|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2011 0:00:00 GMT -6
Unbelievable. We've officially become a Police State.
The Senate voted today to allow the US military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil.
This marks a huge departure from previous law that absolutely prohibits the US military from arresting and detaining American citizens on US soil.
This was part of a larger bill that received "bipartisan support" (i.e., 2 Republicans opposed it, all other Republicans voted for it.)
However, our cowardly, lying President has "threatened" a veto. (Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.)
Amazing how they keep ginning up the "terrorism" cause, when there have been almost no US-located terrorist deaths since 9/11.
But there has been the domestic tranquility threat by Occupy Wall Street movements.
Those are the real terrorists. They're a threat to the financial fortunes of the only people that really count in this country--the top 1%.
------------------------------ from the Huffington Post: Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitelyby Michael McAuliff and Jennifer Bendery Nov 29, 2011 " The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.
The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.
"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.
Paul's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.
"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."
Democrats who were also concerned about liberties compared the military policing of Americans to the detention of Americans in internment camps during World War II.
"Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment -- which has not yet gotten a vote -- that she said would correct the problem. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."
Backers of military detention of Americans -- a measure crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- came out swinging against Udall's amendment on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.
"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.
"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. " They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."
In criticizing the measure, White House officials said that it would cause confusion and interfere with a counterterrorism effort that has been remarkably successful since Sept. 11, 2001 -- across two administrations.
"It is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations," the White House argued in a Nov. 17 statement.And THIS is their main friggin' objection?!?!!!
Are you kidding?!!
Further, it (the White House) contended:
This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.
A White House official said the administration stands by the veto threat. "We take this very, very seriously," the official said.
Both FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper backed up the White House with letters sent to congressional leaders. Clapper echoed the charge that the measure creates uncertainty and added that it could prevent intelligence operatives from getting critical information from suspects.
And although the measure allows the secretary of defense to waive it, both Mueller and Clapper said that could prove unworkable in the real world.
Mueller added that it could even stop the FBI from investigating individuals who fall under the definitions of suspected terrorist in the measure.
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act would authorize defense spending on military personnel, weapons and war. The first draft of the bill won support from both parties in Congress in October, passing out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with just Udall dissenting. A similar House bill allocating $690 billion for the Pentagon passed in May, without the controversial measure. It could be changed when the differing versions are merged, if Congress desires.
The detention provision whipped up a furor in both parties, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) having already text delayed the vote over it.
The final vote showed bizarre fractures among Democrats, erasing the usual barriers between conservatives and liberals. The 16 who voted for the harsh detainee rules were Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). National defense hawk and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) also voted in favor of the tougher language.
"It's one of those things where ... it's bipartisan on both sides. Levin's not on the same page as the White House. We've got our own internal differences; Paul and Kirk don't agree with Graham," said a senior GOP aide just before the vote. "Everybody's trying to do the right thing. There's just a difference of opinion."
Even though Paul was joined only by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on his side of the aisle, the issue was contentious at the Republicans' weekly caucus lunch.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting -- where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance -- saying his colleagues had "a spirited discussion" about Udall's amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2011 0:17:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2011 0:22:44 GMT -6
From The Examiner: S1867 would overturn Posse Comitatus ActBy Melissa Pehle-Hill, (Dallas Congress Examiner) " According to a CBS poll done earlier this month, Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low of 9%. Certainly Congress either isn't aware of this or they don't care as they are continuing to attack the rights of the American people, this time with S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.
This bill would, in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield.” In other words this bill would allow the military to arrest and detain American citizens in America as though they were enemy combatants without having actually been involved in the theater of war.
According to Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against it, this act would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.”
Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) said of this bill, “One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. Soil.
Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. Military to preform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”
Section 1031 does not differentiate between U.S. Citizens and enemy combatants, and though Section 1032 (b) which refers to the applicability to U.S. Citizens states, “(1) United State Citizens—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
This might not be a problem if not for the fact that in 2009 Homeland Security released a report which called most Americans possible terrorists. Read on and see if you might be one of the people this administration considers a terrorist, and who therefore needs to worry about this overturn of the Posse Comitatus Act.
