URGENT! Senate Moves To Allow Military To arrest/hold Citizens W/O trial Vote Mon or Tues

[sunny]

THIS IS URGENT! *Up for vote in the Senate Monday or Tuesday. Call you Senators tomorrow morning.*

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238134-US-Senate-To-Vote-On-Legislation-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

This needs to go to the top of the front page. Senators need to be called first thing tomorrow morning.

MODS - PLEASE PUT THIS UP ON TOP.


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.

...

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?

[liberalnurse]

:eek: It just doesn't stop. Does it?

[rideurlightning]

Wow, it just keeps getting better, doesn't it?

[KCIndy]

I had never heard of sott.net (no offense, Sunny) so I did a bit more digging. The sott.net article is correct, this was also brought up by the ACLU and is generating a lot of concern all across the spectrum of Civil Rights activists. Here's the link to the ACLU article:

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

Yeah, another great contribution toward freedom by John McCain. :(

[sailingaway]

If I put it on top people won't see it, it is as if it were invisible. Please also post in general forums because those are automatically tweeted out to thousands, who retweet.

I agree, this is a real problem and is being shoved through quickly.

Now, to tie it to Ron's campaign....... he's against it.

[Endthefednow]

watch out for Drones taking US Citizens out within US Soil :eek:

[bronxboy10]

Wow...real scary stuff.

[sailingaway]

I just emailed both Feinstein and Boxer, saying I hoped I could count on them to help lead the charge against this terrible violation of civil liberties. I am fairly sure, without looking, that Feinstein will prove to be a co-sponsor.....

[sailingaway]

Wow...real scary stuff.

I'm not scared, I'm furious.

[Aratus]

i am in a "who is john galt" ayn rand funk of a mood over this instance
of tyranny thru the small print legalism that is shabby, cynical & savvy.

[PauliticsPolitics]

I only agree with the ACLU about half the time, but this is surely one of those cases.
They have a webform set-up to easily send a message to your senators regarding this:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

(https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA)If you don't want the ACLU to spam you about other things, make sure to uncheck the box about getting updates.

Also, if you are more motivated, call your senators' offices tomorrow.

But don't bother writing a physical letter, as it won't surely get there in time - it looks like they are pushing this through speedily.

[VanBummel]

I'm going to email my (Georgia's) senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, tonight. Both were pro PATRIOT Act, so I'm not expecting much. Both were anti-Obamacare though, so I'm going to use Ron's line about not giving someone who you don't trust to handle healthcare additional power to kill American citizens. :)

[sailingaway]

I only agree with the ACLU about half the time, but this is surely one of those cases.
They have a webform set-up to easily send a message to your senators regarding this:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

(https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA)If you don't want the ACLU to spam you about other things, make sure to uncheck the box about getting updates.

Also, if you are more motivated, call your senators' offices tomorrow.

But don't bother writing a physical letter, as it won't surely get there in time - it looks like they are pushing this through speedily.

They will tally emails, usually, if it is controversial. DO send an email to the DC office of your Senator, it will be there when they get into the office tomorrow. You don't have to go through ACLU, you can just google them. In fact, a year ago Campaign for Liberty would have been all over this. With all focus on Ron's campaign I haven't gone there much lately, but I will now. (edit - nevermind. The key people are working on Ron's campaign now, and it is a ghost town. We are going to have to repopulate it after the campaign.)

But also call.

[Okie RP fan]

I will be emailing Coburn and Inhofe expressing my severe displeasure.

Will probably call tonight and leave a message, at least.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I will not disocurage calling and e-mailing but I think most of you know as well as I do that it will do nothing. Every single message they get could be against this and they will do it anyway.

[J-Reg]

Would it help or hurt Gingrich if we could catch him supporting this? I know that he would or does, but with the establishment Rep.'s, I'm not sure if it would hurt him or backfire because he was being " strong on national defense" or some baloney like that.

[KCIndy]

I just emailed both Feinstein and Boxer, saying I hoped I could count on them to help lead the charge against this terrible violation of civil liberties. I am fairly sure, without looking, that Feinstein will prove to be a co-sponsor.....


Nope.

The bill has zero cosponsors, according to Thomas.gov:


S.1867
Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 11/15/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.1540
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2011 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.

[Tod]

"Twitter over capacity"

:(

Okay...got through and tweeted...

[sailingaway]

I will not disocurage calling and e-mailing but I think most of you know as well as I do that it will do nothing. Every single message they get could be against this and they will do it anyway.

Let it not be said we did nothing.

[Okie RP fan]

Let it not be said we did nothing.

And even if it makes us simply "feel" better, "let it not be said we did nothing."

[J-Reg]

And even if it makes us simply "feel" better, "let it not be said we did nothing." If we can light a brush fire of Liberty in one person's mind, we have done something.

[surf]

cut and pasted from ACLU website:

Dear Senator Murray,

I strongly urge the Senate to oppose sections 1031 and 1032 in S.1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

If enacted, 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.

