Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens ON US SOIL

[billc]

Hmmm...honestly, this doesn't pass the smell test to me. Did they link to the bill in question, I didn't see it in my quick look at the link. When they say "even Ron Paul," doesn't make any sense because Ron Paul is one of the senators that would already be against this just from the way he views things in the first place. Can someone link to the actual bill? And that old Posse Comitatus thing, which prevents the U.S. military from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States? And the fact that we can't even hold captured, unlawful enemy combatant terrorists in Guantanamo without everyone making a stink about it and yet, this bill is on the verge of a vote and no one has heard of it until the night before the vote? I say hmmmm...

 

[billc]

d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

This kind of answers my points...

It is a fund raising appeal, no more.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.dailypaul.com/189009/national-defense-authorization-act

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.


In support of this bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”

Food for thought.

 

[Makalakumu]

More food for thought.

http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_l...ining_manual_protests_are_low-level_terrorism

The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."

And

And according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act:

Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an “unlawful enemy combatant” and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

​

Thoughts on how this may tie into this new bill in the Senate?

 

[granfire]

Fun times, right.

 

[Monroe]

That's just fantastic! They could do that to Tea Party Protestors and OWS Protestors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar This was how a Canadian citizen was thrown to the wolves. Ignoring citizen rights is a slippery slope. You need to draw the line somewhere. It's already started since Bush. I hope Americans don't let Obama do this.

 

[oftheherd1]

This kind of answers my points...

It is a fund raising appeal, no more.

Whatever the reason, it was not factual reporting. What is reported by jks9199 is correct. US citizens are exempt, as well as legal resident aliens. Anyone interested in reading the entire portion can go to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf and read for themselves, starting at page 359. Or the whole bill if it interests you.

Makalakumu - keep informing us of possible unconstitutional bills. It is important, but perhaps do a little more research first sir?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My department has had quite a few run ins with them that all i ever see them doing. Oh and making sure you dont say merry christmas. of have the 10 comandments in a govt building or the stars and bars flying

Our latest run in with them was just last year. We have city owned housing projects. We had a policy of banning people from the property if they were arrested and convicted of a felony drug crime or crime of violence. The challenged it saying we had no right to ban people from the property. They won and our banning list was thrown out. Violent crime is now up 63% in our housing projects since the ban was lifted. Murders are up 89% in the housing projects. Great Job ACLU.

Your experience proves that is all they do. Right?

 

[Makalakumu]

Whatever the reason, it was not factual reporting. What is reported by jks9199 is correct. US citizens are exempt, as well as legal resident aliens. Anyone interested in reading the entire portion can go to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf and read for themselves, starting at page 359. Or the whole bill if it interests you.

Makalakumu - keep informing us of possible unconstitutional bills. It is important, but perhaps do a little more research first sir?

Can US citizens be deemed enemy combatants? If so, wouldn't this bill apply?

The problem is that this bill is sitting upon a pile of other bills that define terms. If this doesn't say what the ACLU and Rebublican senator Graham say it says, why would these two disparate parties say it says that?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

SOOO this is the CHANGE everyone was talking about

According to the link, the bill was drafted in secret by Carl Levin and John McCain. Not Obama.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Can US citizens be deemed enemy combatants? If so, wouldn't this bill apply?

The problem is that this bill is sitting upon a pile of other bills that define terms. If this doesn't say what the ACLU and Rebublican senator Graham say it says, why would these two disparate parties say it says that?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

11 (b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED
12 STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person
13 in military custody under this section does not extend to
14 citizens of the United State



Makalakumu... did you read the bill he posted? The answer to your question was spelled out.

 

[Makalakumu]

11 (b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED
12 STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person
13 in military custody under this section does not extend to
14 citizens of the United State



Makalakumu... did you read the bill he posted? The answer to your question was spelled out.

Is it? Why do the senators voting on it say that it gives the government the power that was claimed?

 

[Nomad]

Is it? Why do the senators voting on it say that it gives the government the power that was claimed?

Because they want to generate opposition to the bill? We've seen time and again that the "truth" is quite fluid in the hands of politicians. I'm not saying that the bill as written in full isn't bad, or doesn't possibly contain some troubling bits that taken to extremes could lead to this sort of thing (and I'm not saying it does, either). What I am saying is that quoting any politician as a reliable source of unbiased information is simply wrong.