From the Homeland Security report: “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” In other words, if you support the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and want the government out of your business then this administration considers you a terrorist. So, do you really want Obama to have the power to send the military to arrest you and detain you “under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities” as prescribed in Section 1031 of this act?
If you still believe that the military is meant to protect the American people and our great nation rather than to be turned against us, then call your Senator and tell them to vote no on S 1867. For their contact information, click here."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2011 0:30:20 GMT -6
from Lawfare: Is the President's Veto Threat Credible? (NO!)by Jack Goldsmith " Ben wrote last week about the Administration’s threat to veto the Defense Authorization Bill, in large part because of its detainee transfer and related provisions. As Josh Gerstein notes, “whether for political reasons or due to some complex internal dynamics, the administration seems at this point willing to put up more of a public fight over detainee-related strictures than it has in the past. However, whether that will ultimately translate to a willingness to blow up the defense bill with a veto is unclear.”
I doubt that the President will blow up the bill. Too many liberal democrats, including Senate Arms Services Chair Carl Levin, support it, so the president cannot charge political extremism. And as John McCain has said, “[t]here is too much in this bill that is important to this Nation’s defense.” Is the president really going to expose himself, in an election cycle, to the charge (fair or not) that he jeopardized the nation’s defenses in order to vindicate the principle of presidential discretion to release terrorists from GTMO or to bring them to the United States to try them in civilian courts? It is the right principle, but it is a generally unpopular one that the president has not to date fought for. I doubt he will start fighting for it eleven months before the election.
If I am right, it raises the question why the president “ratcheted up the stakes . . . with a threat of a veto,” as Senator McCain put it. He may have done so to appease the left side of his party. But failing to veto the bill after threatening one will hardly make the left happy; it is more likely to confirm its belief that he is spineless on detention issues. It will also undermine further the credibility of the president’s veto threat.
This logic suggests that the administration would not have threatened a veto unless it intended to follow through. [But] I still think electoral politics will win out, and that the administration will back down. But if I am wrong, and if the President acts on principle and vetoes the bill despite the political costs, one wonders why he did not fight for the principle earlier, when the political context was more favorable."
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Nov 30, 2011 6:42:56 GMT -6
Do you suppose the MIC is behind this? They need an enemy to squander $Billions on.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2011 12:26:43 GMT -6
Do you suppose the MIC is behind this? They need an enemy to squander $Billions on. GB Maybe. But I also think that the Occupy movements and the general public outrage over financial industry criminality is a major factor.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 1, 2011 23:35:24 GMT -6
Again the Senate approves a bill that deprives US citizens the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, under the guise of "fighting terrorism."
from Yahoo/AP Senate approves $662 billion defense bill
By DONNA CASSATA Dec 1, 2011 " WASHINGTON (AP) — Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil, and detain some indefinitely.
The vote was 93-7 for the bill authorizing money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1....
The Senate's version of the defense bill still must be reconciled with the House-passed measure in the final weeks of the congressional session.
In an escalating fight with the White House, the bill would ramp up the role of the military in handling terror suspects. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller both oppose the provisions as does the White House, which said it cannot accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."
Late Thursday, a White House official said the veto threat still stands.
The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States.....
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45.
Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeatedly pointed out that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.
The series of detention provisions challenges citizens' rights under the Constitution, tests the boundaries of executive and legislative branch authority and sets up a showdown with the Democratic commander in chief. Civil rights groups fiercely oppose the bill.
"Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The bill reflects the politically charged dispute over whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals. The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror after they've succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.
The Senate rejected an effort by Feinstein to limit a military custody requirement for suspects to those captured outside the United States. The vote was 55-45. Feinstein said her goal was to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists."
The issue divided Democrats, with 9 senators, many facing re-election next year, breaking with their leadership and administration to vote against the amendment.
Republicans held firm, with only Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Lee of Utah backing Feinstein's effort.
"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said in defense of the legislation."
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 2, 2011 5:19:21 GMT -6
How about a signing statement?
