PDA

View Full Version : Welcome to the Police State



MR2-Sooner86
11/30/2011, 02:22 PM
The 61 Senators who betrayed you, me, and everybody we love and care about. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210)

Buried in the annual defense appropriations bill is a provision that would give the President the power to use the military to intern anyone – including American citizens – indefinitely, and hold them without charges or trial, anywhere in the world, including on American soil. The provision essentially repeals the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from engaging in law enforcement on US territory – the greatest fear of the Founders. Approved by a Senate subcommittee in secret hearings, the provisions open the road to a military dictatorship in this country – and for that we can thank Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who introduced the measure. Both the FBI and the Pentagon came out against the Levin-McCain monstrosity, and Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) introduced an amendment striking the provision: the amendment was defeated in the Senate, 37-61. (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/29/setting-the-trap/)

Hey don't worry though, if you're not doing anything wrong, you'll be fine.

LwKxZfcEj-U

Oh...

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 02:28 PM
Never was a McLame fan!
Less so now!
McLame is also wanting Congress to significantly increase TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for military retirees and dependants.
This wouldn't be so bad if they had already found other cost savings in social programs. But again, they go after the throat of the military first. The North Vietnamese took something significant away from this guy.

I really don't think that very many military personnel would point a weapon at our own citizens.

Dale Ellis
11/30/2011, 02:28 PM
Mid and Diver are going to love this.

SoonerTerry
11/30/2011, 02:37 PM
WTF are they smokin?

yermom
11/30/2011, 02:38 PM
apparently the Patriot Act was just the beginning

IndySooner
11/30/2011, 03:05 PM
How about this? Consider the source, but is LAPD controlling the media?

http://www.occupylosangeles.org/?q=node%2F2416

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 03:20 PM
MR2,
Can you post a link to the story or find out the 61 votes "for" in the Senate.
I would be surprised if they weren't mostly Demoncrats.
And, "I'd like to know the names of any Repubicans.

Sorry! I discovered the direct link in the text!
Never like Lindsey Graham much either.
But, I think that the author of the article makes a very tenuous link to Newt's comments.
Although he mentions that we will always be in danger....I have heard him speak that this is part of the price for freedom.

So, I'm not convinced that Newt is to be simply thrown in with this crowd!
And, the Presidency certainly does NOT need any more power....except those granted in wartime.....when war is declared by Congress.

SouthCarolinaSooner
11/30/2011, 05:31 PM
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

The 60 nays against the Udall amendment...hasty count was 44 Republicans and 16 Democrats

NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

okie52
11/30/2011, 05:37 PM
Pubs, not surprising but some of the dems on the list are.

yermom
11/30/2011, 05:37 PM
where was the outrage when Bush was doing this crap?

okie52
11/30/2011, 05:41 PM
where was the outrage when Bush was doing this crap?

You mean there wasn't outrage when Bush did it? I am not even sure how this would parallel that since I think Obama has threatened to veto it. (Or maybe I am missing your sarcasm).

okie52
11/30/2011, 05:46 PM
President Obama has promised to veto the Defense bill if it includes the controversial provision, with his administration arguing that applying the new rules within the U.S. would challenge the "fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57333243-503544/senate-keeps-controversial-detainee-policy-in-defense-bill/

soonercoop1
11/30/2011, 05:57 PM
Guess they probably see what the future holds for them...would be very surprised if Obama vetos the bill...

yermom
11/30/2011, 05:59 PM
You mean there wasn't outrage when Bush did it? I am not even sure how this would parallel that since I think Obama has threatened to veto it. (Or maybe I am missing your sarcasm).

i'm responding to Cruiser and the "demoncrats" thing

okie52
11/30/2011, 06:15 PM
Ahh.

East Coast Bias
11/30/2011, 06:57 PM
Mid and Diver are going to love this.

I am hurt that you didn't include me on this list Dale. I am more liberal than Diver; he only admits to being a "redneck liberal". My initial take would be to wonder if law makers are trying to somehow legitimize Gitmo.

SicEmBaylor
11/30/2011, 07:18 PM
Sen. Paul standing strong. Thank God we have at least one patriot in the Senate.

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 10:31 PM
i'm responding to Cruiser and the "demoncrats" thing

Yermom!
I am outrage if the Repugs wanted to do this!
But, I tried going back to the link on the legislation (Udall Ammendment) and got lost trying to figure out what was voted "na"!
According to SouthCarolinaSooner's link, the sponsor were all big lib Democrats.
I can't understand lawyer language in reading bill text.
What's the bottom line? I'm listening!

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 10:36 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57333243-503544/senate-keeps-controversial-detainee-policy-in-defense-bill/

Thanks for the story link Okie!
That's better....an explanation. Udall wanted that item dropped until it was investigated and discussed more.
Makes sense.
Why the hurry (McLame, Graham) if it's already been confusing forever??


Specifically, the provision in question would require al Qaeda terrorists to be held in military custody. However, it would allow the administration, through a waiver, to choose to hold a detainee in civilian custody. The administration would also decide who would fall under the new rule.

But, this language doesn't sound like the arguments being made here.
Sounds like someone is thinking worst case scenerio -- could imprison citizens????


Debate over the provision did not exactly fall down partisan lines. Sixteen Democrats, as well as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, joined Republicans in voting against Udall's amendment. Two Republicans -- Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- joined the rest of the Democrats in supporting it.

Paul said that "detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

Levin, meanwhile, quoted the Supreme Court, which said in 2004, "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant."

Al Qaeda "brought this war to us, and if it's determined that even an American citizen is a member of al Qaeda, then you can apply the law of war, according to the Supreme Court," he said.

To me, this is what happens when we continue to write bills and legislation in legaleze. Nothing is made clear!

