S.1867 Would give President the ability to hold Americans without trial indefinitley...

[xFiFtyOnE]

This is crazy. I hope Paul addresses it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/189204/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

[Miss Annie]

Hit the posted link for imbedded links in the article! Evil stuff. It's hard to believe that there are so few left with a conscience enough to stand up against bills like this.

S. 1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial

http://endthelie.com/2011/11/25/s-1253-will-allow-indefinite-military-detention-of-american-civilians-without-charge-or-trial/#axzz1eqnsZyZh

A sinister bill has quietly been introduced, so expansive in scope and dangerous in nature that it makes the PATRIOT Act look like the Bill of Rights.

This bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, or S. 1253, has received tragically sparse coverage and I must admit that I was not aware of it until a reader emailed me about it.

If you think the PATRIOT Act is bad, just wait until you check out sections 1031, 1032, 1033, and 1036 of this horrific bill.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 1st of this year, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, the “Honorable” Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Member of the Committee, the “Honorable” Charles Grassley which strongly decried the bill.

The title of the four page letter itself reveals the truly dangerous nature of this legislation, “Judiciary Committee Should Assert Its Jurisdiction Over Those Aspects of the Detention Authority Provisions in S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Sections 1031, 1032, and 1036), That Affect Civilians Who Are Otherwise Outside of Military Control, Including Civilians Within the United States Itself.”

If these provisions are enacted, it would give the federal government the explicit power to imprison civilians, including American citizens, indefinitely with no charges or trial.

This would include individuals apprehended both inside and outside of the United States, meaning that this could give the federal government the ability to openly detain American citizens for their entire lives without so much as a single charge.

While the federal government already murders American citizens abroad based upon the decision of an unlegislated secret death panel within the National Security Council, this would be the first time since 1950 that Congress has explicitly authorized indefinite detention of Americans without charges or a trial.

This provision includes people who had absolutely no role in the attacks of September 11th, 2001, or any hostilities whatsoever and would mandate military detention of certain civilians.

This includes civilians arrested within the United States who would otherwise be outside of military control while also transferring all responsibilities to the Department of Defense.

Instead of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, or the United States Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Marshals Service and/or the state attorneys general handling the prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal and custodial authority, the Department of Defense would handle it all.

That means that all control would be taken out of the hands of civilians and put into the brutal grip of the American military, essentially this would mean a military takeover of our so-called justice system.

All they would have to do is classify you as a terrorist, no need for actual charges or participation in hostilities; you could be locked up indefinitely for any reason or no reason at all if the Department of Defense saw fit under this NDAA.

This is so fundamentally un-American, the ACLU can’t help but right that the provisions are “inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution and in the country’s adherence to the rule of law.”

These provisions of the NDAA are so radical that they actually remove much of the protections American citizens have had since 1878 under the Posse Comitatus Act and the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

Section 1031 of S. 1253 would be the first time in more than 60 years that our so-called representatives in Washington would allow indefinite detention of American citizens with no charges or trial without Congressional authorization.

Since 1971 the Non-Detention Act has stipulated, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress,” but S. 1253 could make this a thing of the past.

The ACLU points out that while Subsection 1031(c) of S. 1253 claims that it does not apply to lawful residents of the United States or citizens “on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution,” glaring loopholes remain.

If the government’s track record is any indicator, we can expect these loopholes to be exploited at every possible opportunity.

Just as the federal government has used the PATRIOT Act’s so-called “Sneak-and-Peek,” or delayed notice, warrants for over 1,600 drug cases and only 15 cases of terrorism in 2006-2009, we can expect the government to use S. 1253 for detaining people for completely illegitimate reasons.

These loopholes allow suspects to be imprisoned without charge or trial, especially citizens or lawful residents who are suspected of some sort of wrongdoing outside of the United States.

The most unsettling aspect is that the deciding factor in determining if an individual can be detained indefinitely is not any proof of guilt, but instead entirely by officials in the Executive Branch, which, according to the ACLU would be “following some future agency regulations.”

This, just like the unlegislated death panel that resulted in the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, leaves it up to the Executive without any guidelines whatsoever.

It is quite shocking how much the federal government is attempting to push us towards a dictatorship with no legal protection whatsoever from being locked up with no hope of a fair trial or even charges.

Indeed the legislation would allow American citizens to be imprisoned “until the end of hostilities” under 2001′s Authorization for Use of Military Force, or S.J. Res. 23.

Yet this represents no concrete time frame whatsoever and Section 1031 would allow American citizens and non-citizen civilians who had no role in 9/11 or any other hostilities whatsoever to be detained who would otherwise not be detainable under the laws of war.

Section 1032 puts civilians who would otherwise not be subject to military control into military detention, thus removing the protections of the Posse Comitatus act.

Like Section 1031, this would include indefinite imprisonment of civilians apprehended inside of the United States, Section 1032 does not authorize the military to detain civilians without charge or trial, it in fact it mandates it.

The protection against the government using the military for law enforcement activities within the United States under Posse Comitatus would be eliminated under Section 1032 and the ACLU points out that, “all state and federal law enforcement would be preempted by the military.”

Previously the state and local law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice had the primary responsibility to enforce anti-terrorism laws within the United States.

The NDAA would, in the case of many civilian suspects, remove federal state and local law enforcement from the process of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution and imprisonment and hand said powers over to the military.

The ACLU “strongly urges” the Senate’s Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings on sections 1031, 1032, and 1036 and assert their jurisdiction to mark up these sections before the NDAA makes it to the Senate floor.

They say that the Judiciary Committee should assert their jurisdiction over these provisions in order to prevent civilian law enforcement against civilians who would otherwise be out of the purview of the military to fall into the hands of the military.

The ACLU’s letter does not, however, cover Section 1033 which Human Rights Watch claims would apply to the many detainees already being held for years without trial who have been cleared for release.

In a form letter with the subject, “Stop Militarization of Law Enforcement” they write that Section 1033 would, “force the administration, for example, to continue to hold a Guantanamo detainee simply because they were from a country of an accused terrorist.”

I highly recommend that you send out this form letter along with a note written by yourself to all of your supposed representatives, along with as many phone calls as you can afford to make it clear that you do not support the United States being turned into a total militarized police state.

While we are already in dire straights in terms of civil rights in this country, codifying indefinite military detention into law is one of the most dangerous developments since the introduction of the PATRIOT Act.

If you even remotely care about the principles of freedom, liberty and justice which this nation is supposed to stand for, you will do us all a favor and stand up against this wholly unacceptable legislation that could represent the end of America as we know it.

More at EndtheLie.com - http://EndtheLie.com/2011/11/25/s-1253-will-allow-indefinite-military-detention-of-american-civilians-without-charge-or-trial/#ixzz1erfz9xZ8

[kylejack]

Apparently the White House has problems with the bill and is threatening to veto it.

[Aratus]

s.1867 is a horrible bill

[JakeH]

S.1867 is nothing short of horrifying. I've been attacking it on both my political and personal (which has significantly more followers) Twitter accounts.

[AGRP]

Who scripted it?

[JakeH]

Who scripted it?

Not sure who authored it, but Sen. Carl Levin is the Senate sponsor. Rep. Buck McKeon and Rep. Adam Smith are sponsoring the House version of the bill.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Apparently the White House has problems with the bill and is threatening to veto it.

Surprising. I guess they figure it's cheaper to just assassinate Americans than it is to imprison them indefinitely.

[Sematary]

This is crazy. I hope Paul addresses it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/189204/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

All I can say is that we are living through the beginning of the end of the Republic and I will be sad to see it go. Without Ron Paul, where will we be?

[pcosmar]

Who scripted it?