These provisions in the NDAA are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution. I urge the Senate reject the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions.

Sincerely,

[VanBummel]

Wait, I've been seeing this called S.1867 and S.1253. What is the difference?

[Feeding the Abscess]

EDIT: Forgot who my Senators were for a second there. Feinstein is a lost cause. Or a non-starter. Or both. Or something.

[KCIndy]

Wait, I've been seeing this called S.1867 and S.1253. What is the difference?


S.1867 is the current bill about to be voted on by the Senate. S.1867 is the bill with the *very* objectionable sections 1031 and 1032. If you write/fax/call your Senator, his is the bill and particular sections you'll want to refer to.

I looked up S.1253 on Thomas.gov and I think - I *think* - it is probably the original version of the bill written by Levin. But the last action taken on this was back on June 22, so I'm guessing it has been preempted by the current version. If anyone knows better, please add your input!

[HOLLYWOOD]

You Can also use this from OpenCongress that has a pre formated letter which you can add yopur concerns, objections, in form directly in email/fax to your represenatives/Senators/etc

USE THIS LINK: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/show

template example...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/Levin_PUKE.png

[rideurlightning]

You Can also use this from OpenCongress that has a pre formated letter to send your represenatives/Senators

USE THIS LINK: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/show

template example...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/Levin_PUKE.png

Beautiful <3

[69360]

Why is the media no reporting this? Not just msm, nothing. Is somebody interpreting it wrong? In this day and age you can't pull a coverup of this magnitude off. I wrote my senators anyway, actually reading it before voting would be nice.

[sailingaway]

EDIT: Forgot who my Senators were for a second there. Feinstein is a lost cause. Or a non-starter. Or both. Or something.

Oh, come on. At least let her know she has been in a fight!

[KCIndy]

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. :mad:

[sailingaway]

You Can also use this from OpenCongress that has a pre formated letter which you can add yopur concerns, objections, in form directly in email/fax to your represenatives/Senators/etc

USE THIS LINK: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/show

template example...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/Levin_PUKE.png

I think that should be 'sorcerous' ways, not sorceress. Otherwise, looks good.

[sailingaway]

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.acatoday.org/pdf/Senate-numbers.pdf

or here:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm


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.





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. :mad:

they tally pro and con, typically. But I agree, fax is better.

[Keith and stuff]

FYI, Senators had a hand it creating this bill, it passed the House with almost every Republican voting for it and most Democrats voting for it and it gives additional power to Obama (so I doubt he will veto it.) Good luck folks!

[sailingaway]

TARP was stopped once, in the House, admittedly. The Senate is a bit harder. But TARP WAS stopped, and so was the Patriot Act - for one vote. At least let them know we're furious so they will understand the next election.

[KCIndy]

FYI, Senators had a hand it creating this bill, it passed the House with almost every Republican voting for it and most Democrats voting for it and it gives additional power to Obama (so I doubt he will veto it.) Good luck folks!


Thanks for your help.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I think that should be 'sorcerous' ways, not sorceress. Otherwise, looks good.It's just a template example... I didn't send that, but just giving some ideas to those that want to institute a bit of second thought in these sociopathic tyrants. ;)

Plus I'm too lazy to put my contacts in...

[KCIndy]

they tally pro and con, typically. But I agree, fax is better.


I figure if I clutter up their fax machines and voice mailboxes I might get a bit more attention, ha! :D

[kmalm585]

Just emailed my Senators from Pennsylvania.

[sailingaway]

I put it on the front page.

[Keith and stuff]

Thanks for your help.

I love your sense of humor. I love Downsize DC and Campaign for Liberty. I've met the Downsize DC leader several times and the co-creator of it, Harry Browne, is the person that inspired me to be a liberty activist after I was at a speech of his in 1999. I'm good friends with the NH C4L leader and even attended their very first national event in MN in 2008. As Senior Moderator sailingaway pointed out "TARP WAS stopped, and so was the Patriot Act" for a very short time. Of course, they both passed eventually.

Again, good luck.

[KingRobbStark]

It would seem the Patriot Act is not enough. It would seem that they need a bigger cock to fuck us over.

[Spikkle]

It would seem the Patriot Act is not enough. It would seem that they need a bigger cock to fuck us over.

S 1867 -- I guess we didn't get up to "1984" this year. Here is some information about it:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238134-US-Senate-To-Vote-On-Legislation-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

And the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112ghDvp8

I read the bill, and it is very difficult to pin down. The relevant text in the bill basically requires a determined link to a specific organization (al Queda), but the entire document is really a "change description" to existing laws. Piecing the whole thing together would require following the instructions in all the parts of this bill and applying the changes to the referenced laws (which probably have other "change references") and merging the final result. Way too complex (by design?) for most people. One of the most interesting data points in the whole bill are the budgets (you can see where the 450,000,000 -- 450 Billion) is allocated down to the base level, and that it makes extensions to all existing citizen monitoring laws until 2017. Also of interest is that it documents the where the larger portions of our men and women in the service are deployed in conflict, including Africa, besides the "usual" places.

