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

[Blackhawk2001]

I haven't read all the article posted by Keith yet, but the bill does state that the powers of the President to make such determinations ends when the Authorization for Use of Military Force is terminated, which Congress certainly has the power to do. I realize that won't give you a warm-and-fuzzy ATOMonkey.

 

[rambone]

The modern-day Writs of Assistance Act

How Congress is Signing its own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest bill

I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.

 

[rambone]

Terrorists will be excuse to clamp down internet too

NDAA Would "Quash Dissent" on Internet

Section 954 of the NDAA, entitled "Military Activities in Cyberspace," states:

Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests subject to (1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and (2) the War Powers Resolution." [Emphasis added.]
​

The Pentagon had already voiced an interest in tightening control over the Internet in July, when Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn announced that the Pentagon would be treating cyberspace as an “operational domain” in its Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace:

The United States reserves the right, under the laws of armed conflict, to respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing. In the 21st Century, bits and bytes can be as threatening as bullets and bombs.

Keystrokes originating in one country can impact the other side of the globe in the blink of an eye.…Treating cyberspace as a domain means that the military needs to operate and defend its networks, and to organize, train, and equip its forces to perform cyber missions.
​

 

[rambone]

Michelle Bachmann: Voted for the NDAA

She thinks that she is the most consistent presidential candidate on constitutional issues. Righhhht.


Michele Bachmann continues to get free pass for voting "Aye" on NDAA

Perhaps one of the most dangerous bills to pass Congress in our lifetimes; the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) had originally been voted on in the US House back in May. Although many Americans were outraged back then of the potential dangers of this bill, it did not receive much national attention or massive outrage until it was more recently debated in the Senate and was made even worse by the additional sections added that incorporated the use of our military in carrying out its dangerous provisions.

This has been the pattern on a few other atrocious bills including her vote in favor of the outrageous Food Safety Enhancement Bill in which Michele Bachmann and many others also enjoyed a free pass from national coverage because of the same type of situation in which a bill first introduced in the House had passed under the radar only to later get stuck there and many people did not even know about it. While I will give her credit where credit is due on her work against some of the bailouts and Obamacare, but when it comes to some of the more serious issues involving infringements on our Bill of Rights, no member of Congress should be given a free pass. In fact, they should all be sent home packing if they don't vote to uphold their oath and especially those professing to be Tea Partiers and supposed Constitutionalists. South Dakota's newest Tea Party member and lone Congresswoman, I did not just let her off the hook either.

GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

 

[rambone]

Mitt Romney's incoherent position on NDAA

1) He doesn't know about it.

2) He thinks the government needs the capacity to use something like it.

3) But he's just a sober guy, he'll never use it against you. Yes, you'll just have to trust him! No rule of law, just rule of men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elw_O14qo1A

 

[KG1]

NDAA Would "Quash Dissent" on Internet

I'm not ready to call chicken little on this one or automatically support the claim that they would be enacting this for the sole purpose of quashing dissent.

A cyber warfare attack is a very real concern and it would be naive and dangerous to not be prepared for such an event.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Wasnt there a topic/post on here about the government buying up large amounts of land in the middle of nowheres? Seems like perfect places to put these "military prisons."

 

[KG1]

Wasnt there a topic/post on here about the government buying up large amounts of land in the middle of nowheres? Seems like perfect places to put these "military prisons."

I would hold up a bit with the tinfoil.

These land grabs in the western part of the country by the Obama administration and spearheaded by his toady minion Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar are an attempt to lock up acreage to control the usage of natural resources.

Just goggle "Obama federal land grab" There is plenty of information on this subject. Here's just one piece that discusses the issue.

States rising up to fight Obama land grab: Alaska, Utah file suit

Last August, I told you about the “Great Outdoors Initiative” to lock up more open spaces through executive order. This came on top on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal “monuments.”

 

[rambone]

"A slip into tyranny"

Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act "Slip Into Tyranny"

“A dictator enjoys unrestrained power over the people. The legislative and judicial branches voluntarily cede this power or it’s taken by force. Most of the time, it’s given up easily, out of fear in time of war and civil disturbances, and with support from the people, although the dictator will also accumulate more power with the use of force.” Those prescient words of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) are taken from his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. The tyrannical assumption of power by the President and the cession of unheralded power to him by the Congress has taken place precisely as Dr. Paul warned.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

 

[rambone]

OBAMA SIGNS NDAA INTO LAW

Late in the day on a Saturday night, on New Years Eve, 2012, this Police State atrocity was signed into law. Obama had reservations but said our security would be jeopardized while the Bill of Rights still stands.




Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill

President Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.
The White House had originally threatened to veto the $662 billion bill, considered must-pass legislation, over the language that requires mandatory military custody for suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even if they are captured in the U.S. Just before the House and Senate passed the bill comfortably, the White House said it would support the bill’s compromise language that, as tweaked by conference committee, would not impede the administration’s ability to collect intelligence or incapacitate dangerous terrorists.
Still, administration officials have admitted publicly the final provisions were not the preferred approach of this administration.
"Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people," Obama said in Saturday's satement.