****
McLame in on FOX - Greta, right now explaining how this only applies to enemy combatants.
He is trusting that a thorough investigation by the military, FBI, and CIA will justify detention and ensure no abuse of citizens occurs.
***
Greta has a problem with Miranda Rights after an investigation......leaving open lengthy confinement!

So, What the he11 do we not have now in our legal power to stop home-grown terrorists??
What benefit to national security is worth this bad potentail???
I don't trust politicians on this!
What's wrong with a "cleaner" defense bill?
Why not take some time to discuss, take testimony and have a separate bill?

Why aren't some credible, knowledgable military or FBI folks openly discussing this in stead of McLame?

And, meanwhile the Roman legislators fiddled with Nero!
I ain't happy either Yer!

Serge Ibaka
11/30/2011, 10:41 PM
I'm glad that we can all agree that this sucks.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/30/2011, 10:42 PM
Yermom!
I am outrage if the Repugs wanted to do this!
But, I tried going back to the link on the legislation (Udall Ammendment) and got lost trying to figure out what was voted "na"!
According to SouthCarolinaSooner's link, the sponsor were all big lib Democrats.
I can't understand lawyer language in reading bill text.
What's the bottom line? I'm listening!

Okay, what did you not understand?

That out of the 60 some-odd votes to strike down the amendment that would strike the language, over 40 were Republicans?

Or that this crap doesn't fall down party lines, no matter how much you try to feign outrage while offhandedly blaming "demoncrats"?

Why can't you look at this for what it is instead of trying to hang some bullcrap party-line rah-rah junk on it?

soonercruiser
11/30/2011, 11:00 PM
Okay, what did you not understand?

That out of the 60 some-odd votes to strike down the amendment that would strike the language, over 40 were Republicans?

Or that this crap doesn't fall down party lines, no matter how much you try to feign outrage while offhandedly blaming "demoncrats"?

Why can't you look at this for what it is instead of trying to hang some bullcrap party-line rah-rah junk on it?

Why can't you just shut your trap and see that once I got more info I was outraged too??
My first instinct on the issue was wrong! Shown to be wrong!
Repubicans were the larger body of supporters of keeping the language in the defense bill!
As I said...I don't trust career politicians....either party!

So chill out, and have another shot before you go on duty!
Stop person attacks while you are at it!

Tulsa_Fireman
11/30/2011, 11:48 PM
But you're more than happy to chuck darts from one side of the aisle to the other, all while you suddenly find some deep seated distrust of ALL politicians? When the track record of your posts (including this thread) indicates your obvious party schill tactics?

It is what it is, champ. Don't be afraid of it.

And a personal attack would be something like me calling you a poopface. Did I call you a poopface, Cruiser? Or are you throwing up a defense because the party love (or hate in regards to those pesky demoncrats) bit you on the can?

SicEmBaylor
11/30/2011, 11:57 PM
Why can't you just shut your trap and see that once I got more info I was outraged too??
My first instinct on the issue was wrong! Shown to be wrong!
Repubicans were the larger body of supporters of keeping the language in the defense bill!
As I said...I don't trust career politicians....either party!

So chill out, and have another shot before you go on duty!
Stop person attacks while you are at it!

I second everything TF has said. Let me further say that the really sad and scary thing about this is that you will view this vote as a singular anomaly among Republicans rather than indicative of their world view and concept of liberty. A month from now you'll think it's perfectly intellectually honest to say, "Repubs care more about liberty than the Democracks!" ....except for that one time when they voted to retain language in a defense bill that could have branded ANY American citizen a terrorist at any time on the whims of whatever administration happens to be in power resulting in their constitutional rights being stripped and shipped off to foreign prisons. Except for that minor little thing, Republicans love liberty!

Give me a f'n break. I mean really....give me a f'n break. Give me a break or just shut up. God...I never ever want to hear another whore to the GOP claim that the Grand Old Party gives one iota about individual liberty. The Republican Party doesn't give a flying **** about individual liberty over the power and control of the centralized government -- they didn't the day they were founded and they do not today.

cleller
12/1/2011, 12:25 AM
Dang. How many good honest Americans have we got that are being labeled "enemy combatants" just so politicians can deprive them of a trial?

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 12:28 AM
Dang. How many good honest Americans have we got that are being labeled "enemy combatants" just so politicians can deprive them of a trial?
Clearly since it hasn't happened within the last week that the amendment was offered, it can't happen at all....ever. If you think that our own government is incapable of this sort of banana republic tactic then wake up and play closer attention.

Tulsa_Fireman
12/1/2011, 12:42 AM
"The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government."

Thomas Paine

cleller
12/1/2011, 12:51 AM
Clearly since it hasn't happened within the last week that the amendment was offered, it can't happen at all....ever. If you think that our own government is incapable of this sort of banana republic tactic then wake up and play closer attention.

Guess I'll have to stay outta those Al Queda bars. Those senators and intelligence committee people must not have all the facts available to us.

And its a shame Bin Laden was not read those Miranda rights before they shot him. All his knowledge and ideas should be heard in court, where he has a lawyer.

SCOUT
12/1/2011, 12:57 AM
"The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government."

Thomas Paine
/Thread

Frozen Sooner
12/1/2011, 01:05 AM
Horrifying and patently unconstitutional. Fortunately, as noted, the President will veto it.

cleller
12/1/2011, 08:23 AM
There is just way too much agreement on this. What is happening here?

I guess the part everyone is upset and debating is whether or not this means what it says:

“the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Does that mean they are not going to hold US Citizens indefinitely without charging them? Don't know. There is a state law in Oklahoma that allows you to be thrown in jail if you knowingly drive illegal alien in your car. It doesn't seem to be landing innocent people in jail.

It does seem like this bill would stop idiots like Eric Holder from wanting to bring every Attila the Hun that wants to blow up the US into a courtroom in NYC.

Do most of you also think there was something wrong with taking out Anwar Al-Awlaki? Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean there are bogey men hiding out there tracking you with satellites and wanting to hold you in a secret prison because you shot your mouth off on Soonerfans.

They actually do have bigger fish to fry, because there actually are foreigners actively planning ways to kill Americans. When we get our hands on them, we can either try and stop them, or let Eric Holder take them to NYC.

marfacowboy
12/1/2011, 09:20 AM
And even if Obama vetos the measure, just the fact that we've reached this point is terrifying in and of itself. Eventually, such a measure will pass. But I don't think Obama is an guarantee for much of anything. A recent report shows that "the Obama White House has weakened regulation in favor of corporate interests more than the Bush administration. The study, "Behind Closed Doors at the White House: How Politics Trumps Protection of Public Health, Worker Safety, and the Environment,” examines more than a thousand meetings that took place over a decade between lobbyists and a little known regulatory office, then checks to see how proposed rules were weakened to accommodate industry requests. It found the Obama White House changed rules 76 percent of the time, while Bush changed them just 64 percent of the time. EPA rules were changed at a significantly higher rate — 84 percent."
Anyone that trusts Obama is naive.

Killerbees
12/1/2011, 10:08 AM
I read about this the other day and if I am not mistaken there is clear language that excludes US citizens (anywhere) and Resident Aliens (for conduct taking place inside the US).

Zin
12/1/2011, 10:12 AM
Horrifying and patently unconstitutional. Fortunately, as noted, the President will veto it.

He rarely does the right thing, but this will be an exception.

cleller
12/1/2011, 10:58 AM
I read about this the other day and if I am not mistaken there is clear language that excludes US citizens (anywhere) and Resident Aliens (for conduct taking place inside the US).

True. The bill says the requirement to hold combatants in military custody does not extend to US citizens and resident aliens. Some some people think it is theoretically possible that US citizens could be held, if certain high ranking members of the military or government deem it necessary.

That is where the argument seems to start. Most senators do not feel this poses a risk to the rights of the typical US citizen. Most people posting here do not agree with that. I suppose they think some quirk could lead to you or your neighbor being arrested as an enemy combatant. Then high level people within our government could conspire to have you wisked to a secret military prison to be held for as long as they please. Even the "In your corner" news crew would be unable to help you.

AlboSooner
12/1/2011, 11:01 AM
Dang. How many good honest Americans have we got that are being labeled "enemy combatants" just so politicians can deprive them of a trial?

Every dictatorship, every tyrant starts his tyranny step by step. In this case it's seeming that the tyrant is the government. Step by Step, my friend.

Nobody would argue that Americans today have less civil liberties today than ever before.

AlboSooner
12/1/2011, 11:02 AM
At least we can all agree, the terrorists have won.

marfacowboy
12/1/2011, 11:18 AM
True. The bill says the requirement to hold combatants in military custody does not extend to US citizens and resident aliens. Some some people think it is theoretically possible that US citizens could be held, if certain high ranking members of the military or government deem it necessary.

That is where the argument seems to start. Most senators do not feel this poses a risk to the rights of the typical US citizen. Most people posting here do not agree with that. I suppose they think some quirk could lead to you or your neighbor being arrested as an enemy combatant. Then high level people within our government could conspire to have you wisked to a secret military prison to be held for as long as they please. Even the "In your corner" news crew would be unable to help you.

This is absolutely not the case. You should read the bill carefully and listen to McCain's comments. I don't see any grey area here whatsoever.

Killerbees
12/1/2011, 12:31 PM
This is absolutely not the case. You should read the bill carefully and listen to McCain's comments. I don't see any grey area here whatsoever.

bolded mine


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112pMG62x:e464889:

I did read it, I dont ever make the mistake of listening to McCain.

Ton Loc
12/1/2011, 12:43 PM
Every dictatorship, every tyrant starts his tyranny step by step. In this case it's seeming that the tyrant is the government. Step by Step, my friend.

Nobody would argue that Americans today have less civil liberties today than ever before.

Seriously, I think your "ever before" is a little much. Everyone needs to chill with the hyperbole.

Besides, its the government, they'll throw you in jail/detain you any damn time they please.

okie52
12/1/2011, 12:46 PM
bolded mine



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112pMG62x:e464889:

I did read it, I dont ever make the mistake of listening to McCain.

Based on what you have provided Killerbees, I don't see what is the big deal. It appears US citizens are excluded.

soonercruiser
12/1/2011, 01:36 PM
I second everything TF has said. Let me further say that the really sad and scary thing about this is that you will view this vote as a singular anomaly among Republicans rather than indicative of their world view and concept of liberty. A month from now you'll think it's perfectly intellectually honest to say, "Repubs care more about liberty than the Democracks!" ....except for that one time when they voted to retain language in a defense bill that could have branded ANY American citizen a terrorist at any time on the whims of whatever administration happens to be in power resulting in their constitutional rights being stripped and shipped off to foreign prisons. Except for that minor little thing, Republicans love liberty!

Give me a f'n break. I mean really....give me a f'n break. Give me a break or just shut up. God...I never ever want to hear another whore to the GOP claim that the Grand Old Party gives one iota about individual liberty. The Republican Party doesn't give a flying **** about individual liberty over the power and control of the centralized government -- they didn't the day they were founded and they do not today.

Both of you guys are fools!
Go play with Barney' Frank!

soonercruiser
12/1/2011, 01:40 PM
Based on what you have provided Killerbees, I don't see what is the big deal. It appears US citizens are excluded.

Okie,
Please pass that assessment directly along to SicEm and the TulsaFireStarter!

I still don't like the whole idea.
As someone said, the terrorists are succeeding in changing out way of life.
I believe that we have always found a way....and even with just the National Guard there are enough resources to handle any grand terrorist plans.

If not, we'll just have to depend on the ready "militia"!
:onthego:

okie52
12/1/2011, 02:26 PM
Okie,
Please pass that assessment directly along to SicEm and the TulsaFireStarter!

I still don't like the whole idea.
As someone said, the terrorists are succeeding in changing out way of life.
I believe that we have always found a way....and even with just the National Guard there are enough resources to handle any grand terrorist plans.

If not, we'll just have to depend on the ready "militia"!
:onthego:

Our lives are always changed by criminals, military foes, foreign policy and terrorists. Blackouts and rationing in WWII, can't go to Cuba, airport security, etc...

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 02:27 PM
Okie,
Please pass that assessment directly along to SicEm and the TulsaFireStarter!

I still don't like the whole idea.
As someone said, the terrorists are succeeding in changing out way of life.
I believe that we have always found a way....and even with just the National Guard there are enough resources to handle any grand terrorist plans.

If not, we'll just have to depend on the ready "militia"!
:onthego:

You and Killerbees are absolutely and completely wrong:
From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/senate-approves-military-custody-for-terror-suspects.html?_r=4

The legislation has two components. One allows the military arrest and detaining of members of Al-Queada and other terrorist organizations at home or abroad but contains an exemption for American citizens.HOWEVER, it also contains a provision allowing the government to arrest and detain anyone without trial that is suspected of being a terrorist which does not exclude American citizens.

So, the question is outside of obvious overseas terror organization, who is a terrorist and who defines what one is? We have a link on Drudge today from an Obama Administration lawyer opining that Americans are legitimate targets in the War on Terror: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html Furthermore, they offer an opinion that determining the status of an American (whether they be terrorist or not) is strictly the province of the Executive Branch: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TARGETED_KILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-01-10-42-54 -- This makes perfect logical sense. The point of this legislation is to turn the issue of terrorism within the borders of the United States over to the DoD from the Department of Justice which, hethereto, it has had province over. Furthermore, it's obvious the courts will not be able to protect the rights of citizens since the courts are purely within the "legal" domain rather than the "war fighting" domain. Since terrorism will henceforth be a national "defense" issue rather than a legal one...the courts will have a very difficult time protecting anyone's civil liberties. Not that I trust the courts to do so anyway since they're an entity of the Federal government themselves and are as untrustworthy as any other component of our government.

Now, Sen. Graham has come right out and stated that if you're an American citizen who is a terrorist (let's remember that is defined by the Executive) then you absolutely will not be given a lawyer. This was what he said when defending this legislation. Since the point of the legislation is to fight the war on terror as if it's an actual war here at home and since the military has been (or will be if it's signed) granted the right to permanently detain and since we know Sen. Graham has publicly stated that citizens will not be given a lawyer and since we know the Executive (not the courts) determine whether someone is a terrorist....who honestly believes that Americans will not and cannot have their civil liberties stripped? If you believe that is impossible then you're probably easily distracted by shiny objects and spinning tops.

okie52
12/1/2011, 02:33 PM
You and Killerbees are absolutely and completely wrong:
From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/senate-approves-military-custody-for-terror-suspects.html?_r=4

The legislation has two components. One allows the military arrest and detaining of members of Al-Queada and other terrorist organizations at home or abroad but contains an exemption for American citizens.HOWEVER, it also contains a provision allowing the government to arrest and detain anyone without trial that is suspected of being a terrorist which does not exclude American citizens.

So, the question is outside of obvious overseas terror organization, who is a terrorist and who defines what one is? We have a link on Drudge today from an Obama Administration lawyer opining that Americans are legitimate targets in the War on Terror: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html Furthermore, they offer an opinion that determining the status of an American (whether they be terrorist or not) is strictly the province of the Executive Branch: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TARGETED_KILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-01-10-42-54 -- This makes perfect logical sense. The point of this legislation is to turn the issue of terrorism within the borders of the United States over to the DoD from the Department of Justice which, hethereto, it has had province over. Furthermore, it's obvious the courts will not be able to protect the rights of citizens since the courts are purely within the "legal" domain rather than the "war fighting" domain. Since terrorism will henceforth be a national "defense" issue rather than a legal one...the courts will have a very difficult time protecting anyone's civil liberties. Not that I trust the courts to do so anyway since they're an entity of the Federal government themselves and are as untrustworthy as any other component of our government.

Now, Sen. Graham has come right out and stated that if you're an American citizen who is a terrorist (let's remember that is defined by the Executive) then you absolutely will not be given a lawyer. This was what he said when defending this legislation. Since the point of the legislation is to fight the war on terror as if it's an actual war here at home and since the military has been (or will be if it's signed) granted the right to permanently detain and since we know Sen. Graham has publicly stated that citizens will not be given a lawyer and since we know the Executive (not the courts) determine whether someone is a terrorist....who honestly believes that Americans will not and cannot have their civil liberties stripped? If you believe that is impossible then you're probably easily distracted by shiny objects and spinning tops.

Point to Sic em.

Ike
12/1/2011, 02:36 PM
The cynical part of me has a feeling that this language was put in and left in precisely to make Obama veto a defense bill and therefore allow republicans to campaign on the "Obamerrs against national defense because he is a muslim" line.



At least, I hope it's that. Because otherwise I would have no choice but to believe that those 60 people that voted against the Udall ammendment are spawn of the devil.

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 02:42 PM
The cynical part of me has a feeling that this language was put in and left in precisely to make Obama veto a defense bill and therefore allow republicans to campaign on the "Obamerrs against national defense because he is a muslim" line.

