a SUSPECT(see above...and read the full thing at the source).

Full text of the bill
Text of S.3081 as Introduced in Senate: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010... OpenCongress

 

[ghunter]

I would be surprised if BHO signs this bill.

 

[smoking357]

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

McCain - R
Lieberman - ID
Inhofe - R
Brown - R
Wicker - R
Chambliss - R
Lemieux - R
Sessions - R
Vitter - R

This bill is a terrifying disaster. Will gun owners please stop thinking of Republicans as pro-freedom saviors?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

McCain - R
Lieberman - ID
Inhofe - R
Brown - R
Wicker - R
Chambliss - R
Lemieux - R
Sessions - R
Vitter - R

This bill is a terrifying disaster. Will gun owners please stop thinking of Republicans as pro-freedom saviors?

I don't know any gun owners who think of any politician as a pro-freedom savior. I know lots of gun owners who look at the two largest political parties in this country as GOP: bad, Democrat: worse, and in most cases, I would agree with them.

Give me a run for office between a Dem and a GOP who are running very close and an Independent who is far behind them both, I'm 90% likely to vote for the Republican. Give me a race where the Dem is 30-40% down in the polls below the R and the I, and the Independent has a much greater likelihood of getting my vote. Obviously, these are general statements which could change based on the players involved, but what I'm looking for is the candidate who is more likely to get into office and uphold at least the majority of his or her oath of office.
It's not about picking the winner. It's about the fact that it doesn't matter how much the Independent would uphold his oath of office if that oath is never administered to him.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gund]

And why would you say R = bad, D = worse?

One wastes money for welfare (health care reform), one throws it away on defense spending (e.g. defense contractors).

Both sides haven't touched gun control in a decade.

Both sides are for the armed forces and for the children.

Both sides are afraid to let big business fail.

One side panders to religion, business, and national security at all costs.

One side panders to the poor and the minorities and unions and hippies.

They are equally bad. Unless of course one side further's your agenda more.

Civil libertarians, people who care about limited government, state rights, need their own party. Not the tea party. That has been hijacked by Sarah Palin and the social conservatives.

The best plan, take over a small state like montana. Dominate local and state politics, and work the agenda on other states. Unfortunately, people mostly talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

 

[Pami]

Civil libertarians, people who care about limited government, state rights, need their own party. Not the tea party. That has been hijacked by Sarah Palin and the social conservatives.

One already exists. It's called the Libertarian Party. State Convention is coming up in a few weeks.

 

[redneckmedic]

Civil libertarians, people who care about limited government, state rights, need their own party. Not the tea party. That has been hijacked by Sarah Palin and the social conservatives..

You say Hijacked, I say Spokesperson.... I haven't seen a candidate with their head on as straight as Sarah Palin since I've been legal to vote... And I'm in my 30's!!!

 

[wtfd661]

Much rather vote for a Republican who stands a chance of winning than a turd demonrat or a Independant (who has little or no chance, nor should half of them being even running)

 

[Bill of Rights]

And why would you say R = bad, D = worse?

One wastes money for welfare (health care reform), one throws it away on defense spending (e.g. defense contractors).

Both sides haven't touched gun control in a decade.

Both sides are for the armed forces and for the children.

Both sides are afraid to let big business fail.

One side panders to religion, business, and national security at all costs.

One side panders to the poor and the minorities and unions and hippies.

They are equally bad. Unless of course one side further's your agenda more.

Civil libertarians, people who care about limited government, state rights, need their own party. Not the tea party. That has been hijacked by Sarah Palin and the social conservatives.

The best plan, take over a small state like montana. Dominate local and state politics, and work the agenda on other states. Unfortunately, people mostly talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

I am a libertarian (with a small L). One side DOES further part of my agenda more, if only in the one area of gun rights, and it is here that you're badly mistaken: On the national level, neither side has aggressively pursued "gun control", true, but those forces never sleep, and on the state and local levels, they have stopped efforts to relax many gun laws, introduced such abominations as ammo serialization and in other states, one-gun-a-month, etc.

Usually, these efforts have been introduced by Democrats. Not always, but usually. Knowing that they are the ones more likely to infringe upon my rights, I will do what I can to keep them out of office. If I see a Republican that does likewise (such as Lugar at the federal level or Wyss at the state level) I will do what I can to keep them out. Conversely, if I see a Democrat such as Lindel Hume, (only one I can think of at the moment) that's someone I want to see stay in office.

In other words, I care far less about the label they stick on themselves except as a general indication of where they place their priorities.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Son of Liberty]

Ive decided that Im surrounded by idiots, republican and democrat. Everyone talks about how they care about this country and where it goes, but everyone is too busy acting like high school kids, aligning themselves with this click or that one. Instead of voting for the individual. Republican dosen't mean good, just like democrat dosen't mean bad. Thats like saying all whites are racsit or all miniorities are lazy bums. Its untrue and shows a lack of intellect. If we as a people truly care about where we are heading as a nation than we need to vote on the individual not, count someone out cause they are a dem or repub. Half the time I feel like my five year old has more common sense than most the people in this country. Remeber this land is not yours it was only lent to you by your children.

 

[bigiron]

anyway, BACK TO THE POINT. this bill is horrible! this looks to be a direct assault on anyone who would be willing to stand up against the government, much like a militia would. if i read this correctly, anyone could be labeled an "enemy of the state" if they are so deemed by the president. so any tea partier, any person who would speak out against the acts of government or anyone who would even possibly be preparing for a stand-off with the government could be withheld their rights and imprisioned under reasonalbe suspision. this could have far reaching effects on civility as we know it today. for instance, lets say you fly a Gadsden flag as many of us do. a gov. official drives by your house and knowing what the flag represents, could consider you a threat and hold you against your will and against your rights. i'm stunned this is sponsored by anyone including a republican. this looks to be a direct circumvent of the constitution. just another stepping stone to total government control. i know its probably meant for terrorists and such but i see it being much deeper.

 

[SavageEagle]

What I want to know is why they think we NEED this bill? What is it about current law that can't get the job done that this can?

 

[teknickle]

The best plan, take over a small state like montana. Dominate local and state politics, and work the agenda on other states. Unfortunately, people mostly talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Already happened.
It is called the 'Free State Project'.
They chose New Hampshire as the state.
Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Ive decided that Im surrounded by idiots, republican and democrat. Everyone talks about how they care about this country and where it goes, but everyone is too busy acting like high school kids, aligning themselves with this click or that one. Instead of voting for the individual. Republican dosen't mean good, just like democrat dosen't mean bad. Thats like saying all whites are racsit or all miniorities are lazy bums. Its untrue and shows a lack of intellect. If we as a people truly care about where we are heading as a nation than we need to vote on the individual not, count someone out cause they are a dem or repub. Half the time I feel like my five year old has more common sense than most the people in this country. Remeber this land is not yours it was only lent to you by your children.

If you'll take a moment and read more of the INGO political threads, I think that you'll find that that is what is being suggested to other members by politically active members - voting for the person, not the label.

 

[gund]

Fair enough. I think most people that have responded to me have made good points and I agree with most if not all of them.