What stands out to me is this... the bill doesn't get specific about removing rights from citizens. BUT, that is what it's supporters are basically saying that it does. I wonder... What is hidden that I cannot see?

[patriot2008]

You can contact Right through the ALCU page with an already printed letter and it will automatically go to YOUR own congressman. I just changed a bit of the letter to let them know how serious and sneaky I thought this move was!


Direct link with ready made letter on this! https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

[sailingaway]

S 1867 -- I guess we didn't get up to "1984" this year. Here is some information about it:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238134-US-Senate-To-Vote-On-Legislation-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

And the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112ghDvp8

I read the bill, and it is very difficult to pin down. The relevant text in the bill basically requires a determined link to a specific organization (al Queda), but the entire document is really a "change description" to existing laws. Piecing the whole thing together would require following the instructions in all the parts of this bill and applying the changes to the referenced laws (which probably have other "change references") and merging the final result. Way too complex (by design?) for most people. One of the most interesting data points in the whole bill are the budgets (you can see where the 450,000,000 -- 450 Billion) is allocated down to the base level, and that it makes extensions to all existing citizen monitoring laws until 2017. Also of interest is that it documents the where the larger portions of our men and women in the service are deployed in conflict, including Africa, besides the "usual" places.

What stands out to me is this... the bill doesn't get specific about removing rights from citizens. BUT, that is what it's supporters are basically saying that it does. I wonder... What is hidden that I cannot see?

Makes extensions to all citizen monitoring laws until 2017? So this includes an automatic extension of the Patriot Act and FISA through the NEXT Presidential term, essentially? On top of the indefinite detention without trial or charges?

[Soldier of Liberty]

S 1867 -- I guess we didn't get up to "1984" this year. Here is some information about it:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238134-US-Senate-To-Vote-On-Legislation-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

And the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112ghDvp8

I read the bill, and it is very difficult to pin down. The relevant text in the bill basically requires a determined link to a specific organization (al Queda), but the entire document is really a "change description" to existing laws. Piecing the whole thing together would require following the instructions in all the parts of this bill and applying the changes to the referenced laws (which probably have other "change references") and merging the final result. Way too complex (by design?) for most people. One of the most interesting data points in the whole bill are the budgets (you can see where the 450,000,000 -- 450 Billion) is allocated down to the base level, and that it makes extensions to all existing citizen monitoring laws until 2017. Also of interest is that it documents the where the larger portions of our men and women in the service are deployed in conflict, including Africa, besides the "usual" places.

What stands out to me is this... the bill doesn't get specific about removing rights from citizens. BUT, that is what it's supporters are basically saying that it does. I wonder... What is hidden that I cannot see?


This seemed pretty cut and dry, but tell me if I am missing something.

Section 1032

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.


I read it here (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/as-written-sections-1031-and-1032-of-s-1867-does-not-apply-to-u-s-citizens/), and verified it here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf).


The first link above raised some valid questions to me. Why didn't the ACLU simply link to the offending passages of the bill, instead of trying to direct us to their message system for the Congress/Senate? In the first link the author is claiming the Udall amendment will do what the original complaints against the bill are alleged to do.

SOL

[sailingaway]

This seemed pretty cut and dry, but tell me if I am missing something.

Section 1032



I read it here (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/as-written-sections-1031-and-1032-of-s-1867-does-not-apply-to-u-s-citizens/), and verified it here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf).


The first link above raised some valid questions to me. Why didn't the ACLU simply link to the offending passages of the bill, instead of trying to direct us to their message system for the Congress/Senate? In the first link the author is claiming the Udall amendment will do what the original complaints against the bill are alleged to do.

SOL

thanks, I'm looking for it. I had to stop and comment on this definitional change however:


Expansion of scope of humanitarian demining assistance authority
to include stockpiled conventional munitions.

does that jump from Title XV directly to Title XXI?

[sailingaway]

This seemed pretty cut and dry, but tell me if I am missing something.

Section 1032



I read it here (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/as-written-sections-1031-and-1032-of-s-1867-does-not-apply-to-u-s-citizens/), and verified it here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf).


The first link above raised some valid questions to me. Why didn't the ACLU simply link to the offending passages of the bill, instead of trying to direct us to their message system for the Congress/Senate? In the first link the author is claiming the Udall amendment will do what the original complaints against the bill are alleged to do.

SOL

OK, I haven't read the whole thing, but that says that one section's provisions for detaining people, which go even FURTHER than 1031 has that caveat. It doesn't impact Section 1031 as far as I can tell, which says"


Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-
7 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
9 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-
13 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
20 sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS360
•S 1867 PCS
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.
3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
4 position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-
17 try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.
(e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2)

Note that under Section 1032 they are to be held in MILITARY custody, and there is no 'or' regarding even military tribunals (which are not REQUIRED but only an OPTION in 1031), and no reporting to congress regarding individuals held. That is the one that has a 'no citizen' caveat and a 'no permanent legal resident so long as it is regarding actions performed in the US' (I guess they can grab you on suspicion in another country if you are a legal permanent resident. Don't go on vacation abroad, is the moral here....)