This isn't cynical thinking at all. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis Mr. Scientist. It's a common enough tactic, but boy we're all going to have egg on our face sitting in GitMo if Obama calls their bluff and signs it! /cruiserstylehyperbole

Ike
12/1/2011, 02:47 PM
This isn't cynical thinking at all. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis Mr. Scientist. It's a common enough tactic, but boy we're all going to have egg on our face sitting in GitMo if Obama calls their bluff and signs it! /cruiserstylehyperbole

That this is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, and a common tactic is what make it so cynical. Our country is broken.

okie52
12/1/2011, 02:49 PM
If it is true that Americans can be held without being charged, etc..., this would really be scary.

Now I honestly could give a sheet about most of those suckers in Gitmo...they are POW's as far as I'm concerned, but when that same method is potentially applied to our citizens then it becomes a treacherous law. I am not sure what good I think can come from it.

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 03:08 PM
If it is true that Americans can be held without being charged, etc..., this would really be scary.

Now I honestly could give a sheet about most of those suckers in Gitmo...they are POW's as far as I'm concerned, but when that same method is potentially applied to our citizens then it becomes a treacherous law. I am not sure what good I think can come from it.

Agreed. I couldn't give a flying **** about the detention or execution of non-US citizens actively engaging in anti-terror activities (the wisdom of continuing the war itself notwithstanding). HOWEVER, anything either on US soil or involving American citizens should be handled through the courts.

okie52
12/1/2011, 03:12 PM
Agreed. I couldn't give a flying **** about the detention or execution of non-US citizens actively engaging in anti-terror activities (the wisdom of continuing the war itself notwithstanding). HOWEVER, anything either on US soil or involving American citizens should be handled through the courts.

Well I could agree with that except I want our military (if ICE is inadequately prepared to do so) to be able to detain and immediately deport illegals. I don't think they can do that now.

cleller
12/1/2011, 03:28 PM
Nobody would argue that Americans today have less civil liberties today than ever before.

Some former sharecroppers down in the Mississippi Delta, itinerant farmers in California, Native Americans in Arizona, Mormons in Utah, and millions or criminals in prison (who do not work all day busting rocks) might argue that.

marfacowboy
12/1/2011, 03:36 PM
bolded mine



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112pMG62x:e464889:

I did read it, I dont ever make the mistake of listening to McCain.

This is correct; I stand corrected. The thing is 680 pages long and I'm the one that apparently didn't read it carefully enough. What it does is create a system of indefinite military detention within the United States by statute, although that is not necessarily extended to include citizens. However, I think that could easily be the next logical step, and it has support from people like McCain. I'm not sure why the ACLU and people like Daphne Eviatar believe so strongly this applies or will apply to citizens.

cleller
12/1/2011, 03:46 PM
http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/200px-SimonBarSinister.jpg

SicEm Bar Sinister will now be able to spirit away Landry and Whitney indefinitely and produce his own super-race of Polly Purebreds.

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 03:55 PM
Point to Sic em.
Let me take this a little further:

1. The point of the legislation is to turn issues of terrorism over to the DoD from the Department of Justice.

2. The Executive, not the Judiciary, determines the definition of terrorism since terrorism is now a military rather than a legal issue thus moving it from the purview of the courts to the Executive Branch.

3. In order for Republicans to continue to perpetuate the myth that this excludes American citizens, you have to assume that the Judiciarywould step in and protect the civil liberties of any American citizen. HOWEVER, in so doing the Judiciary becomes involved in what are now considered strictly military affairs. Haven't Republicans always ALAWYS argued that the Judiciary has absolutely NO PLACE in messing around with military aspects of the war on terror? Haven't they ALWAYS opposed the Judiciary getting involved on "the battlefield." The proponents of this legislation say the purpose is to acknowledge the fact that the homeland is a "battlefield." If that be true then Republicans would either have to abandon their support for this legislation or acknowledge the fact that the Judiciary has a role on "the battlefield."

Thank you. Come again. Enjoy it. Eat it. Live it. Breath it. It just happened.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/SicEmBaylor/ace_ventura.gif

NormanPride
12/1/2011, 05:18 PM
I ****ing hate how right 1984 is. Ugh.

okie52
12/1/2011, 05:33 PM
Let me take this a little further:

1. The point of the legislation is to turn issues of terrorism over to the DoD from the Department of Justice.

2. The Executive, not the Judiciary, determines the definition of terrorism since terrorism is now a military rather than a legal issue thus moving it from the purview of the courts to the Executive Branch.

3. In order for Republicans to continue to perpetuate the myth that this excludes American citizens, you have to assume that the Judiciarywould step in and protect the civil liberties of any American citizen. HOWEVER, in so doing the Judiciary becomes involved in what are now considered strictly military affairs. Haven't Republicans always ALAWYS argued that the Judiciary has absolutely NO PLACE in messing around with military aspects of the war on terror? Haven't they ALWAYS opposed the Judiciary getting involved on "the battlefield." The proponents of this legislation say the purpose is to acknowledge the fact that the homeland is a "battlefield." If that be true then Republicans would either have to abandon their support for this legislation or acknowledge the fact that the Judiciary has a role on "the battlefield."

Thank you. Come again. Enjoy it. Eat it. Live it. Breath it. It just happened.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/SicEmBaylor/ace_ventura.gif

Not sure I follow your thinking. If terrorism is turned over to the DOD/executive branch hasn't that removed the DOJ from our homeland battlefield? If repubs support this measure it will dump the DOJ from the battlefield so I am not seeing the inconsistency on their part (right or wrong).

Tulsa_Fireman
12/1/2011, 05:35 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, the artist formerly known as Sic'em, Thundercrotch McThrusthump and his amazing rightness.