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 4, 2011 16:15:25 GMT -6
This portion presents a libertarian, capitalist point of view that fears government eventually becoming a police state. Rigid police states fail violently usually after decades of repression in my view of modern history in Europe and the Middle East. What replaces them often is unstable resulting in more government changes or even worse as happened in Iran. If America is lucky (this is only a hope and I am not making a prediction), then America will avoid the creation of a decades long repression by a police state like Iran. ================ "....As we keep pointing out, if capitalism had been allowed to do its stuff during the crisis of ’08 and ’09 we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The Dow would probably already be at about 6,000…and the rich would have lost about $10 trillion in bankruptcies, defaults, sell-offs and write-downs. We wouldn’t have the Bank of America or Goldman Sachs to kick around — they probably would have gone out of business. That’s what crises are for…to separate fools — especially rich fools — from their money. The rich lose much more money than the poor…because they have so much more to lose. Remember our zombie theory. Everybody wants wealth, power and status. (The rich are just better at it.) They want to get it in the easiest possible way. And the easiest way is to take it away from someone else. That’s what government does. It allows the rich to get rich…supporting their stocks and real estate holdings with artificially low rates and expandable paper money. Then, when the rich go too far, it bails them out with even lower rates and even more ersatz paper money. The rich get their dividends; the politicians get their sinecures and campaign contributions; the middle classes lose their jobs, their houses, and their standards of living. The masses never even try to figure this out. They only know that the game is rigged against them…and they get angry. In anticipation, the government prepares to deal with its revolutionaries just as it deals with “insurgents” in Afghanistan or Iraq. The military, you will remember, is not learning how to win real wars. It learning how to hold down ‘terrorists.’ Today, the terrorists are in the Middle East. Soon they will be in the Midwest. Here’s the Business Insider: The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary … Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all — this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons — without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial. Yes, dear reader, corruption leads to discontent. Discontent leads to rebellion. Rebellion leads to repression. Regards, Bill Bonner for The Daily Reckoning Read more: Misunderstanding Capitalism dailyreckoning.com/misunderstanding-capitalism/#ixzz1fbZZAH1a
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 5, 2011 0:22:40 GMT -6
In anticipation, the government prepares to deal with its revolutionaries just as it deals with “insurgents” in Afghanistan or Iraq. The military, you will remember, is not learning how to win real wars. It learning how to hold down ‘terrorists.’ Today, the terrorists are in the Middle East. Soon they will be in the Midwest. Here’s the Business Insider: The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary … Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all — this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons — without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial. Yes, dear reader, corruption leads to discontent. Discontent leads to rebellion. Rebellion leads to repression. Regards, Bill Bonner for The Daily Reckoning Bonner's right on target. This is exactly what's going to happen. It's the entire reason for this legislation. The target is homegrown "terrorists." But it's not about Islamic extremists. It's about all the rest of us. It's about all of us who realize the so-called "war-on-terrorism" is a sham. It's an excuse to go after the opponents of the American plutocracy, and claim that it is to protect us from "terrorists."
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Dec 5, 2011 4:07:29 GMT -6
Pfffft. How are they going to pay for all those jails?