And when you note that both categories can be held without trial, that isn't all that comforting.

I also find eerie that statement that 'this is not intended to expand presidential powers' indicating agreement that that had been allowed all along.

[Carehn]

I left messages that may get me on a list. I can't hold back the rage this puts me in. I know it will pass because every thing i oppose always passes.

[Anti Federalist]

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.”

Worthless POS that broad is, glad I left that line blank last go around.

NH's federal representation is awful.

I'd just as soon have democrats, although I suspect that Shaheen is for this as well.

[Anti Federalist]

Listen guys, here's how it works:


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

You just have look at the article and how its parsed, without reading through 3000 pages of legal bullshit.

Wherever the president decides to use the military, under this bill, the military will have the "right" to detain anyone, indefinitely, without trial, even if a US citizen.

So all the president has to do is declare an emergency, call out the NG, or use the military for the Drug War, (which happens all the time) and there you go, "indefinite detention".

[Anti Federalist]

I will not disocurage calling and e-mailing but I think most of you know as well as I do that it will do nothing. Every single message they get could be against this and they will do it anyway.

Pretty much that.

And there will be a little grumbling from the lunatic fringe and the refuseniks (that's us), nothing that can't be handily managed and this will sail through.

Literally the entire nation rose up in outrage against TARP, absolutely flooded and shut down, fax, phone and emails to DC, it ran 100 to 1 against...

And they just went ahead and did it anyway.

[sailingaway]

Pretty much that.

And there will be a little grumbling from the lunatic fringe (that's us) and the refuseniks, nothing that can't be handily managed and this will sail through.

Literally the entire nation rose up in outrage against TARP, absolutely flooded and shut down, fax, phone and emails to DC, it ran 100 to 1 against...

And they just went ahead and did it anyway.

they were beaten back for one vote cycle. They knew America hated it and knew they knew and were doing it anyway. They couldn't pretend it was uncontroversial.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Well if anyone was in denial. Welcome to the Police State Folks! :mad:

[Aden]

Rand should filibuster this.

[sailingaway]

Rand should filibuster this.

If he can. Fillibuster only means making it take 60 votes to pass, now. One person can no longer talk it to death. If it is overwhelmingly going to pass, it doesn't help. But I am very interested in what he will do.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Okay, everypeoples.

Time to stop thinking of Alex Jones as some kind of nut. That goes for Jesse Ventura as well. Folks like them are only nutty until they're proven right, as they are being proven correct now.

John McCain and some Democrat wrote a bill stripping Americans of their Civil Rights at the whim of the President. Any one of us on these forums could be deemed a threat (a domestic terrorist), picked up, and hauled away to a concentration camp. It's not like our government has done this before or anything, like to the Japanese in WW2. Nah.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qx20LA4PM0

Take the Red Pill. Every day. Dr. Paul's orders, lol.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

If this is not the inspiration that fence sitters need to put everything they have into getting Ron Paul elected Commander In Chief... well... I don't know what it would take.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Has everyone been using their social media accounts to getting the word out to eceryone... even the few corporate media marionettes that have the balls to bring this up on air?

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Has everyone need using their social media accounts to getting the word out to eceryone... even the few corporate media marionettes that have the balls to bring this up on air?

I have posted it on my Facebook but outside of the usual crowd (Ron Paul supporters), nobody gave a shit! They have better things to worry about such as football and what is on sale at Wal-Mart.

[affa]

Why is the media no reporting this? Not just msm, nothing. Is somebody interpreting it wrong? In this day and age you can't pull a coverup of this magnitude off. I wrote my senators anyway, actually reading it before voting would be nice.

sure you can. heck, they don't report on important things all the time.

[Adam West]

I'm an Aussie. We are not perfect over here, but how does such important legislation slide through the cracks?

[Adam West]

I mean, something like this calls for a national debate. What's going on?

[Keith and stuff]

It would seem the Patriot Act is not enough.

Since almost every US Senator and US Rep likes the Patriot Act, I'm not surprised that they don't push for more and more. Likely, it will also be super popular with elected officials and voters (like the Patriot Act is) and also pass.

[sailingaway]

I mean, something like this calls for a national debate. What's going on?

It was passed in committee with zero hearings and sent to calendar to vote on Thanksgiving week. More and more stuff like this is happening.

[sailingaway]

Since almost every US Senator and US Rep likes the Patriot Act, I'm not surprised that they don't push for more and more. Likely, it will also be super popular with elected officials and voters (like the Patriot Act is) and also pass.

Let them know there is a price to pay for it in the upcoming elections, as many who voted for it paid a price for TARP.

[sailingaway]

I haven't yet read this amendment, but according to the ACLU website, Udall has proposed an amendment that will correct this. Here is a clip from aclu.org.