Tulsa_Fireman
12/1/2011, 05:36 PM
Not sure I follow your thinking. If terrorism is turned over to the DOD/executive branch hasn't that removed the DOJ from our homeland battlefield? If repubs support this measure it will dump the DOJ from the battlefield so I am not seeing the inconsistency on their part (right or wrong).

The inconsistency is that it's the purview of Justice now, as it should be.

marfacowboy
12/1/2011, 06:04 PM
After reading the relevant sections again, it appears the bill does two things: authorizes detainment and also requires detainment. The language makes it sound like they cannot detain US citizens, but instead it doesn't apply the requirement to detain to US citizens. The authorization to detain US citizens remains, I think. I was right the first time. This is a misleading way to make people believe that the bill doesn't authorize detaining US citizens.

The exclusion in Section 1032 only applies to 1032. It doesn’t apply to 1031.

okie52
12/1/2011, 06:06 PM
The inconsistency is that it's the purview of Justice now, as it should be.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with that if we are dealing with US citizens. But from what I gathered from Sicems statement the repubs were going to be at odds with their own position of getting the DOJ out of the battlefield...even on the homeland. That doesn't seem to be inconsistent for them.

BetterSoonerThanLater
12/1/2011, 06:07 PM
Agreed. I couldn't give a flying **** about the detention or execution of non-US citizens actively engaging in anti-terror activities (the wisdom of continuing the war itself notwithstanding). HOWEVER, anything either on US soil or involving American citizens should be handled through the courts.

i think you meant "terror or terrorist". if they were engaging in "anti-terror activities, then wouldnt they be on our side? ;)

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 06:14 PM
i think you meant "terror or terrorist". if they were engaging in "anti-terror activities, then wouldnt they be on our side? ;)
You're right. The last 2-3 days have been weird. I don't know if it's the new keyboard, but my typing has been horrible. What I'm thinking isn't at all what ends up on the screen. Maybe it's brain damage from being with my extended Poke family for T-Giving...

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 06:17 PM
Not sure I follow your thinking. If terrorism is turned over to the DOD/executive branch hasn't that removed the DOJ from our homeland battlefield? If repubs support this measure it will dump the DOJ from the battlefield so I am not seeing the inconsistency on their part (right or wrong).

The inconsistently is that the GOP typically opposes judicial interference on the battlefield. This measure turns the US into the battlefield. Republicans favoring the measure are downplaying the possibility that the measure could result in violations of the civil liberties of American citizens. However in order to ensure that is indeed the case then the judiciary would have to get involved in order to protect civil liberties. If they get involved then they're interfering with the "battlefield" because these matters are now military not judicial. Therefore, Republicans would have to accept interference on the battlefield by the judiciary in order to ensure the civil liberties of citizens were not being violated.

okie52
12/1/2011, 06:28 PM
Ahh, but the repubs may only be playing lip service to the civil liberties knowing that the measure will circumvent the DOJ...but that may be your point.

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 06:32 PM
Ahh, but the repubs may only be playing lip service to the civil liberties knowing that the measure will circumvent the DOJ...but that may be your point.
Precisely.

BetterSoonerThanLater
12/1/2011, 06:47 PM
You're right. The last 2-3 days have been weird. I don't know if it's the new keyboard, but my typing has been horrible. What I'm thinking isn't at all what ends up on the screen. Maybe it's brain damage from being with my extended Poke family for T-Giving...

no further explination needed! :)

East Coast Bias
12/1/2011, 07:59 PM
This is just the sort of issue that gets Obama into trouble with the liberals. This will be another litmus test to test how far he has drifted to the middle of the political spectrum. This is a no-brainer for the left but I am not so sure it will get the veto.

SicEmBaylor
12/1/2011, 11:46 PM
Sen. Rand Paul defeats the amendment. Liberty lives to die another day.


Dec 1, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tonight, Sen. Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans' constitutional rights. Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.

"Suspicion of committing a crime should lead to your attempted prosecution. If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim," Sen. Paul said. "Tonight, a blow was struck to fight back against those who would take our liberty."

The amendment would have passed by voice vote, but this tactic was blocked by Sen. Paul's objection. He then forced a roll call vote, in which the amendment was defeated, 41-59.

Sen. Paul earlier this week introduced an amendment to formally end the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that troops will be removed from Iraq at the end of this year, the amendment failed 30-67.

###

marfacowboy
12/1/2011, 11:49 PM
This is just the sort of issue that gets Obama into trouble with the liberals. This will be another litmus test to test how far he has drifted to the middle of the political spectrum. This is a no-brainer for the left but I am not so sure it will get the veto.

The only reason Obama vetos it is to protect Executive power. It won't have anything to do with any sense of responsibility toward protecting what little democracy we have remaining in this country.

SicEmBaylor
12/2/2011, 12:20 AM
The only reason Obama vetos it is to protect Executive power. It won't have anything to do with any sense of responsibility toward protecting what little democracy we have remaining in this country.
Moot point. Sen. Paul killed the amendment.

marfacowboy
12/2/2011, 12:21 AM
Moot point. Sen. Paul killed the amendment.
It's not a moot point. It's important people understand his motivation and why he said he would take that action. I think it reveals a lot about him.

SicEmBaylor
12/2/2011, 01:10 AM
It's not a moot point. It's important people understand his motivation and why he said he would take that action. I think it reveals a lot about him.
You're right.

hawaii 5-0
12/2/2011, 01:20 AM
At least we can all agree, the terrorists have won.


Sorry, I don't feel terrorized one bit.

5-0

pphilfran
12/2/2011, 06:06 AM
Sorry, I don't feel terrorized one bit.