Libya was even worse than that and they lost.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 11, 2011 15:06:05 GMT -6
Will the Constitution Be Nullified Today? Submitted by LibertyPulse.com on Fri, 12/09/2011 www.dailypaul.com/user/28589Acts of treason are being committed against the American people as you read this. Today, the National Defense Authorization Act is in the House where they will be debating the intricacies of whether or not Americans can be detained in our own country if they are classified as a “threat”. What this means is – if you tweet, or Facebook, or speak out controversially (much like this post that I am writing), then you could be seized, taken away without warrant and without Miranda rights, and be dumped somewhere for the rest of your life. Do you not like the TSA and do you say something about it? Do you think that Congress is doing a bad job? Do you think the President is doing a bad job? Are you part of the Tea Party? Are you part of the Occupy Wall Street movement? Do you keep a storage of food at your house? Do you carry a constitution and have a gun? YOU are a threat – and with this new provision, you could be taken away at any time without due-process. THIS IS IT. What if someone doesn’t like you and tells government officials that you are a threat and/or a terrorist? What if YOU get picked up and detained with no trial? This bill and its provisions actually passed in the Senate last week with a vote of 97 to 3 – this is real and is happening. Only three people in the Senate should be re-elected in my view. This is a complete affront to the American people – only three Senators had the tenacity and courage to stand up for what is right. Do you see how choosing a lesser of two evils for so long has brought us to this? This is evil. Do you know that right now, vehicles – commercially marked and otherwise – are actually collecting information and used to spy on whoever they want? The scary thing is that this has been happening and is becoming more prevalent as we speak. I drive up and down I-25 and have seen the trucks and the cameras – have you looked around you lately? I cried when the TSA agent touched me because I refuse to be scanned like a piece of meat at the airport, and today I sit waiting to see if there are any representatives left with the gumption, integrity, and foresight to protect the American people from this horrid piece of legislation that endangers us more than any terrorist threat could. It makes us slaves and dis-empowers us. It uses fear as a force. This is what tyranny looks like, and it is sneaking up on the American people. Where is the media – the fourth check on government? SHAME ON YOU. Shame on you for being a part of this evil capitulation into slavery. My country, please, do not act in fear. Do not stand for this behavior. We are good and strong people and do not need these types of provisions and enforcements to protect us. We need love and peace and GOD – no government can protect us and scare us into this type of insanity. I am telling you, and telling the representatives of our country to stand up for us and do the right thing today and from here forward. We will not stand for this. As my hero Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 www.govtrack.us/co... CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES~ writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml Download the Bill Here: National Defense Authorization Act_HR 1540
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 13, 2011 13:56:11 GMT -6
Thom Hartmann on tv yesterday showed 3 cattle rustlers spotted and caught in N. Dakota by a drone patrolling the border. I guess they can look 100 miles inland. Pot growers on the N. Calif coast are really worried now.
Maybe the thrust of this bill is to allow the mil. to patrol the whole US with drones. Big brother really is watching.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 13, 2011 22:29:29 GMT -6
Does anyone know how high the drones fly?
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 14, 2011 0:31:49 GMT -6
7,000 feet is the number I've seen. At that height, they are next to invisible. When the Qantas red tailed 747 goes overhead at 7,000 enroute to LAX at about 5 pm, I can barely make it out.
When I noted a drone taking off from SoCalif Logistics Airport (ex-George AFB) in Victorville recently, a local said they operate from there.
GB
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 15, 2011 20:03:02 GMT -6
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 passed the Senate on a 86-13 vote, a solid show of support that belied the considerable opposition and debate behind it. Several Democrats said they voted for the bill — which sets Pentagon policy, authorizes $662 billion in spending and gives service members a pay raise — despite their concerns about the detainee provisions. President Obama initially said he would veto the legislation, but he withdrew the threat after the White House said it was satisfied with revisions made in negotiations this week between the House and Senate. The final compromise mandates that terrorism suspects thought to have ties to Al Qaeda and planning attacks against the United States be taken into military custody, even those captured in the U.S. In response to some complaints, though, the bill carves out an exemption for U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The bill also allows the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects accused of having ties to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S. Supporters of the detainee provisions said they were necessary to improve rapid intelligence gathering and interrogation in the moments after a suspect is captured, which might be hindered if the suspect were held by civilian authorities. "No member of Al Qaeda, no terrorist, should ever hear the words, 'You have the right to remain silent,' '' said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) Civil liberties groups and some Democrats raised concerns that the provisions could be used to trample on citizens' right to due process in U.S. courts. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she wondered why some of the changes were necessary, given the successful detention of terrorism suspects in U.S. prisons and trial in court. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," said Feinstein, who introduced separate legislation aimed at affirming citizens' due process rights. Feinstein voted for the bill, as did Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). The legislation also extends for another year a ban on transferring prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and on the use of Pentagon money to build facilities in the U.S. to house such prisoners. The U.S. continues to hold about 2,500 people suspected of being Al Qaeda, Taliban or associated force fighters in detention centers around the world, according to an update Obama provided in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday. Guantanamo Bay is holding 170 detainees, the president said. The legislation also faced resistance from the administration over the Iran sanctions, politically popular efforts that sailed through the Senate. The new provisions, introduced by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), will penalize financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, particularly for the purchase of oil and oil products. www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress-defense-20111216,0,654343.story
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 15, 2011 23:16:46 GMT -6
"or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S."