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<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf>. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation<https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA>. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment<https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA> 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<https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA>; 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<https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA> 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.

[Matthew Zak]

WOooo...

I just had a moment of anger so deep that I considered violence as a solution for a few seconds. I was so blindly angry that until the blood pressure came down a notch I was salivating at the thought of... nevermind.

[kpitcher]

If America will become part of the battlefield, will police, military contractors, state side servicement, get a hazard pay?

I can hear the pizza delivery guy now : 'that's 9.99 for the pizza, free delivery, but a $50 surcharge for delivery in a battlefield'

[sailingaway]

If America will become part of the battlefield, will police, military contractors, state side servicement, get a hazard pay?

I can hear the pizza delivery guy now : 'that's 9.99 for the pizza, free delivery, but a $50 surcharge for delivery in a battlefield'

I wonder how it will impact insurance of all sorts with that since-9/11 exclusion from insurance for insurrection and terrorism. I mean, with so many being called 'suspected domestic terrorists' on DHS and 'fusion center' groups, what will that do to claims?

[VanBummel]

that's 9.99 for the pizza
http://www.3sigma.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/11/cain-smile-frown.gif

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Wish this had a better title, like on Drudge:

REPORT: Senate Moves To Allow Military To Arrest Americans Without Charge Or Trial...

[sailingaway]

Wish this had a better title, like on Drudge:

REPORT: Senate Moves To Allow Military To Arrest Americans Without Charge Or Trial...

good idea

[Matthew5]

Am I missing something?

It says: "(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."

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Why does the online bill at the Senate refer to section 1031 which is missing from the bill as the public can see?

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

...

[LibertyEagle]

It was passed in committee with zero hearings and sent to calendar to vote on Thanksgiving week. More and more stuff like this is happening.

I called both of my Senators about it. Man, are they being slammed with phone calls. Good on Drudge and Alex Jones too.

The aide I talked to last said the article was over the top and that the legislation didn't say what the article said it did. I said, really? Then what DOES it say? Then, she proceeded to tell me she hadn't read it yet. To which I replied, then how do you know WHAT it says? I ended with, "just tell my Senator to get it out of that bill or he won't be able to be elected as dog catcher!". /end of conversation.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

More details links here: http://www.dailypaul.com/189079/aclu-bill-military-to-potentially-arrest-american-citizens-in-america

Note - the wording does not say "are required not to detain citizens", it says "the *requirement* to detain" - meaning it isn't mandatory that they drag you from your backyard, it's only an option.

The whole bill is like that, and is reading like everyone on the - still american - left and right are saying. We're living in a state filled with fascists, and the average voter is still talking about ridicicous non-issues.

[sailingaway]

Am I missing something?

It says: "(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."



I already answered that. That is in the (different) kind of detention for 1032. In 1031 the detention for SUSPECTED 'CONNECTIONS' with something deemed privately to be a 'supporting organization' of bad groups, without trial, indefinitely 'for the duration of the war' (what, on terror?) does NOT have that language. Note that language says 'UNDER THIS SECTION' and applies to section 1032 not 1031.

the detention in 1031 is 'slightly better' than in 1032 in that 'periodically' there would have to be a report on individuals detained to congress (level of detail unspecified) and there is an OPTION (at the determination of military) to use military tribunals (but no trial is required at all) and the detention wouldn't be in military custody.

Section 1032 has none of those extremely minor protections, and to THAT section it can't be used for citizens.

[LopTarDaBoo]

It feels so stupid to call someone and ask them to let you have your rights.

[sailingaway]

I called both of my Senators about it. Man, are they being slammed with phone calls. Good on Drudge and Alex Jones too.

The aide I talked to last said the article was over the top and that the legislation didn't say what the article said it did. I said, really? Then what DOES it say? Then, she proceeded to tell me she hadn't read it yet. To which I replied, then how do you know WHAT it says? I ended with, "just tell my Senator to get it out of that bill or he won't be able to be elected as dog catcher!". /end of conversation.

It is linked above. It DOES say it. I only read the stuff surrounding those two sections (obviously no time was given to ANYONE including Senators to read the whole thing) but it says it.

I've been emailing people and posting on blogs about this to spread the word.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I already answered that. That is in the (different) kind of detention for 1032. In 1031 the detention for SUSPECTED 'CONNECTIONS' with something deemed privately to be a 'supporting organization' of bad groups, without trial, indefinitely 'for the duration of the war' (what, on terror?) does NOT have that language. Note that language says 'UNDER THIS SECTION' and applies to section 1032 not 1031.


In section 1031 - which fyi is not on the title page, you have to search for it, its worse.

It only exludes American citizens with all the loopholes mentioned by sailingaway, and then for activities *within* the United States.

This means that if you call someone overseas, and you play the game of associated with someone who is associated with someone whose grandmother has a friend of someone who is suspect, you could be hauled away. Calls and internet messages overseas are outside the territory.

