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

[2008blackwrx]

sigh... time to start building a bomb shelter...

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, they passed it, with the hideous language intact and have managed to make America their own little battlefield. Here's hoping that Obama shows some backbone and vetoes this POS legislation.

Is the President's Indefinite Detention Power Limited to Foreigners? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[dlbrown75]

Has anyone else here called their congressmen and told them your outrage over this bill? If you need their phone number PM me or Im sure its posted in here somewhere.

 

[KG1]

Well, they passed it, with the hideous language intact and have managed to make America their own little battlefield. Here's hoping that Obama shows some backbone and vetoes this POS legislation.

Is the President's Indefinite Detention Power Limited to Foreigners? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

They haven't quite passed it yet. They just voted down Udall's amendment #1107 yesterday and they're slated to pick up where they left off on the bill this morning with a bit more debate and then a cloture vote. U.S. Senate Periodical Press Gallery

SENATE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011

The Senate will convene at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, November 30, 2011. There will be a period of Morning Business for 30 minutes. At 10:30 AM, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1867 (Department of Defense Authorization Bill) for 30 minutes of debate followed by a vote at 11:00 AM on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the bill.

 

[rambone]

Here's some more analysis from May, after the House version passed.

House Passes Funding Bill With World-Wide War and Detention Authority

The worldwide war provision was added to the bill by the committee's chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), and goes much further than the current authorization of war. The new authorization would last as long as there are terrorism suspects anywhere in the world and would allow a president to use military force in any country around the world where there are terrorism suspects, even when there is no connection to the 9/11 attacks or any other specific harm or threat to the United States.
​

The world-wide war provision has no expiration date. It means the current and any future president can decide to go to war anywhere in the world without additional congressional authorization. There isn't even a requirement that the president show a threat to our national security.
The bill essentially mandates military detention for anyone who could possibly be considered an "unprivileged belligerent" (the new term for "unlawful enemy combatant").

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, they passed it, with the hideous language intact and have managed to make America their own little battlefield.

No, "they" did not. Who told you that . . . oh, wait, Reason.

Reason Magazine, edited by 8th graders.

 

[UncleMike]

No, "they" did not. Who told you that . . . oh, wait, Reason.

Reason Magazine, edited by 8th graders.

You're wasting your time Counsel...
No amount of factual research will dissuade the Gorgan and his minions from spreading their disingenuous vitriol concerning this Bill.

 

[KG1]

Looks like they voted to invoke cloture on S.1867. One step closer. U.S. Senate Periodical Press Gallery

S. 1867 (Department of Defense Authorization Bill). Motion to Invoke Cloture. Yeas and nays ordered. The Motion to Invoke Cloture was agreed to by a vote of 88-12.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, a few questions for our resident legal experts: (Text of pertinent sections included below)

It seems that Section 1031 gives the President authority to use the armed forces to detain people who meet the criteria in (b), pending "disposition under the law of war".

Then once it is no longer pending, (c) becomes relevant?

So Section 1032 only applies to their military custody up until (c) happens, right?

This bill is really confusing.

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.

 

[rambone]

Rand Paul gave a speech on the Senate floor yesterday. One of the few Republicans who didn't support this disaster.


Sen. Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.

My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.

Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely - without due process or trial - SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.

I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.

If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo

 

[UncleMike]

Well that's odd....
I just watched a live interview with Rand Paul on FOX.
He voted against cloture on the bill but said his vote was a result of the increases in spending that are in the Bill.
He didn't say A SINGLE WORD about the Bill stripping American Citizens of their freedoms.
Now, I would expect Rand Paul to shake the Heavens on national TV if he thought the Citizens of America were being led into abject slavery as Rambone et al are claiming.
Hmmmm.......
Wonder why he didn't mention it???

 

[thebishopp]

Well that's odd....
I just watched a live interview with Rand Paul on FOX.
He voted against cloture on the bill but said his vote was a result of the increases in spending that are in the Bill.
He didn't say A SINGLE WORD about the Bill stripping American Citizens of their freedoms.
Now, I would expect Rand Paul to shake the Heavens on national TV if he thought the Citizens of America were being led into abject slavery as Rambone et al are claiming.
Hmmmm.......
Wonder why he didn't mention it???

They must of cut it out as I just watched a speech by Rand Paul and he does mention it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8&feature=youtu.be

 

[UncleMike]

They must of cut it out as I just watched a speech by Rand Paul and he does mention it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8&feature=youtu.be

Different.....
Todays was live on Neil Covuto's show.

 

[indyk]

Oh if this gets your feathers ruffled check out the new.
National Defense Act for 2012


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...81498-national_defense_authorization_act.htmlhttp://www.google.com/#q=national+d....,cf.osb&fp=2facffac0e408c2c&biw=1360&bih=642

 

[KG1]

Oh if this gets your feathers ruffled check out the new.
National Defense Act for 2012


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...81498-national_defense_authorization_act.htmlhttp://www.google.com/#q=national+d....,cf.osb&fp=2facffac0e408c2c&biw=1360&bih=642

I clicked on the first link in the link you provided and it was a piece from the same guy that was linked to in another seperate thread here stating he was gonna cross over and vote for Ron Paul because he was groped by the TSA. https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._on_war_and_civil_liberty-40.html#post2375555

This guy sounds like an hysterical nutcase in this new piece about the defense bill and he goes out of his way to mischaracterize the provisions and the qualifications of who is eligible for detention by the military.

By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons -- without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you "indefinite detention" for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.

Read more: The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary

 

[Whosyer]

Maybe Rambones right, and this is actually part of a jobs creation bill.

Internment / Resettlement Specialist | GoArmy.com

 

[.45 Dave]

Don't know Rambones or Kirk or what their particular posting histories might show, but I am also concerned about this. The government does have a history of taking things like this and reinterpreting them to fit different situations. In short, it sets yet another small precedent that can be interpreted later for a greater abuse of our freedoms. Our freedoms have been continually eroded for decades now. You only have to look at the 2nd Amendment to see how it has been continually reinterpreted to mean we now have to have permits to exercise this fundamental constitutional right. In some states that freedom has been all but lost altogether. Same way that the 1st Amendment has been reinterpreted to make way for political correctness which limits free speech and which, in a round about way, led to the "hate crime" laws.
Sort of like poisoning the entire reservoir to catch those big ones you just know must be hiding there, seems to me!
More legislation along these lines will only eventually be abused and, instead of a free country, you will have an elite that sees its citizenry as potential criminals who just haven't committed a crime yet, or at least haven't yet been caught in their huge net which they are poised to cast at any time they wish and in any way they wish, all from the foundation of "precedent"

 

[rambone]

Senator Lee Argues Against Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXn_gO62uD4

 

[rambone]

Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

 

[rambone]

Both the Udall and Paul amendments were shot down. I can't think of a good argument against them.


Update: Unconstitutional Bill declares US a ‘battlefield for the military’

Senator Paul warned on the Senate floor earlier today: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won … detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”

Update 11/30: The Senate rejected Rand Paul’s amendment 1064 to modify S. 1867 on November 29; Mark Udall’s amendment 1107 was also rejected. Amendment 1064 received 30 ayes and 67 nays; the only GOP support came from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME]. Amendment 1107 received 37 ayes and 61 nays, where on two Republicans voted in favor — Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Rand Paul.