AIPAC

[Aratus]

i am feeling inside an ATLAS SHRUGGED PART ONE cinematic moment...

[kylejack]

Who scripted it?
McCain and Levin.

[kylejack]

Surprising. I guess they figure it's cheaper to just assassinate Americans than it is to imprison them indefinitely.
Apparently they don't like the wording of "shall" which mandates that they indefinitely detain Al Qaeda. They want the latitude to do what they want.

[Aratus]

i'm staring at d.c with mixed emotions.
i'm hoping Atlas Shrugged part two is in our
movie theaters by august + september of 2012.

[heavenlyboy34]

Alex Jones has a new, minor story on this today FWIW:http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial.html

[devil21]

It claims a vote was to be held today. Anybody know the result?

[KCIndy]

It claims a vote was to be held today. Anybody know the result?

According to www.Thomas.gov there has not yet been a vote. (Just search for S.1867) Last action was going to the Senate floor for consideration. There's still time to lodge your opinions and complaints.

[KCIndy]

Pardon me for reposting this from another thread on the subject - I normally never do this - but I think it's *that* important that everyone possible lodge a complaint with their Senators.
--------------------------------------------

I would strongly recommend sending a fax, or calling, or both. I have heard that emails and web page "contact form" info often gets dumped without counting for much, simply because it is considered "too easy" for people to contact their elected officials this way.

Sooo...

If you don't have your own fax machine, I would recommend www.faxzero.com You can go here and send a fax for FREE. (It's paid for by advertising placed on the cover sheet). For $1.99 you can send a "premium" fax with no ads and multiple call attempts until the fax goes through. (I usually use the paid method if I'm sending a fax to Congress, just because it's so hard to get through on the first attempt)

You can look up the fax numbers for both your Senators here:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm NOTE: I've not had the time to verify every fax number on this list. You can also go to www.senate.gov and use the drop-down menu in the upper right corner to locate your Senators and their contact info.


I have also taken the liberty of writing a basic letter that can be cut-n-pasted right into the fax field if you're sending it through www.faxzero.com or an email if that's all you are able to do.

FEEL FREE TO USE THIS LETTER AS YOUR OWN, OR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS TO IT YOU WISH.



Senator xxxx,

I urge you to VOTE AGAINST S.1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

Of particular concern to me are sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA, which would, according to the American Civil Liberties Union:

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.

This is simply unacceptable.

According to a November 15 article in the Washington Post, this bill was drafted in secret by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin. What sort of legislative process is this? According to the same article, even the White House has objections to the bill and has threatened a veto.

Senator, when you took the oath of office, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I cannot think of anything MORE unconstitutional than a situation in which American citizens would be subject to indefinite detention by the U.S. Military and denied access to counsel or even information about what charges – if any – are being levied against them.

If you vote in favor of these terrible provisions, your are voting to make the U.S. Constitution “Void Where Prohibited by Law.”

I ask you to remember your sworn duty to the U.S. Constitution. I ask you to remember your duty and responsibility to the American people.

I urge you to reject the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions.


Sincerely,

name
full address

Have at it, folks. I know the odds are long on this, but if I'm gonna go down, I'm gonna go down swinging.

[heavenlyboy34]

btw, some info about this bill is on govtrack now: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867 There are already 270 proposed amendments, some by Rand Paul. (can be found at the link)

[HOLLYWOOD]

CSPANJNKY (https://twitter.com/#%21/CSPANJNKY) still an individual



S.1867 is gone.. tricky Senate.. where did it go? @cspanwj (https://twitter.com/#%21/cspanwj)


They're playing a frigin SHELL GAME on the people... it's S.1253 now.

Man, the US Senate is full of terrorists... they will try everything to steal rights and liberties for their own control. Totalitarian Oligarchy

[heavenlyboy34]

They're playing a frigin SHELL GAME on the people... it's S.1253 now.

