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

[smokingman]

I have not words to express the anger I feel.

 

[shooter651]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Top national security lawyers in the Obama administration say U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.
The lawyers were asked at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.
The government lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

 

[rambone]

But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

That says it all right there. The war has come home. The battlefield is in your backyard. You are an enemy combatant.

 

[rambone]

Impeach Every Senator Who Votes for "U.S. is a Battlefield" Bill that Violates Basic Rights - The Petition Site

 

[rambone]

Enabling a Future American Dictator
Ron Paul, 5/31/2011

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Perhaps the most troubling power grab of late is the mission creep associated with the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Initiated as targeted strikes against the perpetrators of 9/11, a decade later we are still at war. With whom? Last week Congress passed a Defense Authorization bill with some very disturbing language that explicitly extends the president's war powers to just about anybody. Section 1034 of that bill states that we are at war with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated forces. Who are the associated forces? It also includes anyone who has supported hostilities in aid of an organization that substantially supports these associated forces. This authorization is not limited by geography, and it has no sunset provision. It doesn't matter if these associated forces are American citizens. Your constitutional rights no longer apply when the United States is "at war" with you. Would it be so hard for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?

My colleague Congressman Justin Amash spearheaded an effort to have this troubling language removed, but unfortunately it failed by a vote of 234 to 187. It is unfortunate indeed, that so many in Congress accept unlimited warmaking authority in the hands of the executive branch.[/FONT]

 

[UncleMike]

The Bill passed at 8:20PM 12/1/11
The results are here:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

I'll be outside watching for the black copters, tanks, and troop carriers to roll down my street.



Oh yeah....
Section 1032, exempting American Citizens, and legal Resident Aliens, from Military confinement under the terms of S 1867, is still in the Bill as I stated earlier.

 

[88GT]

But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

It's not like they're changing the rules mid-game. It's always been that way. If you were caught, you might be lucky enough to be tried and hanged. But there was no fundamental right to a trial, let alone a civilian one.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.[/B]

That's because that's what the courts have said.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

You will please forgive me if I make a presumption that seems to be often overlooked by others. Not out of malice do I believe this is done, but rather out of a failing to desire to see the long term ramifications of an action with laudable goals but risks significant damage.

I do not see any rights belonging solely to Americans, but rather to every human being. As our beloved Constitution gives us no rights it promises to work to protect the rights granted by nature and/or our Divine Creator that existed before our Constitution ever existed.

Rights do not begin nor end at the border of the United States of America. It is simply that within those borders we, of all the people of the earth, should hold those rights above all other considerations - even life itself.

Our great experiment was, to my mind, the creation of a great beacon of hope for what could become a shining example of the benefits that would befall a people who are free to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of offending those with more power than themselves. In such an environment greatness could be achieved as all people were encouraged to improve their lot without favoritism or prejudice.

The damage that can be caused by this bill is not in an immediate destruction of our liberties but in eroding the idea of "liberty for all" by implying and assuming that it is acceptable to violate our principles IF it against "them."

Currently, "them" are terrorists. Of course, the very definition of a terrorist is an ambiguous concept. We have eco-terrorists, right? What about hate groups being labeled as "terrorist?" How many people does one have to kill (or plan to kill) to become a terrorist? What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

If we permit this type of legislation to pass without careful consideration it may be fine for a generation or three, but then what?

When we allow the thought in our head that as long as we are "protected" and all the others can go rot, then we are really not protected because all it may take is the stroke of a pen to turn "us" into one of "them."

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Rev. Martin Niemoller

So today we have:

First they came for the accused terrorists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an accused terrorist...

Please do not misunderstand me: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LOCKING UP BAD PEOPLE FOREVER OR EXECUTING THEM!!!

What my greatest concern is, is in allowing the label of "bad people (or accused terrorist)" to be the only item on the checklist to remove the rights and freedoms granted to all mankind, not just those of us blessed to be born in the United States of America.

One final thought to leave you with if I may. As I understand it not a single case has yet been shown to illustrate how we cannot function by using the system that is currently in place. There was much hype about the need for the Patriot Act to be passed so that the government would not be limited by waiting for a warrant to wiretap a suspected telephone when in point of fact the government already had such power through the use of the FISA courts.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rambone]

Also note: this bill costs 0.66 Trillion dollars.

 

[dlbrown75]

The Bill passed at 8:20PM 12/1/11
The results are here:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

I'll be outside watching for the black copters, tanks, and troop carriers to roll down my street.



Oh yeah....
Section 1032, exempting American Citizens, and legal Resident Aliens, from Military confinement under the terms of S 1867, is still in the Bill as I stated earlier.

Just like the patriot act wouldnt be used on American citizens, right Mike?

 

[Sailor]

The house has not passed their version of this pressure them now.

 

[Britton]

How about we do something about this before the bullets start flying. Call or email this person and express your displeasure for the bill. We need to make our voices heard!

