U.S. Senate Backs Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

GIs Patrol Camp 5Via the World Socialist Web Site:

The US Senate voted Thursday night to approve a military funding bill that codifies into law the criminal state practices begun under Bush — and continued under Obama — in the name of the “global war on terror.”

It explicitly authorizes the military’s indefinite detention without trial of American citizens and mandates that all non-citizens charged as terrorists—including those arrested on US soil—be detained indefinitely by the military rather than brought to trial in a civilian court.

The legislation was part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which provides $662 billion to finance the US military machine and its multiple wars abroad. The act passed the Democratic-controlled body by an overwhelming margin of 93 to 7, underscoring once again that there exists no serious constituency for the defense of democratic rights within any section of the American ruling elite or its two big business parties.

Thrown out by this legislation is the right guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution for all those accused of a criminal offense to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” and the core provision of the Fifth Amendment declaring that no person shall be deprived of liberty “without due process of law.” It legalizes the abrogation in practice over the past decade of the bedrock principle of habeas corpus, which requires that the state bring a detained individual before an independent court and show just cause for imprisonment.

Read More: World Socialist Web Site

, , , , , ,

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I know its bad that they’d even consider this, but didn’t this fail to pass?

    Edit: Hmm guess it was something else, and i thought it was this…. Fun times we be living in…

    • guest

      No.  It didn’t fail to pass.  Most democrats are basically centrist pussies, caving in to the fascist republicans.  It is up to Obama to veto this shit.  If he doesn’t, my grandfather’s fighting in WWII will be in vain and the military-industrial complex will have won.  If Obama does not veto this, I will never vote for another democrat for as long as I live.  In fact, I will stop voting altogether and I will take up arms against my country.  I will start by popping caps in the ass of every republican that is in my general vicinity.  Those faggots are legion in my neck of the woods.  That, my friend, will probably get me indefinite detention.

      • Garrett Schaefer

        well said, but there is one last hope….. Ron Paul. I’ve already said that i’d never vote dem again because of obama, but i never imagined i’d be ready to register republican to support a republican candidate in their primary. 

        if paul wins and is assassinated, or loses on account of vote tampering a la bush 2000, i’m fucking outta here. somewhere as remote as possible, because we’re heading for some nasty shit. 

        • guest

          Good luck getting the fascist republicans to nominate Ron Paul, or even vote for him in the primaries.  I’m not sufficiently sure he isn’t in bed with the corporatists, although I like his stances on the “drug war” and foreign policy.  Romney is probably already the winner. He is centrist enough.  I would really love for a third party candidate to win the presidency, preferably Green, but I’m afraid everyone will vote for either Romney, or Obama.  Obama is tentatively my man because the republicans are, mainly, in love with the anti-intellectual meat puppets hell-bent on a military-based empire at all cost to everything else.  War=money, especially if it can be contracted out and mercenaries are involved.  Ps.  your last paragraph is largely wishful thinking.  Don’t wish death on an old man who has more sense than the competition.  We need him around for verity in the next round of primaries.

        • Anarchy Pony

          We are headed for nasty shit no matter who gets elected. We can’t not. Our society is set up to fail. Though no one in control will admit it.

      • Swinger

        Unfortunately your grandfather fighting in WWII was in vain to begin with. Sad people still think that war was about freedoms and not about profit and control. Those same plans are being executed today. They wont stop until they have got what they want or we kill them all.

      • Mr Willow

        Better grab a gun then. Obama exemplifies a centrist pussy. 

        If he’s not in league with the aristocrats on Wall Street, he’s most certainly in the Republican’s back pocket, which translates to: ‘He’s going to do what the Republicans tell him to do for fear of being called a ‘socialist’.’ 

        Again, that is IF he’s not in league with the aristocrats. And considering his track-record, it’s an astronomically, monumentally big IF.

        • Non op

          You know what, if Obama is afraid of being called a socialist all he would have to do is say “Hey, Republicans want to put America in prison”. Its literally that simple. What a pussy.

          • Mr Willow

            True, but then he would be labeled ‘overly aggressive’ and playing ‘partisan politics’. 

            Either way the ‘average american voter’ (read as sheep) will be swayed by what they have been lulled into believing is a centrist position, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and buckle to Republican demands, thinking it is best for them. 

            It really is astounding, the stranglehold they have on people’s consciousness, and how easily people may be moved to make decisions that will inevitably destroy itself.

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I know its bad that they’d even consider this, but didn’t this fail to pass?

  • guest

    No.  It didn’t fail to pass.  Most democrats are basically centrist pussies, caving in to the fascist republicans.  It is up to Obama to veto this shit.  If he doesn’t, my grandfather’s fighting in WWII will be in vain and the military-industrial complex will have won.  If Obama does not veto this, I will never vote for another democrat for as long as I live.  In fact, I will stop voting altogether and I will take up arms against my country.  I will start by popping caps in the ass of every republican that is in my general vicinity.  Those faggots are legion in my neck of the woods.  That, my friend, will probably get me indefinite detention.

  • http://twitter.com/GOB3S Garrett Schaefer

    well said, but there is one last hope….. Ron Paul. I’ve already said that i’d never vote dem again because of obama, but i never imagined i’d be ready to register republican to support a republican candidate in their primary. 

    if paul wins and is assassinated, or loses on account of vote tampering a la bush 2000, i’m fucking outta here. somewhere as remote as possible, because we’re heading for some nasty shit. 

  • guest

    Good luck getting the fascist republicans to nominate Ron Paul, or even vote for him in the primaries.  I’m not sufficiently sure he isn’t in bed with the corporatists, although I like his stances on the “drug war” and foreign policy.  Romney is probably already the winner. He is centrist enough.  I would really love for a third party candidate to win the presidency, preferably Green, but I’m afraid everyone will vote for either Romney, or Obama.  Obama is tentatively my man because the republicans are, mainly, in love with the anti-intellectual meat puppets hell-bent on a military-based empire at all cost to everything else.  War=money, especially if it can be contracted out and mercenaries are involved.  Ps.  your last paragraph is largely wishful thinking.  Don’t wish death on an old man who has more sense than the competition.  We need him around for verity in the next round of primaries.

  • Heath

    So what defines an American enemy combatant? Anyone who doesn’t sing the praises of the Homeland?

    First i see them warming up with a few militant groups throughout the US, break up their networks a bit. Get the masses to buy the fear. Next we can see the plucking of individuals coupled with the internet bill(if that passes) Wouldn’t be surprised in the least if they used it on Occupy.

    “Oh say I can’t see when you pepper spray me and detain me indefinitely!”

    • Anarchy Pony

      “See that guy over there? Yeah, he’s a terrorist, he was braggin’ in the bar last night.”

      Then you get to go and spend the rest of your life being “detained”.

    • Andrew

      Anyone who frequents disinfo.com is an enemy combatant.

  • Heath

    So what defines an American enemy combatant? Anyone who doesn’t sing the praises of the Homeland?

    “Oh say I can’t see when you pepper spray me and detain me indefinitely!”

  • Marcy

    Wasn’t Obama going to Veto this?

    • Toxiczen

      HA!

    • JohnFrancisBittrich

      Yeah, he still has time to do so. The Supreme Court can also just declare the whole thing unconstitutional (it is) and call it a day. I think this and ProtectIP/SOPA are just congress’ attempt to keep the left and the executive branch too busy fighting bullshit legislation to work towards any legislation of their own before the year-end.

      • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

        I would have been inclined to agree with you..except that 93-7 vote for passage means that almost the entirety of the Senate dems were in agreement on passing this bill. Its time to admit that Americans have no allies in our two party system.

  • Marcy

    Wasn’t Obama going to Veto this?

  • Marcy

    Wasn’t Obama going to Veto this?

  • Toxiczen

    HA!

  • fivetonsofflax

    Yeah, he still has time to do so. The Supreme Court can also just declare the whole thing unconstitutional (it is) and call it a day. I think this and ProtectIP/SOPA are just congress’ attempt to keep the left and the executive branch too busy fighting bullshit legislation to work towards any legislation of their own before the year-end.

  • Jarel
    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      nice finish with the scene from Network

  • Jarel
  • Rex Vestri

    Welcome to the FSA…the Fascist States of Amэriκa

    • DeepCough

      I think “Oceania” is a catchier name, don’t you?

  • Rex Vestri

    Welcome to the FSA…the Fascist States of Amэriκa

  • MoralDrift

    the fact that its even proposed and passed the Senate, the supposedly nobler of the houses…what a joke

    Edit; just thought I’d add, this country has become an absolute fucking joke in every way, but i’m not laughing

    • patrick

      That’s exactly what I was thinking, everything is so completely backwards that it must be some kind of joke. The devil is not particularly unhappy now, is he?

  • Anonymous

    the fact that its even proposed and passed the Senate, the supposedly nobler of the houses…what a joke

    Edit; just thought I’d add, this country has become an absolute fucking joke in every way, but i’m not laughing

  • Ghostlore777

    Obama encourages dems behind the scenes to pass this. Obama vetos, very publicly, and the bill gets shot down. Obama looks like the hero and secures the presidency for the next four years…..just pray nobody tries to kill the him over the next few weeks.

  • Ghostlore777

    Obama encourages dems behind the scenes to pass this. Obama vetos, very publicly, and the bill gets shot down. Obama looks like the hero and secures the presidency for the next four years…..just pray nobody tries to kill the him over the next few weeks.

  • Swinger

    Unfortunately your grandfather fighting in WWII was in vain to begin with. Sad people still think that war was about freedoms and not about profit and control. Those same plans are being executed today. They wont stop until they have got what they want or we kill them all.

  • Anarchy Pony

    “See that guy over there? Yeah, he’s a terrorist, he was braggin’ in the bar last night.”

    Then you get to go and spend the rest of your life being “detained”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chinagreenelvis Eric Vinyard

    Is this bill an abhorrent attack on individual civil rights for both citizens and foreigners? Yes.

    Is the United States government going to suddenly start running around calling everyone a terrorist just so they can throw them in indefinite detention for any reason they feel like? I have my doubts.

    If your entire argument against a law rests on the shoulders of the proposal that the United States will simply abuse it by breaking it entirely, your argument does not need the law in question as support for the conclusion you draw. By your logic, the U.S. Government may as well be doing what you’re afraid they might do already.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chinagreenelvis Eric Vinyard

    Is this bill an abhorrent attack on individual civil rights for both citizens and foreigners? Yes.

    Is the United States government going to suddenly start running around calling everyone a terrorist just so they can throw them in indefinite detention for any reason they feel like? I have my doubts.

    This is a good article on the subject, for once. Comment accordingly. Voice your concerns, but keep your stupid visions of an Orwellian nightmare in fantasy land where they belong.

    If your entire argument against a law rests on the shoulders of the proposal that the United States will simply abuse it by breaking it entirely, your argument does not need the law in question as support for the conclusion you draw. By your logic, the U.S. Government may as well be doing what you’re afraid they might do already.

  • Anarchy Pony

    We are headed for nasty shit no matter who gets elected. We can’t not. Our society is set up to fail. Though no one in control will admit it.

  • Jarel

    [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kaidp.jpg[/IMG]

  • Jarel

    [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kaidp.jpg[/IMG]

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    nice finish with the scene from Network

  • Mr Willow

    Better grab a gun then. Obama exemplifies a centrist pussy. 

    If he’s not in league with the aristocrats on Wall Street, he’s most certainly in the Republican’s back pocket, which translates to: ‘He’s going to do what the Republicans tell him to do for fear of being called a ‘socialist’.’ 

    Again, that is IF he’s not in league with the aristocrats. And considering his track-record, it’s an astronomically, monumentally big IF.

  • Tom

    If anyone doesn’t understand what’s happening, PLEASE see this page that summarizes WHO is in control: http://www.healingtrio.citymax.com/free_at_last_Liberty.html

  • Tom

    If anyone doesn’t understand what’s happening, PLEASE see this page that summarizes WHO is in control: http://www.healingtrio.citymax.com/free_at_last_Liberty.html

  • Andrew

    Anyone who frequents disinfo.com is an enemy combatant.

  • patrick

    That’s exactly what I was thinking, everything is so completely backwards that it must be some kind of joke. The devil is not particularly unhappy now, is he?

  • DeepCough

    Why do I have a disturbing feeling all of a sudden that the people occupying Wall Street in protest will be incarcerated in jail cells as terrorists?

  • DeepCough

    Why do I have a disturbing feeling all of a sudden that the people occupying Wall Street in protest will be incarcerated in jail cells as terrorists?

  • Non op

    You know what, if Obama is afraid of being called a socialist all he would have to do is say “Hey, Republicans want to put America in prison”. Its literally that simple. What a pussy.

  • Calypso_1

    This bill is not what it is being made out to be.  It does nothing to end constitutional rights.  Read the bill.  “(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.”  There is too much real tyranny to focus on than to get sucked into blatant disinformation.

    • Heath

      Apparently there’s a section we missed before..Section 1031

      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

      • DeepCough

        Here’s where you should be very fucking concerned.

        “07:20:48
        THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.”

        “07:20:51
        THAT WENT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND THAT, AS I SPEAK, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.”

        So, Calypso_1, you think we’re still stretching this shit outta proportion? Should we cozy up to the PATRIOT Act as well?

        • Calypso_1

          I will address all of your points:  As to the ‘Patriot Act’, I made no mention of it – Equating my position on this bill with another is a non sequitur.  However, perhaps my reference to ‘real tyranny’ might have clued you in to the fact that I am not supportive of draconian law, of which I certainly consider the Patriot Act.  .   [to Heath] I did not ‘miss’ section 1031, nor 1032, nor 1 – 4601 because I read the entire damn bill like I read nearly everything Congress puts out. 
           
          “07:20:48
          THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.”
          “07:20:51
          THAT WENT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND THAT, AS I SPEAK, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.”
           
          Those are quotes from the floor debate.  What happens on the Senate floor is not the law itself, there is a lot of theatre for particular constituencies.   Those quotes are referring to an appeals case that had to do with a single individual, not hoards of citizens swept up in some pogrom.  That’s the nature of most appeals cases – they’re not sweeping judgments meant to change the entire scope of law but to interpret it for a specific instance.  S.1867 has no bearing on Padilla v. Hanft. Yes, there is a reasonable legal debate about the definition of enemy combatants and in the limited case law that applies you will find in every war some citizen who has been tried for fighting for the ‘other side’.  I wonder have you actually ever read Padilla v. Hanft ?  I’m not going to waste the energy spelling it all out for you because it’s all publically available and frankly by the way you present yourself I don’t believe you would see the degree of rationality that the men and women that undertake these cases apply to the process.  There is no evil conspiracy in that case, it was a reasonable interpretation of the law.  Now if you want to get into some specifics I’ll grant that there are serious problems with defining the cessation of hostilities and time limits of detention with enemy combatants.  Don’t think I am a cheerleader for Gitmo, there is work that needs to be done to fundamentally change the legal process in my opinion.  But to say ‘the law of the land is that a citizen can be an enemy combatant’….well, yeah, that’s always been the case, every state reserves that right.  Take up arms against the powers that be and the results tend to be rather harsh.
           
          So, yes – in this case I think there is an overreaction because well meaning opposition groups take every opportunity they can for propaganda victories.  But this law gives the state no power that it didn’t have before. I don’t believe it is a step in some further tyrannical demise of America, though I do believe many such steps have been taken. 
           
          I appreciate your expressing that I and others should be concerned, but would like you to  realize that I live with such concerns every waking moment and am doing everything within my mortal coil to prepare for the eventualities I see coming.  I wish you well in doing the same and hope your days find greater solidarity than divisiveness.

          • DeepCough

            I’m willing to grant that I might be just a tad reactionary concerning this bill–but considering the scope of the War on Terror, and the MANY past instances of the suspension of habeas corpus, I’d say it’s understandable. After all, Congress didn’t have to write any laws to intern issei and nisei Japanese during World War 2.

      • Jarel

        Thank you sir.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      So you are telling me you “read” the entire bill? Where does it say this then.  Don’t expect me to take your word for it. 

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112Q82Jjn::

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Cite the location of the exact passage please within the bill.  

        Remember.

        James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.” Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.””Early ObfuscationFrom my erstwhile colleagues at CIA, there has been more mumbo-jumbo aimed at disguising what is really afoot. According to press reports, the CIA general counsel has already said, disingenuously: “American citizens are not immune from being treated like an enemy if they take up arms against the United States.”
        But one does not need to “take up arms” in order to be labeled a “combatant,” as the government is defining such terms. Awlaki didn’t take up arms; he was said to have provided “material support to terrorism” by his alleged — but unproven — encouragement of terrorist attacks on the United States. (Under the new NDAA, a similar fate could befall someone who advocates resistance to “coalition partners,” like NATO countries or some corrupt governments that are U.S. allies, such as the Karzai regime in Afghanistan or the terror-linked government of Pakistan).
        In the broad strokes of defining American “partners” and al-Qaeda/Taliban “associated forces,” will Israel fall into the first group and Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah get lumped into the second?
        Could material support be nothing more than providing financial support for the U.S. Boat to Gaza, which challenged the Israeli embargo of Hamas-ruled Gaza? If creative lawyers for this or some future administration get busy, would the new NDAA provide authority for the military to detain such a U.S. citizen under the Law of War and transfer him or her to Guantanamo or elsewhere?
        Conflicting legal interpretations of the bill are now more about whether military detentions would be mandatory or would the president still retain some discretion.”  

        http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Are-Americans-in-Line-for-by-Ray-McGovern-111203-896.html

        Also I am curious as to why they would have added legislation that would have enabled them to incarcerate American’s indefinitely whether or not they had been found innocent in court.  This was thankfully discovered by Senator Rand Paul and thankfully shot down, but the rest of the draconian legislation passed….
        SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – On Thursday night, Senator Rand Paul blocked passage of an amendment that would have allowed the government to indefinitely detain American citizens until Congress declares the War on Terror to be over.  These Americans would be detained even if they were tried and found not guilty.An attempt was made to pass Amendment No. 1274 to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) by voice vote, but Senator Paul’s objection and request for a roll call vote ultimately led to the bill’s defeat by a final vote of 41-59.http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/02/press-release-c4l-stands-rand

      • Calypso_1

        Are you a United States citizen?  If so I would indeed have some expectation that you would read the actual laws that you find of most concern.  If you don’t want to take my word for it, and I have read the bill, then whose word are you taking?  You’re getting your opinion from somewhere, and I would like to suggest you examine the motives of the media campaign that’s pushing this agenda. Yes, there are real issues involved and the mass public needs goading to take action.  One of the joys of being a disinfonaut is the ability to navigate through the stampedeing or slumbering masses as it be.
         
        As to citing passages, I quoted from the bill in its definition of US citizen.  It is from section 1032.  1031 is the section everybody has problems with as it defines enemy combatants – there is NOTHING new here – it is the same debate that has been going on since the ‘war on terror’ began and if you knew any case law, you’d see these issues are as old as the US Code and American warfare. .
         
        In my reply to Deep Cough, I referenced the appellate case of Padilla v. Hanft – you probably don’t want to read that either, but it contains all the legal references to broaden your knowledge on US case law as it has been applied to citizen enemy combatants – going back to the Civil War.
         
        I admire your reference to statements of the founding fathers but remember that above all these men were lawmakers and until you can move past the broad strokes of political rhetoric into some of the intricacies of the law itself you are missing a major piece of the puzzle.  I believe that each person is beholden unto the level of knowledge they themselves choose to seek and encourage your pursuit into levels of wisdom that are less swayed by the tides of fear and manipulation that are the vanguard of tyranny.  Peace

    • Jarel
      • Calypso_1

        If this becomes the raison de resistance so be it.  The underlying complaints are legitimate.  Something has to be the rallying point.  I’m simply trying to say that the law itself is not what it is being made out to be.  Know when the call to arms is a propaganda campaign or because the enemy is in your sights.  Because if its just propaganda, you might not know who is calling the shots – the vanguard often finds a treacherous end, being bait for more experienced predatory forces.
        I hope we are about to see significant reformation in the systemic problems America is sinking under.  Foremost, I hope the long stifled discontent and anger of the people will forge a degree of solidarity and nobility of purpose that will be known for generations to come.
         
         

  • Anonymous

    This bill is not what it is being made out to be.  It does nothing to end constitutional rights.  Read the bill.  “(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.”  There is too much real tyranny to focus on than to get sucked into blatant disinformation.

  • Anonymous

    This bill is not what it is being made out to be.  It does nothing to end constitutional rights.  Read the bill.  “(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.”  There is too much real tyranny to focus on than to get sucked into blatant disinformation.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I would have been inclined to agree with you..except that 93-7 vote for passage means that almost the entirety of the Senate dems were in agreement on passing this bill. Its time to admit that Americans have no allies in our two party system.

  • Heath

    Apparently there’s a section we missed before..Section 1031

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

  • DeepCough

    I think “Oceania” is a catchier name, don’t you?

  • DeepCough

    Here’s where you should be very fucking concerned.

    “07:20:48
    THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.”

    “07:20:51
    THAT WENT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND THAT, AS I SPEAK, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.”

    So, Calypso_1, you think we’re still stretching this shit outta proportion? Should we cozy up to the PATRIOT Act as well?

  • Jarel

    Thank you sir.

  • Anonymous

    I will address all of your points:  As to the ‘Patriot Act’, I made no mention of it – Equating my position on this bill with another is a non sequitur.  However, perhaps my reference to ‘real tyranny’ might have clued you in to the fact that I am not supportive of draconian law, of which I certainly consider the Patriot Act.  .   [to Heath] I did not ‘miss’ section 1031, nor 1032, nor 1 – 4601 because I read the entire damn bill like I read nearly everything Congress puts out. 
     
    “07:20:48
    THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.”
    “07:20:51
    THAT WENT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND THAT, AS I SPEAK, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.”
     
    Those are quotes from the floor debate.  What happens on the Senate floor is not the law itself, there is a lot of theatre for particular constituencies.   Those quotes are referring to an appeals case that had to do with a single individual, not hoards of citizens swept up in some pogrom.  That’s the nature of most appeals cases – they’re not sweeping judgments meant to change the entire scope of law but to interpret it for a specific instance.  S.1867 has no bearing on Padilla v. Hanft. Yes, there is a reasonable legal debate about the definition of enemy combatants and in the limited case law that applies you will find in every war some citizen who has been tried for fighting for the ‘other side’.  I wonder have you actually ever read Padilla v. Hanft ?  I’m not going to waste the energy spelling it all out for you because it’s all publically available and frankly by the way you present yourself I don’t believe you would see the degree of rationality that the men and women that undertake these cases apply to the process.  There is no evil conspiracy in that case, it was a reasonable interpretation of the law.  Now if you want to get into some specifics I’ll grant that there are serious problems with defining the cessation of hostilities and time limits of detention with enemy combatants.  Don’t think I am a cheerleader for Gitmo, there is work that needs to be done to fundamentally change the legal process in my opinion.  But to say ‘the law of the land is that a citizen can be an enemy combatant’….well, yeah, that’s always been the case, every state reserves that right.  Take up arms against the powers that be and the results tend to be rather harsh.
     
    So, yes – in this case I think there is an overreaction because well meaning opposition groups take every opportunity they can for propaganda victories.  But this law gives the state no power that it didn’t have before. I don’t believe it is a step in some further tyrannical demise of America, though I do believe many such steps have been taken. 
     
    I appreciate your expressing that I and others should be concerned, but would like you to  realize that I live with such concerns every waking moment and am doing everything within my mortal coil to prepare for the eventualities I see coming.  I wish you well in doing the same and hope your days find greater solidarity than divisiveness.

  • Anonymous

    I will address all of your points:  As to the ‘Patriot Act’, I made no mention of it – Equating my position on this bill with another is a non sequitur.  However, perhaps my reference to ‘real tyranny’ might have clued you in to the fact that I am not supportive of draconian law, of which I certainly consider the Patriot Act.  .   [to Heath] I did not ‘miss’ section 1031, nor 1032, nor 1 – 4601 because I read the entire damn bill like I read nearly everything Congress puts out. 
     
    “07:20:48
    THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.”
    “07:20:51
    THAT WENT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND THAT, AS I SPEAK, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.”
     
    Those are quotes from the floor debate.  What happens on the Senate floor is not the law itself, there is a lot of theatre for particular constituencies.   Those quotes are referring to an appeals case that had to do with a single individual, not hoards of citizens swept up in some pogrom.  That’s the nature of most appeals cases – they’re not sweeping judgments meant to change the entire scope of law but to interpret it for a specific instance.  S.1867 has no bearing on Padilla v. Hanft. Yes, there is a reasonable legal debate about the definition of enemy combatants and in the limited case law that applies you will find in every war some citizen who has been tried for fighting for the ‘other side’.  I wonder have you actually ever read Padilla v. Hanft ?  I’m not going to waste the energy spelling it all out for you because it’s all publically available and frankly by the way you present yourself I don’t believe you would see the degree of rationality that the men and women that undertake these cases apply to the process.  There is no evil conspiracy in that case, it was a reasonable interpretation of the law.  Now if you want to get into some specifics I’ll grant that there are serious problems with defining the cessation of hostilities and time limits of detention with enemy combatants.  Don’t think I am a cheerleader for Gitmo, there is work that needs to be done to fundamentally change the legal process in my opinion.  But to say ‘the law of the land is that a citizen can be an enemy combatant’….well, yeah, that’s always been the case, every state reserves that right.  Take up arms against the powers that be and the results tend to be rather harsh.
     
    So, yes – in this case I think there is an overreaction because well meaning opposition groups take every opportunity they can for propaganda victories.  But this law gives the state no power that it didn’t have before. I don’t believe it is a step in some further tyrannical demise of America, though I do believe many such steps have been taken. 
     
    I appreciate your expressing that I and others should be concerned, but would like you to  realize that I live with such concerns every waking moment and am doing everything within my mortal coil to prepare for the eventualities I see coming.  I wish you well in doing the same and hope your days find greater solidarity than divisiveness.

  • DeepCough

    I’m willing to grant that I might be just a tad reactionary concerning this bill–but considering the scope of the War on Terror, and the MANY past instances of the suspension of habeas corpus, I’d say it’s understandable. After all, Congress didn’t have to write any laws to intern issei and nisei Japanese during World War 2.

  • HoboDieter
  • HoboDieter
  • Mr Willow

    True, but then he would be labeled ‘overly aggressive’ and playing ‘partisan politics’. 

    Either way the ‘average american voter’ (read as sheep) will be swayed by what they have been lulled into believing is a centrist position, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and buckle to Republican demands, thinking it is best for them. 

    It really is astounding, the stranglehold they have on people’s consciousness, and how easily people may be moved to make decisions that will inevitably destroy itself.

  • Camron Wiltshire

    So you are telling me you “read” the entire bill? Where does it say this then.  Don’t expect me to take your word for it. 

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112Q82Jjn::

  • Camron Wiltshire

    Cite the location of the exact passage please within the bill.  

    Remember.

    James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.” Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.””Early ObfuscationFrom my erstwhile colleagues at CIA, there has been more mumbo-jumbo aimed at disguising what is really afoot. According to press reports, the CIA general counsel has already said, disingenuously: “American citizens are not immune from being treated like an enemy if they take up arms against the United States.”
    But one does not need to “take up arms” in order to be labeled a “combatant,” as the government is defining such terms. Awlaki didn’t take up arms; he was said to have provided “material support to terrorism” by his alleged — but unproven — encouragement of terrorist attacks on the United States. (Under the new NDAA, a similar fate could befall someone who advocates resistance to “coalition partners,” like NATO countries or some corrupt governments that are U.S. allies, such as the Karzai regime in Afghanistan or the terror-linked government of Pakistan).
    In the broad strokes of defining American “partners” and al-Qaeda/Taliban “associated forces,” will Israel fall into the first group and Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah get lumped into the second?
    Could material support be nothing more than providing financial support for the U.S. Boat to Gaza, which challenged the Israeli embargo of Hamas-ruled Gaza? If creative lawyers for this or some future administration get busy, would the new NDAA provide authority for the military to detain such a U.S. citizen under the Law of War and transfer him or her to Guantanamo or elsewhere?
    Conflicting legal interpretations of the bill are now more about whether military detentions would be mandatory or would the president still retain some discretion.”  

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Are-Americans-in-Line-for-by-Ray-McGovern-111203-896.html

    Also I am curious as to why they would have added legislation that would have enabled them to incarcerate American’s indefinitely whether or not they had been found innocent in court.  This was thankfully discovered by Senator Rand Paul and thankfully shot down, but the rest of the draconian legislation passed….
    SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – On Thursday night, Senator Rand Paul blocked passage of an amendment that would have allowed the government to indefinitely detain American citizens until Congress declares the War on Terror to be over.  These Americans would be detained even if they were tried and found not guilty.An attempt was made to pass Amendment No. 1274 to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) by voice vote, but Senator Paul’s objection and request for a roll call vote ultimately led to the bill’s defeat by a final vote of 41-59.http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/02/press-release-c4l-stands-rand

  • Anonymous

    Are you a United States citizen?  If so I would indeed have some expectation that you would read the actual laws that you find of most concern.  If you don’t want to take my word for it, and I have read the bill, then whose word are you taking?  You’re getting your opinion from somewhere, and I would like to suggest you examine the motives of the media campaign that’s pushing this agenda. Yes, there are real issues involved and the mass public needs goading to take action.  One of the joys of being a disinfonaut is the ability to navigate through the stampedeing or slumbering masses as it be.
     
    As to citing passages, I quoted from the bill in its definition of US citizen.  It is from section 1032.  1031 is the section everybody has problems with as it defines enemy combatants – there is NOTHING new here – it is the same debate that has been going on since the ‘war on terror’ began and if you knew any case law, you’d see these issues are as old as the US Code and American warfare. .
     
    In my reply to Deep Cough, I referenced the appellate case of Padilla v. Hanft – you probably don’t want to read that either, but it contains all the legal references to broaden your knowledge on US case law as it has been applied to citizen enemy combatants – going back to the Civil War.
     
    I admire your reference to statements of the founding fathers but remember that above all these men were lawmakers and until you can move past the broad strokes of political rhetoric into some of the intricacies of the law itself you are missing a major piece of the puzzle.  I believe that each person is beholden unto the level of knowledge they themselves choose to seek and encourage your pursuit into levels of wisdom that are less swayed by the tides of fear and manipulation that are the vanguard of tyranny.  Peace

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Thomas/100002985565250 Carl Thomas

    WOW!  This world is out of order! You got to be fucking kidding me! We think you may be a “terrorist” so we are just gonna lock your ass up…..What the fuck!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Thomas/100002985565250 Carl Thomas

    WOW!  This world is out of order! You got to be fucking kidding me! We think you may be a “terrorist” so we are just gonna lock your ass up…..What the fuck!

  • Jarel
  • Anonymous

    If this becomes the raison de resistance so be it.  The underlying complaints are legitimate.  Something has to be the rallying point.  I’m simply trying to say that the law itself is not what it is being made out to be.  Know when the call to arms is a propaganda campaign or because the enemy is in your sights.  Because if its just propaganda, you might not know who is calling the shots – the vanguard often finds a treacherous end, being bait for more experienced predatory forces.
    I hope we are about to see significant reformation in the systemic problems America is sinking under.  Foremost, I hope the long stifled discontent and anger of the people will forge a degree of solidarity and nobility of purpose that will be known for generations to come.
     
     

  • Powerone

    Welcome to the Fourth Reich .  All hail the Fuhrer ( Corporate America).  All that is missing is a sedition act in favor of corporations

  • Powerone

    Welcome to the Fourth Reich .  All hail the Fuhrer ( Corporate America).  All that is missing is a sedition act in favor of corporations

21