Man, the US Senate is full of terrorists... they will try everything to steal rights and liberties for their own control. Totalitarian Oligarchy
How'd they change it so quickly? According to Open Congress (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-1253) S 1253 was introduced in June 22 this year. BTW, if you look into the body of S 1253, there is so much unrelated, wasteful shit in there that it's almost staggering. :eek: (not that I'm surprised, of course)

[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/

[DamianTV]

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/

Thankfully someone is trying to do something about this.

What bothers me is the number of people that do know about this bill, not the ones that dont know, we already know how the Media doesnt cover stuff "they arent supposed to", but for the ones that do know and do nothing, they may just as well be supporting the bill. :mad:

[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

[HOLLYWOOD]

Senate is to vote sometime after 2:15PM EST

Udall is now talking about section 1033 has some tyranny in it. It's Disgusting to watch, Senators Carl Levin, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Kelly Ayotte pushing the "New Nazi Regime" across America. Maybe they should change this to a separate bill called: 'Burning Of The Reichstag 2011 Act'


https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/375083380/5265_1__normal.png
CSPANJNKY (https://twitter.com/#!/CSPANJNKY) still an individual
Rand Paul strike out Sect 1031-allow prez power 2 detain citizens here w/o trial/& military enforcement over civilians bit.ly/t8jjZ2 (http://t.co/eeK23pqt)
30 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/#!/CSPANJNKY/status/141582799965650945)

http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-battlefield-amendment-501/

Rand Paul vs Battlefield USA

Published: 29 November, 2011, 22:03


http://rt.com/files/usa/news/rand-paul-battlefield-amendment-501/rand-june-washington.n.jpg

United States, Washington: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul speaks during a press conference with fellow Republicans on objecting to a scheduled U.S. Senate recess next week June 29, 2011 in Washington, DC. (AFP Photo / Win McNamee)

TRENDS: Global terrorism (http://rt.com/trends/fighting-global-terrorism/)
TAGS: Military (http://rt.com/tags/military/), Terrorism (http://rt.com/tags/terrorism/), Law (http://rt.com/tags/law/), USA (http://rt.com/tags/usa/), War (http://rt.com/tags/war/)

As lawmakers this week look over a provision that would turn the United States in a warzone and allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is trying to tackle the text by offering an amendment of his own.
A provision to the National Defense Authorization Act going before the Senate today would turn America into a “battlefield,” says supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina.), and would allow the president of the United States the power to detain citizens domestically without trial, allowing the US military to act as law enforcement over their own civilians.
In response, Paul, son of libertarian icon and Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul, is proposing an amendment that would strike that provision of the legislation, Section 1031, right off the bill.
When RT reported on the story yesterday (http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/), we noted that Colorado Senator Mark Udall had offered an amendment of his own which would require Congress to consider whether any detention legislation would be legal. Paul, rather, is trying to bypass that determination and instead strike Section 1031 off completely.

“Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the US military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil,” writes Udall. “That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”
While Udall’s amendment has received backing from the American Civil Liberties Union, Rand Paul’s more powerful proposal would do far more to thwart the transformation of America into a battlefield. “There are other similar Amendments too, however none of them completely eliminate the constitutionally offensive section,” reports the Tennessee Campaign for Liberty.

Reporting live from a Senate hearing this morning, the ACLU reports that Paul called the proposed provision dangerously vague and said that Americans should not sacrifice their liberties for supposed security. Along with Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia), they both offered their support for the Udall Amendment this morning. A vote is expected for Tuesday afternoon.
Should Paul’s own amendment be approved, it would, according to the official filing, “remove language affirming the authority of the Armed Forces to detain certain persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

[Philhelm]

Who scripted it?

Darth Sidious...?

[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.

[Aratus]

darth sidious

[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

[kylejack]

From a White House statement


This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.

Obama is FINALLY getting something right.

[ZanZibar]

McCain and Lindsey Graham....


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