5-0

The terrorists have won when we have to take our shoes off at airport security because one guy tried to light his shoes on fire...

We are spending billions and billions on security that will do little to actually stop further attacks...

MountainOkie
12/2/2011, 04:50 PM
The terrorists have won when we have to take our shoes off at airport security because one guy tried to light his shoes on fire...

We are spending billions and billions on security that will do little to actually stop further attacks...


This times 1000!

The terrorists won when our fear of them made us give up our defining characteristic--freedom.

hawaii 5-0
12/2/2011, 04:55 PM
Freedom from having to take your shoes off at airports?

Nope, that doesn't terrorize me.

5-0

pphilfran
12/2/2011, 05:05 PM
Not saying that I am terrorized...only that our reactive security system is easily manipulated by the terror groups...they can make a half azz effort or release some bogus info and we jump through hoops...trying to make everything perfectly safe...who cares if it costs hundreds of billions over time...

It just gives Big Brother a chance to take a little more control...become a little bigger...have a little more power....

We are chasing f'n ghosts...

pphilfran
12/2/2011, 05:08 PM
Anybody with half a brain can make a fertilizer and fuel oil bomb and not raise a bit of suspicion in putting the thing together...

No matter how hard our protectors try...no matter how much money they spend...they can never rule out the possibility of future attacks...

MountainOkie
12/2/2011, 05:09 PM
Freedom from having to take your shoes off at airports?

Nope, that doesn't terrorize me.

5-0

That's not the worst of what goes on and arguing so seems like you're just being purposely obtuse.

Personally, I heard a TSA agent tell someone that "Once you pass that line your *** is mine!" The last time I went through security. I've also read numerous reports of sexual assaults during patdowns. Not to mention that patdowns by law enforcement personel are unconstitutional without any reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a weapon or contraband.

SicEmBaylor
12/2/2011, 05:33 PM
TSA are poorly trained poorly qualified street thugs with a Federal "badge."

soonercruiser
12/2/2011, 06:25 PM
Good for him!

MountainOkie
12/2/2011, 06:27 PM
Good for him!

Who?

MountainOkie
12/2/2011, 06:57 PM
I'll assume you meant the TSA officer.

If so, It's nice to know that the same element of society which heckled victims of the guillotine or cheered on the Brownshirts at Kristallnacht is alive and well. :devilish:

SicEmBaylor
12/2/2011, 07:06 PM
I'm not one to listen to or put much stock into pundits/analysts, but Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger) is my guilty pleasure. He's 100% right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUOE_3K7mI&feature=g-all

Killerbees
12/3/2011, 02:15 AM
Sen. Rand Paul defeats the amendment. Liberty lives to die another day.

You confuse me SicEm. So Rand forces a vote on an amendment which gets defeated and now everything is okay? I don't understand. This amendment was never brought up in this thread or I missed it. It is irrelevant now though because it was defeated and therefore does not affect the bill (S1867) as passed. So the wording in those 2 sections you were so concerned about earlier passed but now they are okay because an unrelated amendment was defeated. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying.

Anyways back to the 2 sections we were discussing earlier. Here they are in full.


Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien 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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Ok I am going to take one more shot at this and try to lead you to the water.

First, there have been many versions of this bill. The one above is the latest version that actually passed the Senate. The ACLU letter and all the other people crying foul are all referring to deleted sections in early versions of this bill that have since been rightfully done away with. Of course that is a 2 way street, this could get modified in the house then kicked back to the senate and passed with something along the lines of what you are scared of being included.

Nowhere is there any authority for the US Armed forces to go around in country kicking down doors arresting people. Even terrorists. I think something along that line was included in the amendment Rand pushed to defeat.

Okay now lets run a hypothetical bad guy through this. Lets say Joe Akbar blows up a building. The FBI swarms in and arrests him. They find irrefutable evidence that he is guilty. Oh no we have a terrorist that meets all the requirements for detention under this bill. So now assuming this bill is in place as law we have to run him through the process.

Okay Sec 1031 he has to be an Al Qaeda supporter, we got phone calls, email and video all supporting the fact he is in fact Al Qaeda. So thats a check.

So he gets handed over to the military for detainment for Disposition under Law of War. But not so fast before the military can detain someone while they figure out which of the 4 options they are going to go with under 1031 subsections (c) they have another rule that kicks in that is conveniently titled "SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War". Think about that, its says this is your requirements to detain someone through military custody BEFORE your can pick one of the 4 dispositions mentioned in 1031. In other words the VERY FIRST thing you do with this guy is run him through 1031 when you get to the part about disposition then 1032 kicks in any you have to apply that to him.

Ok lets run him through this.


(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

Okay he for sure meets that because we have proof he was blowing stuff up, caught in the course of the hostilities mentioned in 1031.


(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

He is for sure covered by this because we have proof he is Al Qaeda and he carried out an attack.


(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

Okay so we have follow 1031 (c) to determine his eventual disposition except that if we transfer him we have to follow 1033. Hmmmm funny how some would have you believe this sec has nothing to do with 1031 when they are clearly referenced.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Oh our first stumbling block. If the SECDEF along with State and DNI waive military detention because of national security then he stays in custody of regular law enforcement. Weird that they would slap something like this in here. (more on this later) For now lets say Joe Akbar doesnt get the waiver and is going to be handed over to the military as REQUIRED by this law. lets continue


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Oh nooos we really stepped in it now. Joe Akbar is a US citizen (or he could even just have a green card). That means that the FBI is not required to hand him over. Oh nooos he gets to lawyer up and go to trial.


I hope that helps to explain how these sections work. If not, then I really cant help you. I really dont care what Graham or McCain thinks these two sections say, I care what is actually written.

