Indiana Militia

[LawDog76]

What is the bill to what you speak? I've looked at legitimate websites, and haven't come upon the text of any bill which you claim exists.

.

HR 645
FEMA Concentration and Internment Camps

HR 645: Congress Seeks to Authorize & Legalize FEMA Camps | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

 

[ihateiraq]

Kingsbury - This "closed" military base is adjacent to a state fish & wildlife preserve.
Part of the base is converted to an industrial park, but the southern
portion of this property is still used. It is bordered on the south by
railroad, and is staffed with some foreign-speaking UN troops. A local
police officer who was hunting and camping close to the base in the game
preserve was accosted, roughed up, and warned by the English-speaking unit
commander to stay away from the area. It was suggested to the officer that
the welfare of his family would depend on his "silence". Located just
southeast of LaPorte.

This is jibberish, and it leads me to believe the entire rest of that website is made up garbage as well. People have got to realize just because something is on the internet does NOT make it true. exactly the opposite most likely.

 

[LawDog76]

This is jibberish, and it leads me to believe the entire rest of that website is made up garbage as well. People have got to realize just because something is on the internet does NOT make it true. exactly the opposite most likely.

Some of those Camp locations may be bogus claims but the bill is in place.

H.R.645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Read The Bill: H.R. 645 - GovTrack.us

 

[ihateiraq]

Some of those Camp locations may be bogus claims but the bill is in place.

H.R.645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Read The Bill: H.R. 645 - GovTrack.us

doesnt seem all that nefarious to me. what would you do with 8.3 million new yorkers if a nuc/bio device was detonated in the city? hey, NYC, sucks to be you. that is all.

people ripped fema for their response in katrina, and now the govt is taking steps to ensure that doesnt happen again. there isnt an auschwitz down the street from your house.

 

[JBusch8899]

Some of those Camp locations may be bogus claims but the bill is in place.

H.R.645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Read The Bill: H.R. 645 - GovTrack.us

I just scanned it, and here is the summary:

Introduced 1/22/09. National Emergency Centers Establishment Act - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish at least six national emergency centers on military installations to use existing infrastructure to provide:
(1) temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster; and
(2) centralized locations for the training of first responders and the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. Lists minimum requirements for sites for such centers, including that they be capable of:
(1) meeting for an extended period the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian, and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected;
(2) being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(3) housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during non-disaster periods; and
(4) hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs.Sets forth center location requirements, including requiring the Secretary to designate closed military installations as sites whenever possible and to designate portions of existing military installations as centers otherwise.

Given the nefarious nature of government assistance to those displaced by disaster, I'm sure that most people would flock away from such things as temporary housing, food, clean water, medical care, etc.

Oh, by the way, the Beech Grove railroad yard, by definition, wouldn't qualify as such a center: In direct contradiction to your web site claim.

 

[GIJEW]

ABSOLUTELY possible! How many people have ended up on the TSA's "no fly" list for no reason?

I think the operative phrase in the statement was "may be".

No one would ever know for sure whether they were on such a list unless and until that knock on the door in the middle of the night, or possibly a well-crafted and lucky FOIA request.

It is a well known fact that our government keeps lists of suspected terrorists. What is to keep someone off the list except the definition of suspected terrorists? One doesn't have to Google to far to see that some in power have a rather liberal definition.

For those who think it can't happen here, remember, most people who lived in the times and places that it did happen didn't think it could happen to them either.

I'm not saying I believe it will happen, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and is becoming more plausible as time marches on.

A great backgrounder on how such things have come into being is Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archapelago.

I think failure to understand and accept this possibility indicates too much faith in the nature of government or, more likely, to little understanding of that nature.

 

[thompal]

throw it (LOL, I couldn't resist), Habeus Corpus is still constitutionally guaranteed.

Really? It seems that just a week or so ago, some guy had a firearm and was in an airport parking lot. It seems that I remember he got arrested and thrown in jail on some bizarre charge, and his bail set at $100,000. I also seem to remember the federal judge saying that even if he posted bail, he was to remain in detention.

It seems that the above sequence violates several different parts of the Constitution.

 

[JBusch8899]

Really? It seems that just a week or so ago, some guy had a firearm and was in an airport parking lot. It seems that I remember he got arrested and thrown in jail on some bizarre charge, and his bail set at $100,000. I also seem to remember the federal judge saying that even if he posted bail, he was to remain in detention.

It seems that the above sequence violates several different parts of the Constitution.

I stated that Habeus Corpus was guaranteed. I didn't mention anything of 8A (For those who may have forgotten: Prohibiting excessive bail), which is an entirely different argument within itself.

 

[thompal]

I stated that Habeus Corpus was guaranteed. I didn't mention anything of 8A (For those who may have forgotten: Prohibiting excessive bail), which is an entirely different argument within itself.

It wasn't the amount of bail that struck me - it was the judge's statement that she wanted him "detained" EVEN IF HE POSTED BAIL!