[FONT=&quot]Paul Lagemann[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Northeast Indiana Regional Director[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Office of Senator Daniel R. Coats[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]United States Senate[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1300 S. Harrison St.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Suite 3161[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fort Wayne, IN 46802[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Office: (260) 426-3151[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fax: (260) 420-0060[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Indianapolis: (317) 554-0750[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]paul_lagemann@coats.senate.gov[/FONT]

 

[steveh_131]

The Bill passed at 8:20PM 12/1/11
The results are here:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

I'll be outside watching for the black copters, tanks, and troop carriers to roll down my street.



Oh yeah....
Section 1032, exempting American Citizens, and legal Resident Aliens, from Military confinement under the terms of S 1867, is still in the Bill as I stated earlier.

I noticed that nobody answered my previous question.

That exemption only applies to section 1032. What about section 1031?

 

[UncleMike]

I noticed that nobody answered my previous question.

That exemption only applies to section 1032. What about section 1031?

Section 1031 Subsection D states;

• (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.

• He couldn't "Round us up" last week​
• He still can't "Round us up"​
• And unless the Bill is changed in the reconciliation process, (Which I doubt will happen), he won't be able to "Round us up" in the future.​
  
  
  However:
  I fear the unreasoning hysteria created by fear mongers over this Bill could lead to violence.
  If it does they will have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do.​
  
  Sow the seeds of Anarchy and fertilize them with the blood of blind, unthinking "useful idiots", as the Communist Party Founders called those who can be led to self destruction by nothing more than lies and propaganda.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. ​

 

[steveh_131]

Section 1031 Subsection D states;

• (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.

Then what is the purpose of section 1031?

 

[UncleMike]

[/LIST]Then what is the purpose of section 1031?

OK, here's Subsection B and C;

• (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: This limits the scope of the Bill to a narrowly defined group of people 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.ONLY those who were involved in the planning, and/or execution of the 911 attacks.
  • OR
  • (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. ONLY al Qaeda, Taliban members, and those who gave them support and aid, in the 911 attacks, or subsequent attacks, against U.S. troops. (Remember this is a Military Appropriations Bill)

• (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. This is merely affirmation of the long standing rules of war that allow us to maintain custody of enemy combatants until the war is declared over.

• • (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)). This takes away the ability of the POTUS to have captured combatants tried in Civilian Courts. (Which, BTW, is a primary reason that Obama is threatening to veto the bill.)

• • (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. This allows trial by Military Tribunal for captured combatants.

• • (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This allows the U.S. to ship the captured combatants home for trial there, or turn them over to another country having venue.

 

[KG1]

OK, here's Subsection B and C;

• (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: This limits the scope of the Bill to a narrowly defined group of people 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.ONLY those who were involved in the planning, and/or execution of the 911 attacks.
  • OR
  • (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. ONLY al Qaeda, Taliban members, and those who gave them support and aid, in the 911 attacks, or subsequent attacks, against U.S. troops. (Remember this is a Military Appropriations Bill)

• (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. This is merely affirmation of the long standing rules of war that allow us to maintain custody of enemy combatants until the war is declared over.

• • (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)). This takes away the ability of the POTUS to have captured combatants tried in Civilian Courts. (Which, BTW, is a primary reason that Obama is threatening to veto the bill.)

• • (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. This allows trial by Military Tribunal for captured combatants.

• • (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This allows the U.S. to ship the captured combatants home for trial there, or turn them over to another country having venue.

All good points and it also looks like they provided a clause for congressional oversight in subsection (e) of 1031.

(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).

 

[UncleMike]

All good points and it also looks like they provided a clause for congressional oversight in subsection (e) of 1031.

(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).

That's not surprising given the fact that "O", and other Presidents, like to have things done their way without the bother of Congressional approval.

 

[steveh_131]

OK, here's Subsection B and C;

• (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: This limits the scope of the Bill to a narrowly defined group of people 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.ONLY those who were involved in the planning, and/or execution of the 911 attacks.
  • OR
  • (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. ONLY al Qaeda, Taliban members, and those who gave them support and aid, in the 911 attacks, or subsequent attacks, against U.S. troops. (Remember this is a Military Appropriations Bill)

• (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. This is merely affirmation of the long standing rules of war that allow us to maintain custody of enemy combatants until the war is declared over.

• • (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)). This takes away the ability of the POTUS to have captured combatants tried in Civilian Courts. (Which, BTW, is a primary reason that Obama is threatening to veto the bill.)

• • (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. This allows trial by Military Tribunal for captured combatants.

• • (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This allows the U.S. to ship the captured combatants home for trial there, or turn them over to another country having venue.

So all of this can be applied to U.S. citizens? Why specifically exclude U.S. citizens in section 1032 but not in section 1031?

 

[UncleMike]

So all of this can be applied to U.S. citizens? Why specifically exclude U.S. citizens in section 1032 but not in section 1031?

It's pretty much the same as the espionage laws.
For further information I suggest you contact your elected Representatives.