The entire reason I believe these 2 sections were written was for a very similar scenario we just went through except where the bad guy isnt a citizen or lawful resident and therefore has no constitutional protection. The goal is to make this law so that FBI or other LEO can hand over a non-citizen to the military and stick them where they belong in GITMO without going through the whole judicial circus act we have witnessed with other terrorists. Its trying to strip power from people trying to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants. This is why so many libs are against it and so many republicans are for it. Its why the party lines have swapped, in reality if you actually understand what is happening here they havent.

Obama will veto it, no way he lets this part get through. He doesnt want some "terrorist" caught in the US by the DOJ being questioned by the military. How many times have you seen FBI FOILS TERRORIST PLOT splashed across the headlines. How many of those would have never even been started if the FBI hadnt sent an undercover agent to dig up a pissed off muslim with a low IQ and sway him into openly stating his hate for America (see we got emails/videos he was trying to contact Al Qaeda), then gently nudging him into a bombing plot even planning it for him then letting it slip, "hey I can get the bombs, lets blow something up" then trapping him. It is the same as a undercover cop hanging around outside a rehab trying to sell people coming out crack then arresting them. Granted in both cases they broke the law and should be punished but it makes the FBI look like a loser and doesnt scare anyone near as much as the headline.

If the DOJ had to hand over these guys then they wouldnt get to make all the headlines and scare you about the terrorist next door so you wont protest when some overpaid security guard gropes you before you get on a plane.

AlboSooner
12/3/2011, 10:33 AM
It will be too late when some of you wake up.

Killerbees
12/3/2011, 11:09 AM
It will be too late when some of you wake up.

If you are referencing me, no need to worry I am wide awake. Believe me, I wouldnt put anything past Obama. I do believe that he would love to be able to round up his detractors and seize more power at any cost. Since his administration has stated that they will veto this if it has these sections in it then that automatically makes me inclined to believe that they must be doing something he doesnt want done which is a good thing.

There is plenty of crap out there right now to be legitimately afraid of, no need to manufacture fake ones out of nothing.

soonercruiser
12/6/2011, 12:24 AM
The cynical part of me has a feeling that this language was put in and left in precisely to make Obama veto a defense bill and therefore allow republicans to campaign on the "Obamerrs against national defense because he is a muslim" line.



At least, I hope it's that. Because otherwise I would have no choice but to believe that those 60 people that voted against the Udall ammendment are spawn of the devil.

Well it wouldn't be the first time that any political party "played" around with legislation for an ulterior motive.
But, I guess that SicEm will say that only Repubicans do it.

MountainOkie
12/15/2011, 02:44 PM
Obama will veto it, no way he lets this part get through.

I want to respond to your statutory law interpretation in its entirity, but I'll start with this. Obama is not going to veto it, that much is clear now especially after Levin (D) stated that the Obama administration insisted that the limiting language be taken out of 1031. Plus, I mean, he already ordered the killing of a U.S. Citizen abroad without trial so really why did we think he cared about this in the first place?

Section 1031 is Congresses express grant of authority to the United States Military to detain (arrest) people (citizens included) who fall under the categories of 1031(b)(1) and 1031(b)(2). There is NO limiting language in Section 1031 regarding place or the citizenry status of the covered individuals. The military has the administrative power to act as far as 1031 allows. This is what was granted by Congress.

1032 is irrelevant, especially given that its limiting language is specifically restricted to 1032 alone. But, additionally, 1032 is a requirement of Congress directing the Military to act in a certain manner and poses NO limitation on the scope of the grant of power given in Section 1031. In other words 1031 ALLOWS the military to act in a certain manner while section 1032 merely provides a category of enemy within that allowance that Congress would like the Military to take care of while they're at it. Which is not to say that they can't act in other ways under the grant of power.

So, back to the crux of the matter: There is NEITHER limiting language in Section 1031 restricting the locale of the grant of power to the U.S. Military NOR is there language prohibiting the detention of U.S. Citizens. Effectively, this is not only a repeal of the Posse Commitatus Act restricting the use of military as a policing body within the United States, but it is the refusal to provide United States Citizens of their proper right to have their case heard in a court of law under the civil laws of the land.

In passing, I would mention that the single silver lining (if you can call it that) is that 1031(b)(2) restricts the allowance to (at its furthest extent) "associated forces" of Al Qaida and the Taliban. Of course that too begs the question: who makes this determination? A military officer? A military tribunal? A Federal Judge on a Writ of Habeas Corpus three months down the line after the arrest was made?

Not that I believe in any restriction of the rights of any U.S. citizen under the Constitution and I fear that the limitation of the rights of some invariably leads to the diminishment of the rights of all.

Finally, all this is done under the assumption that the language you quoted is the correct and current language of the bill.

soonercruiser
12/15/2011, 03:33 PM
Who?

Sorry,
I meant to use the "quotation"....Rand Paul voting "no'.

Blue
12/16/2011, 02:09 AM
No Veto? Thats a big deal isn't it?

yermom
12/16/2011, 07:41 AM
this sounds really bad, and if it really reads like i hear it does, it's time to vote EVERYONE out

soonercruiser
12/16/2011, 02:53 PM
As much as I don't really like Rick and Rand and now Michelle....
If you put all the good ideas together, you may have something of a good start.

Like, starting over with all new legislators and president! Vote every one out!
Term limits for Congress; and very limited legislative time in Washington, with very limited pay; making them hold down a job most of their lives.....an on....and on...

cleller
12/16/2011, 10:45 PM
I'd like to try voting in lots of smart, tough guys who know how to handle money and bullies.

I wouldn't mind looking the other way if they've had mistresses, were bastards, told dirty jokes, beat up reporters, cursed like Bobby Knight, or drove a Corvette thru Denny's.