Consider the NSA that wiretaps all calls without warrants, and the recent defense department desire to use drone strikes on those suspected of "cyber" terrorism. Virtually everything online can be considered outside the United States. The military is already interpreting things this way.

But you say that a court of law would never agree with the military? If you are taken away this way, you will never see a court to raise that objection.

[COpatriot]

I live in Colorado. I am currently listening to a local necon talk show host named Richard Randall who is openly telling his listeners that this is all perfectly fine with all of this brazen criminality because "hey, I'm not a terrorist". But then he says it's more OK for someone like Bush to do something like this but not so much for Obama because only Democrats are nasty and corrupt.

These people are cancerous.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

By the way, you don't sneak something like this into a bill with loose language at the last minute without discussion, unless the intent is to use it exactly like that.

[PursuePeace]

The link is not on Drudge anymore.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRf8VV_iIwo

[HOLLYWOOD]

I have posted it on my Facebook but outside of the usual crowd (Ron Paul supporters), nobody gave a shit! They have better things to worry about such as football and what is on sale at Wal-Mart.I've been hitting up everyone on Twitter... @joeNBC @ggreenwald @judgenap etc etc...

Contact all across any political lines

[Anti Federalist]

If America will become part of the battlefield, will police, military contractors, state side servicement, get a hazard pay?

I can hear the pizza delivery guy now : 'that's 9.99 for the pizza, free delivery, but a $50 surcharge for delivery in a battlefield'

America has been a battlefield, for a long time now.

The opening salvos in the final push were fired over 20 years ago, in the tenements of Philadelphia, the woods of Ruby Ridge and the high plains of Waco.

It's called a "War on this and that" for a reason.

War has been declared and waged against us, for years now.

[Brown Sapper]

I really hope that this move backfires on them. I wouldn't be surprised to see half of D.C. being detained for "terrorist activities."

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

America has been a battlefield, for a long time now.

The opening salvos in the final push were fired over 20 years ago, in the tenements of Philadelphia, the woods of Ruby Ridge and the high plains of Waco.

It's called a "War on this and that" for a reason.

War has been declared and waged against us, for years now.

+rep

This post should be shouted from the rooftops.

[JK/SEA]

For all the good it will do, i called Patty Murray's D.C office and 'explained' my concerns.

[Anti Federalist]

Time to stop thinking of Alex Jones as some kind of nut.
Take the Red Pill. Every day. Dr. Paul's orders.

Jones is all over this right now.

Unlike the "cancerous" B string fascists like another poster in this thread quoted.

He also picked up on the AlterNet article I posted in GP about the left waking up to the militarized police.

[Anti Federalist]

WOooo...

I just had a moment of anger so deep that I considered violence as a solution for a few seconds. I was so blindly angry that until the blood pressure came down a notch I was salivating at the thought of... nevermind.

This is normal.

[JK/SEA]

By the way, as i was talking to Sen. Murray's secretary...male....he told me that they are getting LOTS of calls on this.

[Anti Federalist]

"How Could This Happen in America?" Why Police Are Treating Americans Like Military Threats

Why is the armed might of the state, (necessary in waging war against foreign enemies) being applied to domestic policing of local communities and peaceful protests?

November 22, 2011

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153170/%22how_could_this_happen_in_america%22_why_police_ are_treating_americans_like_military_threats/?page=entire

[sailingaway]

Jones is all over this right now.

Unlike the "cancerous" B string fascists like another poster in this thread quoted.

He also picked up on the AlterNet article I posted in GP about the left waking up to the militarized police.

I don't believe everything Alex Jones believes, and I think he is bombastic in a style I don't like, and that he sometimes jumps to conclusions. Having said that, I am grateful for the whistle blowing aspects of what he does. We can weigh the merits ourselves -- assuming anyone even tells us about it, which he does.

I don't listen to him because of the other reasons I mentioned, but a number of issues first come out on his web site publications (I don't go there specifically, but when I search by topic they come up.) Some stuff turns out to be jumping the gun, but I'd rather see that to examine than not know until the issue is decided because people aren't sure.

[jcarcinogen]

Jones is all over this right now.

Unlike the "cancerous" B string fascists like another poster in this thread quoted.

He also picked up on the AlterNet article I posted in GP about the left waking up to the militarized police.
Government is the reason the Constitution is dying. Good quote.

[Anti Federalist]

Tomato, toemato. ;)

I like his style because, in person, it's exactly the same as my style, loud, abrasive and bombastic.

Agreed, better to jump the gun, then not know about it all, or even worse, agree with it and support it.

Like this guy:


I live in Colorado. I am currently listening to a local necon talk show host named Richard Randall who is openly telling his listeners that this is all perfectly fine with all of this brazen criminality because "hey, I'm not a terrorist". But then he says it's more OK for someone like Bush to do something like this but not so much for Obama because only Democrats are nasty and corrupt.

These people are cancerous.