 

[rambone]

Happy New Year

Obama's signing statement - National Defense Authorization Act
December 31, 2011

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul on NDAA 12/19/2011

Ron Paul says that the NDAA is an attack on the Bill of Rights and destroys the 5th Amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8bbuMQLlqs


He also says it repeals Posse Comitatus and codifies martial law. I happen to agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vGItFM6VXw

 

[KG1]

Ron Paul says that the NDAA is an attack on the Bill of Rights and destroys the 5th Amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8bbuMQLlqs


He also says it repeals Posse Comitatus and codifies martial law. I happen to agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vGItFM6VXw

I guess since basically Congress has punted the U.S detention issue with some of the wording inserted into the bill they will leave it open to the courts to decide who is right or wrong at an appropriate time.

We'll have to wait and see if the Supreme Court at some point in time will agree as well if it ever comes down to a case where it will be applicable and a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is accused of being connected in any way with al-Qeada and subject to being detained indefinitely by the military.

 

[KG1]

Even the "evil" Rush Limbaugh agrees this bill went a step to far.

This is total authoritarianism. This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics. The government can detain anybody! All they have to do... They actually don't have to do anything.

They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism.

Regime Grabs Power to Detain US Citizens

 

[9lock]

When do we start sewing 5 point stars on our clothing like the ones on "our" flag so we can get free showers?

 

[fireblade]

Sen. john McCain A.K.A the traitor to the Constitution supports Mitt Romney whats that tell you .....................

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

1 question about this ... Do we get to choose Military Prison, OR Hellfire Missile?

 

[rambone]

Debunking the myths about the NDAA

This article does a good job of analyzing the confusing text of the bill. I remain convinced that this [STRIKE]bill[/STRIKE] law is every bit as bad as I thought it was in the beginning.



Three myths about the detention bill - Glenn Greenwald

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

 

[cqcn88]

Response from Dan Coats regarding S.1867

I got this about a week ago. It is dated 14 DEC 2011. I was hoping someone else got the same thing and would do the honors of typing it up, it's a long one. Also, I just typed it up quick, I did not proof read for typos.


Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns with the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867) dealing with detainee issues. I value knowing your views and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

The Senate approved S. 1867 on December 1, 2011 by a vote of 93-7. I supported this bill because I believe it strikes an important balance between protecting our national security and recognizing the fiscal challenges our country faces. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill (H.R. 1540) on May 26, 2011. A congressional conference committee, comprised of Members from both chambers, will now work to resolve the differences between the two versions of the legislation.

With regards to the detainee issues in the bill, since 2001, our country has operated within an ad-hoc, inconsistent system for detaining and prosecuting al-Qaeda terrorists, leaving us vulnerable to further attacks. Several provisions in S. 1867 seek to address this problem, specifically sections 1031 and 1032. Section 1031 affirms the President’s existing authority, under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, to detain enemy combatants captured in the course of hostilities. Section 1032 requires military custody of certain enemy combatants, but only applies to individuals determined to be part of al-Qaeda or an associated force who were also participants in the planning or execution of terrorist attacks. This provision also excludes U.S. citizens.

I supported the bipartisan agreement that led to sections 1031 and 1032, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support out of the Senate Armed Services Committee because it provides the executive branch with the authority and flexibility needed to defend us against al-Qaeda. This bipartisan agreement is consistent with judgments made by the U.S. Supreme Court, narrowly targets al-Qaeda terrorists who participate in planning or executing attacks against the United States, and provides the administration with adequate authority to detain terrorists in civilian custody if it deems it necessary. Furthermore, this language explicitly states that it is not intended to limit or expand the current authority of the President, nor apply to U.S. citizens. This point was specifically reinforced by an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, which I supported and which was unanimously adopted by the Senate.

Section 1031 of S. 1867 does not, as some have claimed, allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. Safeguards are in place allowing a detainee to challenge their classification as an enemy combatant. Moreover, section 1031 does not change any existing authorities. It merely reaffirms current law; and under current law, the detention of American citizens in the War on Terror is exceptionally rare. Since 2001, only two American citizens have been classified as enemy combatants: Yasser Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan after fighting with the Taliban; and Jose Padilla, who was captured in Chicago after plotting to detonate a radiological bomb in the U.S.

We must remain ever vigilant against broad overreach by the federal government. In my judgement, the authorities at issue here have not been abused, but please know that I will be following their use very closely as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

During consideration of S. 1867, Senator Mark Udall offered an amendment to remove Sections 1031 and 1032 from the underlying bill. The senate rejected this amendment by a vote of 38-60. I did not support the Udall amendment, because it would have ensured that the current ad hoc system remains in place, requiring that our country continue to utilize an improvised and limited arrangement for detaining al-Qaeda terrorists. As a result, we would have missed an opportunity to implement a clear policy to maximize our ability to repel national security threats, particularly those targeting innocent civilians.

I understand the position taken by supporters of the Udall amendment, but I also firmly believe that in a conflict where the lines between war and crime are blurred so significantly, it is necessary for our military and intelligence officials to have the flexibility to do what the Constitution compels and provide for the common defense. Though the criminal justice system has an important role to play, it is neither designed nor capable of being the exclusive means by which we defend the American homeland during a time of war.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as similar issues come before the Senate for consideration.

Sincerely,
Dan Coats
U.S. Senator

 

[thebishopp]

"Safeguards are in place allowing a detainee to challenge their classification as an enemy combatant."

Lol, I always love "after the fact" "protections". Oh yeah, you can challenge the unlawful entry into your home AFTER IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED... you can challenge having your gun confiscated later "AFTER IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED" ala New Orleans, and of course... you can challenge your "classification as a terrorist" after they have already locked you up, and tortured a confession out of you. HAHAHA. You gotta admit that's pretty funny.