I'll see if I can find that article. It was about the guy in the airport parking lot in NC.

 

[PatriotPride]

I stated that Habeus Corpus was guaranteed. I didn't mention anything of 8A (For those who may have forgotten: Prohibiting excessive bail), which is an entirely different argument within itself.

HC is not always guaranteed. One only needs to look to the Civil War. President Lincoln suspended HC for years due to the country being at war. It has happened before. It will happen again.

 

[JBusch8899]

HC is not always guaranteed. One only needs to look to the Civil War. President Lincoln suspended HC for years due to the country being at war. It has happened before. It will happen again.

HC is a constitutional guarantee. The Supreme Court admonished Lincoln for violating not just this, but many other rights as well.

God grants rights. Just because its infringed by man, doesn't mean that a right is suspended.

 

[JBusch8899]

It wasn't the amount of bail that struck me - it was the judge's statement that she wanted him "detained" EVEN IF HE POSTED BAIL!

I'll see if I can find that article. It was about the guy in the airport parking lot in NC.

While somewhat related, the topics of detainment and bail, are separate of the issue of HC.

 

[Eddie]

HC is not always guaranteed. One only needs to look to the Civil War. President Lincoln suspended HC for years due to the country being at war. It has happened before. It will happen again.

What? That could never happen in Indiana!

Ex parte Milligan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thompal]

HC is not always guaranteed. One only needs to look to the Civil War. President Lincoln suspended HC for years due to the country being at war. It has happened before. It will happen again.

Lincoln is not a good example of things Constitutional, IMHO. He also instituted military tribunals, and shut down civil courts.

 

[JBusch8899]

What? That could never happen in Indiana!

Ex parte Milligan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some elements of that particular Wiki article are mistaken. That is the largest reason why Wiki is not permitted to be utilized in the citation of academic works.

 

[djl02]

Anythings possible this day and age.Look at the rights the Patriot Act have taked away or modified.

 

[JBusch8899]

Lincoln is not a good example of things Constitutional, IMHO. He also instituted military tribunals, and shut down civil courts.

Two presidents have given less fidelity to the constitution, than any others: Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush.

In addition to the above, Lincoln banished Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham to Canada for the duration of the Civil War, because Vallandigham labeled Lincoln a tyrant. Lincoln also imprisoned newspaper editors in the North, because he took offense to it's reporting and editorials.

The Patriot Act, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and The Military Commissions Act; are just three examples of constitutional infringement during the Bush administration.

 

[PatriotPride]

HC is a constitutional guarantee. The Supreme Court admonished Lincoln for violating not just this, but many other rights as well.

God grants rights. Just because its infringed by man, doesn't mean that a right is suspended.

I'm honestly not sure what the argument here is. Yes, God grants rights...in several examples I can think of, "infringement" IS the equivalent of "suspension" or even "revocation".

Like it or not, HC WAS suspended during the Civil War. Yes, the SCOTUS "admonished" Lincoln, BUT they did not stop him. Checks and balances my arse.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Seems to me that Chicago has missed that very important piece of information.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." Seems to me the SCOTUS missed this one with the Dred Scott Decision.

Again, I am NOT trying to be confrontational here. I'm just a bit confused as to what it is we are actually debating here.

 

[JBusch8899]

I'm honestly not sure what the argument here is. Yes, God grants rights...in several examples I can think of, "infringement" IS the equivalent of "suspension" or even "revocation".

Like it or not, HC WAS suspended during the Civil War. Yes, the SCOTUS "admonished" Lincoln, BUT they did not stop him. Checks and balances my arse.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Seems to me that Chicago has missed that very important piece of information.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." Seems to me the SCOTUS missed this one with the Dred Scott Decision.

Again, I am NOT trying to be confrontational here. I'm just a bit confused as to what it is we are actually debating here.

Agreed that we are just having a conversation.

As rights belong to God to grant, only he can take them away, or suspend them. As the constitution merely guarantees rights, the only action that government can take, is to infringe upon them.

It may sound as I'm making a semantic argument, but there is a distinct and pragmatic logic to this point of logic. It presumes that the government has no real intrinsic power or rights under God, it merely has the authority that the people convey upon it.

Unfortunately, the courts can only really act in response to an action. Once the opinion by SCOTUS was penned and released, it thereby admonished Lincoln that his actions were unconstitutional. Further action of such by Lincoln, would have prevented his subordinates to follow, as it would have been deemed an illegal order. Additionally, Lincoln could have been jailed, impeached, and removed for violation of the opinion, now law of the land.

While Scott was a constitutional and human rights travesty by modern definition, it was in fact, the law of the land in 1857. We don't have to agree with the decision, just acknowledge that it was probably motivated by racism, and a dim view of the rights granted unto man.

 

[PatriotPride]

"It may sound as I'm making a semantic argument, but there is a distinct and pragmatic logic to this point of logic. It presumes that the government has no real intrinsic power or rights under God, it merely has the authority that the people convey upon it."


We are in agreement. Good thought-provoking points all around.