Unless something was changed or deleted in the original bill, this point is still up in the air. The original bill did NOT clearly state that this could not be applied to US citizens and legal immigrants. Initially it had 2 parts that conflicted with each other on this point.
I'd still like to know what makes a terrorist different than a criminal.
We afford mass murderers and rapists all Constitutional rights.
Isn't a terrorist a type of criminal? Are we now going to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for suspects, based on what the crime is?
That's exactly what we're doing when we deprive a terrorist suspect of the same rights given to a criminal suspect.
Where are we ultimately going to draw the line?
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 16, 2011 11:11:20 GMT -6
" or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S." Unless something was changed or deleted in the original bill, this point is still up in the air. The original bill did NOT clearly state that this could not be applied to US citizens and legal immigrants. Initially it had 2 parts that conflicted with each other on this point. I'd still like to know what makes a terrorist different than a criminal. We afford mass murderers and rapists all Constitutional rights. Isn't a terrorist a type of criminal? Are we now going to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for suspects, based on what the crime is? That's exactly what we're doing when we deprive a terrorist suspect of the same rights given to a criminal suspect. Where are we ultimately going to draw the line? I agree. Conservative govts and local authorities may redefine what is a terrorist so broadly as to include acts by Americans in America but 'apprehended' outside the US borders such as in Canada, Mexico, Bahamas or on vacation on a cruise ship outside the theoretical ocean US border paid for by the govt to entrap Americans. Then, conservative judges could condemn Americans to military dungeons anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 16, 2011 12:45:31 GMT -6
Conservative govts and local authorities may redefine what is a terrorist so broadly as to include acts by Americans in America but 'apprehended' outside the US borders such as in Canada, Mexico, Bahamas or on vacation on a cruise ship outside the theoretical ocean US border paid for by the govt to entrap Americans. Then, conservative judges could condemn Americans to military dungeons anywhere. Exactly. And when will they simply cross the line and arrest Americans inside the US--claiming they were about to leave or something similar? The doctrine that an American citizen can be detained without trial or charge--regardless of where that takes place--is a huge, new step in the direction of a police state. And the Great One--true to form--did NOT veto the bill like he had threatened to do. But then there was little doubt that he was lying about his veto threat. Once again he proved he's at least one of the most dishonest & cowardly presidents who's ever been elected. He's a shill for banks, Wall Street, and the US plutocracy. I'm flabbergasted that his supporters still have the nerve to praise his hollow statements. He's nothing but a windbag. Many of us knew it during the primaries. Far more know it now.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 18, 2011 0:24:23 GMT -6
from the New York Times via Patrick.net: More Rubble From the Military Detention Cave-InDec 15, 2011 By ANDREW ROSENTHAL " There are a few issues I didn’t get to in my previous post on the National Defense Authorization Act, which President Obama has indicated he’ll sign.
The first is whether certain provisions in the law give the president and the Pentagon the power to detain American citizens in a military facility, possibly for life, without a trial. Lawyers I talked to today said that the bill is pure mush in a lot of areas, including this one.
The bill does not require military custody for American citizens suspected of membership with Al Qaeda or an allied group, as it more or less does for foreigners. (Note, by the way, that this is all about suspicion, not proof.) But neither does it prohibit military trial or detention of American citizens. It’s stunning that the president is willing to sign a bill that might effectively turn the right of habeas corpus into a mere privilege—even for citizens.
That brings me to my 2nd point. White House statements explaining why Mr. Obama has agreed to sign the bill (after he threatened a veto) note that it does not impinge on executive authority. As long as that’s secure, he simply does not seem to care about technicalities like the constitution.
Third, the administration seems to have deepened its commitment to false reassurances. The White House statement says that if the process of putting the law into force “will negatively impact our counter-terrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems.”
I had to read that one twice. If a bill that undermines the judicial system ends up undermining the judicial system, Congress will fix that “quickly and tirelessly.” I feel so much better now."
|
|