I don't believe everything Alex Jones believes, and I think he is bombastic in a style I don't like, and that he sometimes jumps to conclusions. Having said that, I am grateful for the whistle blowing aspects of what he does. We can weigh the merits ourselves -- assuming anyone even tells us about it, which he does.

I don't listen to him because of the other reasons I mentioned, but a number of issues first come out on his web site publications (I don't go there specifically, but when I search by topic they come up.) Some stuff turns out to be jumping the gun, but I'd rather see that to examine than not know until the issue is decided because people aren't sure.

[CaptainAmerica]

President would be an absolute dictator if this passes.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

watch out for Drones taking US Citizens out within US Soil :eek:

Homeland security is already giving out grants to local police departments to buy drones - which are the same as the ones that can be outfitted with weapons at a later date.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

i am in a "who is john galt" ayn rand funk of a mood over this instance
of tyranny thru the small print legalism that is shabby, cynical & savvy.

Rand wrote her book as a farce. Atlas in the real legend isn't holding up the world, but the celestial heavens, Aristotelian logic by its very nature isn't objective but uses premises - see Francis Bacon's pamphlet on the scientific method for exactly that criticism of Aristotle, and the very first line as well as many other things are plagiarized from The Driver, which is a well known book to classical free market thinkers - and which describes exactly what "the driver" that makes good government is, and which is missing from Atlas Shrugged - without even a clue to what was pulled.

Alan Greenspan was part of Rand's circle. It was a farce, but not a nice one, but a vindictive one. The average reader is supposed to be too stupid to notice any of the above things.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I will not disocurage calling and e-mailing but I think most of you know as well as I do that it will do nothing. Every single message they get could be against this and they will do it anyway.

The more we organize, the less they can get away with it. The system relies on taking us down individually, and can't stand when America is well organized against it. They're operating on the same principle as terrorists, using fear and bullying.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Why is the media no reporting this? Not just msm, nothing. Is somebody interpreting it wrong? In this day and age you can't pull a coverup of this magnitude off. I wrote my senators anyway, actually reading it before voting would be nice.

The reason we are having the problems we are having is media and informed citizens. It's been happening a long time, and it has to have been that great a magnitude for us to have gotten to where we are in the first place.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Listen guys, here's how it works:



You just have look at the article and how its parsed, without reading through 3000 pages of legal bullshit.

Wherever the president decides to use the military, under this bill, the military will have the "right" to detain anyone, indefinitely, without trial, even if a US citizen.

So all the president has to do is declare an emergency, call out the NG, or use the military for the Drug War, (which happens all the time) and there you go, "indefinite detention".

bump.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

If he can. Fillibuster only means making it take 60 votes to pass, now. One person can no longer talk it to death. If it is overwhelmingly going to pass, it doesn't help. But I am very interested in what he will do.

The closer it gets to election, the more effect a fillibuster by the son of a the candidate for president has on a bill like this. Wakes people up.

[sailingaway]

He has the opportunity for a moment to win admiration from his Dad's supporters, no question.

[libertygrl]

Where are the OWS crowd on this? Do they even know what's going on??

[CUnknown]

Where are the OWS crowd on this? Do they even know what's going on??

They're on Wall Street, thinking that Obama is well-intentioned but stymied by Republicans, and that their real enemy is Capitalism. *sigh*

[69360]

Where are the OWS crowd on this? Do they even know what's going on??

Sleeping in a tent in a park somewhere, thinking they make a difference.

[LibertyEagle]

Homeland security is already giving out grants to local police departments to buy drones - which are the same as the ones that can be outfitted with weapons at a later date.

Yup, they sure are.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/New-Police-Drone-Near-Houston-Could-Carry-Weapons/-/1735978/4717922/-/59xnnez/-/index.html

[LibertyEagle]

Has everyone called their Senators about legislation? If not, get to it!! :)

[Anti Federalist]

Has everyone called their Senators about legislation? If not, get to it!! :)

Both lines for Shaheen and Ayotte (*spits three times*) went straight to voice mail.

Left messages and sent emails.

[sailingaway]

Where are the OWS crowd on this? Do they even know what's going on??

Heck, it will probably be tested on them.

[tod evans]

[QUOTE=SpiritOf1776_J4;3785290]The more we organize, the less they can get away with it. The system relies on taking us down individually, and can't stand when America is well organized against it. [QUOTE]

Ever hear of the term "conspiricy"?
Study how it applies to law.

[tremendoustie]

Don't let them fool you with the "doesn't apply to US citizens" clause -- that clause only exempts US citizens from the REQUIRED detainment clause -- it still allows the president (and sec of defense, if they submit a "waiver"), to indefinitely detain US citizens without a trial.

[buck000]

Here is the response to my email generated via the ACLU link:



Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the new provisions for detainees proposed in Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Section 1031 of the NDAA establishes guidelines to allow U.S. Armed Forces to detain “covered persons” captured during hostilities as unprivileged enemy combatants, pending disposition under the laws of war. The provision defines a “covered person” as a person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This provision also applies to individuals who support al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

Section 1032 requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody as an unprivileged enemy combatant any person who is a member or part of al Qaeda or an affiliated entity, and who participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. The requirement does not extend to citizens of the United States. Also, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to waive required detention.