 

[ballen0351]

Your experience proves that is all they do. Right?

Nope I alrady stated the other things Ive seen them do.
Um lets see they are fighting Alabama from segragating HIV positive prisioners from General Population
Um they are planning to sue a SC public school for having a Christian Rap group preform but fight to allow Gay and Lesbian school alliances clubs in schools
Um Fight for a womans right to an abortion but fight against a states right to have capital punishment
Not only Capital Punishment is bad but so it Solitary confinement they are fighting against that in Oregon
They are against privatization of prisons
They call detention of illegal immigrants in jails to await deportation inhumane and brutal
Fighting to close Gitmo
Filing suit against a private business for not hosting a Gay wedding reception
They are AGAINST an individuals right to own a gun.
They supported the firing of a counslor who said she didnt want to counsel kids on Gay issues because she wasnt comfortable talking to kids about that
They use "news" sources like Media MAtters on the ACLU website
They are fighting to have the terms Islam, muslims, and aribic removed from US Govt training materials on Terrorism

I can go ON and ON but I see nothing above that is not 100% adopted from the far left political platform. ALL of that was taken directly from the ACLU website.

In theroy I think the ACLU is a good idea however in practice they ahev shown over and over to just be the judicial arm of the Left wing of the Democratic party.
You cant claim to be FOR upholding Constitutional rights of all americans and be against the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. You cant be for the 1st amendment unless its a Christian speaking then they need to shut up. You cant be for Due process of the law for illegal immigrants and then convict a police officer in the court of public opinion for pepper spraying protesters that are breaking the law.

 

[Makalakumu]

Because they want to generate opposition to the bill? We've seen time and again that the "truth" is quite fluid in the hands of politicians. I'm not saying that the bill as written in full isn't bad, or doesn't possibly contain some troubling bits that taken to extremes could lead to this sort of thing (and I'm not saying it does, either). What I am saying is that quoting any politician as a reliable source of unbiased information is simply wrong.

It's not just politicians, its lawyers who study this for a living. My guess is that the way terrorists are classified and treated is what is generating the hype.

Think Anwar al Alaki. If I'm reading this right, he could be killed or captured on American soil.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

Think Anwar al Alaki. If I'm reading this right, he could be killed or captured on American soil.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

I think he could have without this bill. I thought he had warrants so he already could have been arrested on us soil and if he geav them a reason for deadly force well he could ave been killed

 

[Josh Oakley]

Is it? Why do the senators voting on it say that it gives the government the power that was claimed?

You never answered my question. Have you read the bill?

 

[Makalakumu]

You never answered my question. Have you read the bill?

The answer is yes. It's interesting to see the ways our government is spending an additional 663 billion on the war effort.

Regarding, NDAA, despite the language, it's still a concern for civil liberty groups and lawmaers. I tried to trace all of the waivers and references to other bills and quickly ran out of time. I'm not convinced.

Here is a description of what the Udall Amendment would do.

The Udall amendment would strip sections 1031 and 1032 from the bill and in their place, mandate a process for Congress to use to consider whether any detention legislation is needed. If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

???

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay, here's the missing piece.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshg...alters_detainee_language_in_defense_bill.html

[h=1]Senate panel alters detainee language in defense bill[/h] The Senate Armed Services Committee voted Tuesday to approve a new version of the defense authorization bill that changes detainee-related provisions in the measure and could clear the way for the legislation to reach the floor as soon as this week.

It looks like the language was changed after the uproar ensued.

"These provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens. While this compromise includes many of the recommended changes and clarifications sought by the Administration, it retains critical components such as the requirement for military custody of members of al-Qaeda or its associated forces captured while participating in or planning an attack on the U.S. or its coalition partners," the trio said. "We are encouraged by today’s unanimous vote, and look forward to debating these vital issues on the floor of the Senate when the NDAA comes up for consideration as early as this week.”

I wonder what the final version will look like?

 

[Makalakumu]

And here is another opinion on the current version of the bill.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/us_rep_justin_amash_opposes_de.html

Although the bill says “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” Amash said the language is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.


“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” he wrote.

Lawyerspeak indeed.