McCain's Terror Bill: American citizens will be sent to military prisons

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    John McCain and Carl Levin have drafted a new defense bill in secret, and it has already passed committee under closed-door conditions, without even a single hearing.

    S. 1867 takes us one step closer toward a military dictatorship, all under the auspices of safety and security. It contains provisions that allow American citizens to be sent to military prisons indefinitely if they are accused of a terror-related crime. Its not enough that we have militarized Federal agencies reigning over us and destroying our liberties... these sadistic cretins actually want the military itself to start enforcing the laws and delivering justice.

    Due Process is dying before our eyes. Did it really matter if Obama or McCain were elected? McCain wants a dictatorship just as bad as Obama.



    Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window
    While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself. Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.
    The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
    The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
    Republicans are all for this monstrosity. Days ago in the CNN Presidential Debate, half the GOP candidates advocated that the constitution should not be followed in matters of National Security, and that suspects of terror-related crimes should be stripped of their inalienable rights. And here we see more approval of the destruction of Due Process from Republican Senators.
    In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”
    It looks like the only defenders of Due Process will be some Democrats, the ACLU, and of course Ron Paul. It has become part of the GOP platform to support a bloodthirsty Police State.
    Senate panel pushes ahead with defense bill over White House objections on terror suspect plan
    Dividing the Democrats and drawing criticism from the administration is a provision that would require military custody of a suspect determined to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in the planning or an attack on the United States. The administration argues that such a step would hamper efforts by the FBI or other law enforcement to elicit intelligence from terror suspects.
    393740_279213615449480_165801456790697_728613_438055988_n.jpg

     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Is it Alex Jones? Is it WND?

    You are upset with §1032??? Do you understand who this applies to?

    (b) C​
    OVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under

    16​
    this section is any person as follows:

    17​
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, com18

    mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred​
    19​
    on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon20

    sible for those attacks.​
    21​
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially

    22​
    supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces

    23​
    that are engaged in hostilities against the United

    24​
    States or its coalition partners, including any person

    25​
    who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

    VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867​
    tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

    360​
    •​
    S 1867 PCS

    1​
    supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

    2 forces.

    Who is telling you this nonsense, ram? This is like playing telegraph in grade school.

    (b) A​
    PPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS

    16​
    AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

    17​
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18

    ment to detain a person in military custody under​
    19​
    this section does not extend to citizens of the United

    20 States.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Oh so they just have to ACCUSE me of having "ties to al-Qaeda" and then the military can come take me away to a secret gulag.

    I feel so much better!
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    John McCain and Carl Levin have drafted a new defense bill in secret

    Right, that's what usually happens in DoD bills.

    S. 1867 takes us one step closer toward a military dictatorship, all under the auspices of safety and security.

    It does no such thing. In fact the text of 1867 spells out that this does not apply to citizens and resident aliens.

    It contains provisions that allow American citizens to be sent to military prisons indefinitely if they are accused of a terror-related crime.

    It does not. Who is telling you this? Alex Jones, right?

    these sadistic cretins actually want the military itself to start enforcing the laws and delivering justice.

    Where is that provision?

    Due Process is dying before our eyes.

    Perhaps, but the threat would be the United States Supreme Court, not our military.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Oh so they just have to ACCUSE me of having "ties to al-Qaeda" and then the military can come take me away to a secret gulag.

    I feel so much better!

    Are you not a citizen then?:dunno:

    If you are a citizen and are accused of being a member of AQ then they would go to the USA, convene a grand jury and get an indictment and a warrant for your arrest. You would be taken away but not to any gulag, but to Hammond.

    You then have a bail hearing, attorney status and a trial date.

    That would happen with or without 1867.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    There is plenty to be upset about. There is plenty of reason to be wary of Republicans and Democrats.

    That said, there is no reason to handicap our boys in the salad suits in killing our enemies nor our spooks in K Street suits and ties.

    While there is always a potential for abuse of any governmental authority (a huge flaw in the Patriot Act), I do not believe that the concern being expressed is valid as to 1867.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    "One section of these provisions, Section 1031, could be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Sec 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1873, by authorizing the military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle."

    -- Senator Mark Udall
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I've already posted the language regarding what constitutes a covered person. If Senator Udall wants to narrow it even more, or add a subsection making it redundantly clear regarding application, good for him.

    However, the notion of American servicemen hustling people off to secret gulags in Nebraska or Beech Grove is inane.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    According to the bill's author, that language has been removed, Kirk.

    Go to 22:08 in the video I posted, from the Senate hearings.
    CARL LEVIN: Just one other question, and that has to do with somebody, an American citizen, that is captured in the United States and the application of the custody pending a Presidential waiver to such a person. I'm wondering whether the Senator is familiar with the language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services committee, and the Administration asked us to remove the language that says the American citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the Administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the Administration, that would have said that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents. I'm just wondering if the Senator is familiar with the fact that it was the Administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to by the Senator from Illinois?

    MARK UDALL: I'm familiar now because the Senator from Michigan has shared that fact with me. I'm also familiar that the Administration has other questions and concerns which has caused it to issue a set of provisions and issues that they would like pursued.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    According to the bill's author, that language has been removed, Kirk.

    Right, the White House lawyers want it out as §1031 is already codified in another statute (the sprawling Authorization of the Use of Military Force). White House believes that it will create confusion so they want it out.

    Here's the White House's position:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

    Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the "AUMF"). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of 2 legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.

    The notion that this bill will cause the U.S. Military to go rounding up citizens is something best reserved for a Boston T. Party or L. Neil Smith novel.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Right, the White House lawyers want it out as §1031 is already codified in another statute (the sprawling Authorization of the Use of Military Force). White House believes that it will create confusion so they want it out.
    Well thank goodness Obama's lawyers are looking out for clarity in the law. I think its ambiguous enough that reasonable people are allowed to be concerned over it.

    The notion that this bill will cause the U.S. Military to go rounding up citizens is something best reserved for a Boston T. Party or L. Neil Smith novel.
    ... Or executive orders that have already been enforced on American citizens a few decades ago.

    It CAN happen here... it already has.

    internment-notice.jpg


    4ajamain.gif
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Oddly S1867 was not around for FDR's Executive Order . . . unless S1867 authorizes funds for the Probability Broach (perhaps that is the code name for Ozone Widget in the bill???).:laugh:
     

    UncleMike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2009
    7,454
    48
    NE area of IN
    :tinfoil:


    :facepalm:
    Be careful Rambone.....
    I have it from "super secret inside sources" that the Military has perfected a missile that zeros in on tin foil hats. :patriot:
    :shady:
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,628
    149
    Well thank goodness Kirk is looking out for clarity in the thread. I think its ambiguous enough that reasonable people are allowed to be curious as to what it actually says and means.

    ... Or executive orders that have already been enforced on American citizens a few decades ago.

    It CAN happen here... it already has.

    internment-notice.jpg


    4ajamain.gif
    FIFY. Emphasis mine.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom