Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens

[Bosco Warden]

I didnt see if this was already posted but I wasnt going to take any chances, it needs to be seen again. :mad:

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window


While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

[Grubb556]

Well from what I understand, congress could already override haebeus corpus (which is what is basically happening here), so there doesn't seem to be that much change.

[pcosmar]

Well from what I understand, congress could already override haebeus corpus (which is what is basically happening here), so there doesn't seem to be that much change.

Except that it will be considered openly LEGAL.

And that makes everything OK.

:mad:

[Bosco Warden]

This is the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

The ALCU is asking this, which would
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

[pulp8721]

This is the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

The ALCU is asking this, which would
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

And people thought the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was bad. And no surprise from Ayotte saying America is part of the battlefield, a battlefield of an undeclared war nonetheless. She's Part of the 2nd generation of Neocons in the Senate.

[pcosmar]

I didnt see if this was already posted but I wasnt going to take any chances, it needs to be seen again. :mad:
In case you thought this was anything new,,,
Sunday Aug 2, 2009
Military-civilian terrorist prison considered
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/08/ap_terrorist_prison_080209/

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html

[ryanmkeisling]

This is the year things have to change and it starts with Ron Paul. Ever since the creation and passing of the patriot act it has gotten worse and worse. The really scary thing is despite the fact that many of us have been marginalized for years due to the fact we have seen it coming, most are awakening when it is almost to late. Guys, is it to late? (I am drunk from the grappa I made today)

[QuickZ06]

Who introduced this bill?

nvm guess it was Mr. Levin.

[rambone]

John McCain and Carl Levin have drafted a new defense bill in secret, and it has already passed committee under closed-door conditions, without even a single hearing.

S. 1867 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867) takes us one step closer toward a military dictatorship, all under the auspices of safety and security. It contains provisions that allow American citizens to be sent to military prisons indefinitely if they are accused of a terror-related crime. Its not enough that we have militarized Federal agencies reigning over us and destroying our liberties... these sadistic cretins actually want the military itself to start enforcing the laws and delivering justice.

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




Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being)
While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself. Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.
The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.Republicans are all for this monstrosity. Days ago in the CNN Presidential Debate (http://ingunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/180333-gingrich_bachmann_romney_want_the_constitution_to_ be_void_when_fighting_terror.html), half the GOP candidates advocated that the constitution should not be followed in matters of National Security, and that suspects of terror-related crimes should be stripped of their inalienable rights. And here we see more approval of the destruction of Due Process from Republican Senators.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”It looks like the only defenders of Due Process will be some Democrats, the ACLU, and of course Ron Paul. It has become part of the GOP platform to support a bloodthirsty Police State.
Senate panel pushes ahead with defense bill over White House objections on terror suspect plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-panel-pushes-ahead-with-defense-bill-over-white-house-objections-on-terror-suspect-plan/2011/11/15/gIQAEUoYPN_story.html)

Dividing the Democrats and drawing criticism from the administration is a provision that would require military custody of a suspect determined to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in the planning or an attack on the United States. The administration argues that such a step would hamper efforts by the FBI or other law enforcement to elicit intelligence from terror suspects.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/393740_279213615449480_165801456790697_728613_4380 55988_n.jpg

[TRIGRHAPPY]

My yard isn't a battlefield. If they want to make it one....so be it.

[rambone]

This is the amendment that Sen. Mark Udall introduced against these provisions.

Udall Introduces Amendment to Prevent Veto of Critical Defense Bill | Mark Udall | U.S. Senator for Colorado (http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1746)

Udall Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act: Revising detainee provisions (http://www.scribd.com/doc/73053672/Udall-Amendment-to-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions)

"One section of these provisions, Section 1031, could be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Sec 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1873, by authorizing the military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle."

-- Senator Mark Udall

[rambone]

There has been some discrepancy about the text of the bill, Section 1031, and whether or not American citizens are exempt from the detainment requirements.

The original text exempted U.S. Citizens as well as legal residents. However -- according to the bill's author, that language has been removed. . Which means there is nothing stopping this from being applied to U.S. Citizens.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q7_Dd7FUi4

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

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

[acptulsa]

Levin and McCain.

That's enough information for me. It has to go.

[phill4paul]

I'm about to the point of saying screw it. Let them pass their bills. If ya shoot it down today it will just be repackaged and reprocessed in another 6 months. Just be done with it. It is not like they already have not gutted the Constitution. Best be done with it and get on to the end game. That's where it will be sorted out anyway.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm about to the point of saying screw it. Let them pass there bills. If ya shoot it down today it will just be repackaged and reprocessed in another 6 months. Just be done with it. It is not like they already have not gutted the Constitution. Best be done with it and get on to the end game. That's where it will be sorted out anyway.

Fucking truth...it wouldn't even take six months.

Stop pussy fucking footing around and let's light this candle.

Only a fool would deny where this is all heading.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

http://odd.gonzojenny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/camp-fema.jpg

We need to stay focused and realize they can't take away our rights. They can try with force, but they only take your rights if you let them. In this case, it wouldn't be denying you a trial, but straight-up kidnapping.

[Johnny Appleseed]

How do we organize without being labeled terrorist?

[Working Poor]

I'm about to the point of saying screw it. Let them pass there bills. If ya shoot it down today it will just be repackaged and reprocessed in another 6 months. Just be done with it. It is not like they already have not gutted the Constitution. Best be done with it and get on to the end game. That's where it will be sorted out anyway.

I somewhat agree with you if Americans are so unaware and/or fearful why not go with it. It needs to reach critical mass end game status..

[DamianTV]

How do we organize without being labeled terrorist?

You and everyone else here has already been bitch slapped with that label, while the Real Terrorists occupy high positions in our government, yet they answer to a higher form of Terrorism, THE BANKS. If we regain control over the government, the Bankers WILL go to jail. Well, maybe. Some might not make it as far as Jail...

[ShaneEnochs]

My yard isn't a battlefield. If they want to make it one....so be it.

Qft

[MikeStanart]

Live Free or Die

[Matt Collins]

Senator Rand Paul aims to kill "indefinite detention" in DoD bill:


http://tncampaignforliberty.org/wordpress/2011/11/senator-rand-paul-aims-to-kill-indefinte-detention-in-dod-bill/

[ZanZibar]

Rand and McCain clash over "indefinite detainment"

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

[Matt Collins]

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

[Matt Collins]

Rand corners McCain on "indefinite detention" of US citizens!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w

[Matt Collins]

Sen. Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor as well as recorded a video message against the indefinite detention of United States citizens in defense of constitutional liberties.

CLICK HERE TO SEE SEN. PAUL’S ADDRESS REGARDING DETAINEES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo)


TRANSCRIPT:


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.”

During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.

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.

This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.

There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. 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 citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.

Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:

“Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”

He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive

Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.

As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?

The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.

This is simply not borne out by the facts.

Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.

And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.

Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.

Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.

Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”

Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.

The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.

The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.

The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.

These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.

Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.

But 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren't requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.

These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.

A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.

We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.

Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.

No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.

To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.

Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.

The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.

Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.

[ZanZibar]

Mike Lee and Jim DeMint voted against the amendment that would've killed the illegal indefinite detention aspect of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKaTxjxnYfE&feature=uploademail

[libertygrl]

How do we organize without being labeled terrorist?

That's probably the whole point of the bill. I'd say the first step is to get off the intenet!

[Working Poor]

do you really think the military would go along with this?

[Bosco Warden]

do you really think the military would go along with this?

You're not serious I hope, of course they will go along with it, they are literal morons. they think its the right thing to do. Obedient "followers"


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

[Athan]

They should lock up congress members then.

[libertygrl]

Setting the Trap

Levin-McCain bill would create a presidential dictatorship. Where is the outrage?
by Justin Raimondo, November 30, 2011

Buried in the annual defense appropriations bill is a provision that would give the President the power to use the military to intern anyone – including American citizens – indefinitely, and hold them without charges or trial, anywhere in the world, including on American soil. The provision essentially repeals the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from engaging in law enforcement on US territory – the greatest fear of the Founders. Approved by a Senate subcommittee in secret hearings, the provisions open the road to a military dictatorship in this country – and for that we can thank Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who introduced the measure. Both the FBI and the Pentagon came out against the Levin-McCain monstrosity, and Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) introduced an amendment striking the provision: the amendment was defeated in the Senate, 37-61.

The mind reels. As the ACLU’s Chris Anders puts it:
“I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?”

Why now, indeed – and the answer is not hard to fathom. With the US banking system making very loud creaking noises as the eurozone descends into the economic abyss, and a total meltdown staring us in the face, the Powers That Be want to make sure they have their hands on the reins of power – and on the whip they won’t hesitate to use.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) exults that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and anyone can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Graham doesn’t care about any of that sissy constitutional stuff, and never did – throw ‘em in the brig! Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from the “Live Free or Die” state, doesn’t care that she’s destroying the American republic and our constitutional liberties by voting for this draconian measure because, she says, “America is part of the battlefield.”

Nothing illustrates the longstanding warning from antiwar advocates that “war is the health of the state” than this ominous development. The principle that war leads inevitably to the erosion and eventual destruction of our constitutional form of government is being dramatized on the floor of Congress even as I write these words. At the Republican foreign policy debate held recently, Professor Gingrich lectured us on “the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements,” and, drawing on this spurious distinction, averred:

“All of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities.”

For the rest of our lives we’ll be in thrall to Gingrich, Graham, Levin, and the rest of them, on the pretext that we’re about to be nuked by a bunch of marginal fanatics hiding in a cave somewhere. It’s a thin rationale indeed for setting the stage for martial law in the United States, but it couldn’t have come at a more convenient time for our rulers, as they face the prospect of civil disorder in the face of economic collapse.

That the authoritarian strain in American politics is coming to the fore in this time of crisis should come as no surprise. Backed up against a wall, the ruling elite is baring its teeth, and the Constitution – which has long been a mere piece of moldering parchment rather than the law of the land – is easily disposed of. Our cowardly Congress, which lives only to advance special interests and line its own pockets, is hardly a bulwark against this onslaught: indeed, they are the source of it.

So where are the Tea Partiers, who warn against “Big Government” and denounce “RINOs” like Sen. Graham who don’t share their aversion to centralized authority? They’re busy campaigning for Gingrich, the “true conservative” and $1.6 million Fannie Mae “consultant,” who preaches the virtues of endless war. Besides, the Levin-McCain provisions will only be used against them damned Mooslims – right?

Wrong – but by the time these “patriots” realize how wrong they are, it’ll be too late. As Rep. Justin Amash, one of the few congressmen elected on the Tea Party wave who has a conscience (and a brain), put it, this bill, which is “carefully crafted to mislead the public,” is one of the most “anti-liberty pieces of legislation in our lifetime.”

As the economy collapses – say, around next week sometime – and as people line up at the banks to get their money out, and discover the till is empty, as the food distribution system breaks down, and the mobs gather and swell, they’ll call the army out into the streets to keep order. And it will all be perfectly “legal.”
Don’t tell me our sainted solons are cringing in fear of al-Qaeda, which is by now a mere shadow of a shadow: the real object of their fear is the American people – and they have every reason to be afraid.

The “debate” in Congress over the Levin-McCain provisions is not really what it appears to be, as Marcy Wheeler points out in some depth. On the Senate floor, opponents of the provision, such as Dianne Feinstein, mentioned the dangers of the army patrolling the streets of American cities only in passing, if at all: their real objection is that the provisions impede the really existing “war on terrorism.” Wheeler argues that the Obama administration would be constrained from utilizing its network of informants if detainees were handled by the military.

As she puts it:
“Again, I suspect that’s the Administration objection. It allows them to do these things. But requires they do them with a paper trail Congress can audit. In short, it’s a future Fast and Furious scandal, the guaranteed exposure of all of their harebrained undercover operations, waiting to happen.”

The administration’s veto threat has nothing to do with protecting civil liberties: indeed, quite the opposite. As Sen. Levin noted in his remarks, a bit of politicking went on at the secret Senate hearing:

“The initial bill reported by the committee included language expressly precluding ‘the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens 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.’ The Administration asked that this language be removed from the bill.”

The real purpose of the Levin-McCain provisions is entirely unrelated to “terrorism,” either by al-Qaeda or any known domestic outfit. It was put in there to codify a number of important “legal” precedents, which make it possible for the President to declare an American citizen an “enemy combatant” and hold him or her indefinitely without charges. This is the final step in a process that will enable the President to establish a de facto military dictatorship: it’s the “unitary presidency” meets the global economic crisis.

“America is part of the battlefield,” says Sen. Ayotte, quite accurately – and Americans are the target. Resistance is “terrorism”: dissent is a crime, and you’d better shut up and take it if you know what’s good for you. That’s the message they’re sending – and how, one wonders, will Americans respond?

Tryptophaned into a submissive lethargy by large doses of turkey and stuffing, and living in constant fear of imminent destitution, they hardly notice this historic betrayal. The trap is set, baited, and ready to spring: one has to wonder, however, if this passivity will hold once those steel jaws bite. I bet they’re wondering in Washington,too.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/29/setting-the-trap/

[Lucille]

do you really think the military would go along with this?

LRC: Today's Army Is Not Your Father's Army (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/99527.html)


The FBI has released a new gang assessment report that says the military has seen members from 53 gangs and 100 regions in the U.S. enlist in every branch of the armed forces. Members of every major street gang, some prison gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) have been reported on both U.S. and international military installations.

[pcosmar]

There are Four Boxes.

Three have been used repeatedly, and seem to be empty, or at least ineffective.

:(

[HOLLYWOOD]

I was so voiceful on Twitter with the 1031-1032 sections on the Communist Gulag Act, the 2 Republican US Senators who were following my tweets, dropped me after also most a year.

This country is run by a bunch of narcissistic theiving liars that feed off of the control and power.

It's their big private club funded by stolen public US taxpayer money, that's why they stick around so long.

[ZanZibar]

McCain and Lindsey Graham....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tavj7Jhko
Courtesy of Mike Church radio show