S. 1253 has passed the Senate Armed Services Committee, and is currently awaiting consideration by the full Senate. Should this legislation be brought to the Senate floor, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Notice "she" is discussing S.1253 not S.1867.

I guess we're OK, then, as my Glorious Senators are Infallible. :rolleyes:

I appreciate the clarification of concerns in previous posts...

[sailingaway]

Don't let them fool you with the "doesn't apply to US citizens" clause -- that clause only exempts US citizens from the REQUIRED detainment clause -- it still allows the president (and sec of defense, if they submit a "waiver"), to indefinitely detain US citizens without a trial.

I don't read it as even requiring a waiver for that. The waiver would be to end some of the protections for citizens, such as having to report to congress or be kept in confinement other than 'military', as I read it.

[seraphson]

Heck, it will probably be tested on them.

This is actually one of the first things I thought of when I read this Bill. And since "everyone" hates OWS it'll make it look like another excellent move by the Government. Just like the PATRIOT Act and the TSA and all these other policies that make the U.S. of A. the super duper safe place to live.

[sailingaway]

Here is the response to my email generated via the ACLU link:




Notice "she" is discussing S.1253 not S.1867.

I guess we're OK, then, as my Glorious Senators are Infallible. :rolleyes:

I appreciate the clarification of concerns in previous posts...

that leaves out that a covered person could just have ties to someone ASSOCIATED with one of those groups, potentially even unknowing it. That is in there, too. That is what happened with the McCarthy stuff, people who were just garden variety liberals who went to 'feed the poor' meetings which behind the scenes got money from some targeted group, were painted as red, regardless of if they had any idea the 'front groups' were connected in any way. Only instead of losing a job, these sorts of connections could make a person legally 'disappear' without benefit of trial, until the war on terror is deemed 'over', with this legislation.

[KCIndy]

Has everyone called their Senators about legislation? If not, get to it!! :)



Both lines for Shaheen and Ayotte (*spits three times*) went straight to voice mail.

Left messages and sent emails.


Don't forget: If you can't get through on the phone, you can always send a fax. If you don't have a fax machine where you are, you can send a free fax from www.faxzero.com.

Here's a list of fax numbers for everyone in the Senate: http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm (Note: I have not had time to confirm every number listed here. You can also find your Senators' numbers at www.senate.gov but in most cases it takes a little longer.)

In post #30 of this thread, I posted a pre-written letter that anyone is free to copy/paste/fax from www.faxzero.com:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?332939-URGENT!-Senate-Moves-To-Allow-Military-To-arrest-hold-Citizens-W-O-trial-Vote-Mon-or-Tues&p=3784071#post3784071

Doing a cut/paste of the letter and sending FREE from www.faxzero.com takes less than five minutes. No charge and less than five minutes. What's your freedom worth?

[gb13]

SENT THIS OUT TODAY.




I want you to vote AGAINST S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, unless Sections 1031 and 1032 are REMOVED.

This is disgusting. I am so ashamed of my congress, I can barely even type this letter. Do you think the ACLU and every other organization with an eye on civil liberties will not take this all the way to the Supreme Court? I assure you, they will, and I will help them in their effort. Because anyone who votes for this bill in its current form is, quite simply, an enemy combatant against the Constitution of the United States and the liberty of the American people, and I will do everything in my lawful power to ensure that they are voted out of office, and if possible, criminally prosecuted. I will join with the ACLU and every Organization of red-blooded Americans who refuse to be "guilty until proven innocent", and work to overturn this slap-in-the-face from one of the worst congresses in the history of our country, and ensure that the politicians who back this bill be dealt the full political consequences of their irresponsible actions.

Please, do not be one of the bad guys on this. Stand up for liberty and the American way. The National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867) must be defeated.

How dare Congress even think of treating American citizens this way!

Do what is right by your countrymen and VOTE NO on this despicable piece of legislation.

Very truly yours;

gb13

[revgen]

Crap.

I thought it was S.1253. Oh well, I hope they know which one I'm talking about.

[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/

[69360]

Rand saves the day!

[sailingaway]

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/

go Rand!!

I hoped he might feel that way. He was great on the Patriot Act.

I went to C4L over the weekend to see if they had a form letter or anything up and there was nothing at that time or I would have posted it here.

Where can we see the text of his amendment, on his web page? I was wondering if it impacts section 1302

[sailingaway]

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/

I put that on the front page.

[Carehn]

Rand has my support now. At 1st i didn't know but this is the last straw and its official, the science is settled, Rand is a bad ass!

[Carehn]

By they way, anyone know if they voted on this yet? I feel the need to call a public servant.

[Zarn Solen]

If this doesn't convince people of where Rand stands, nothing will.

[SpicyTurkey]

You gotta love Rand.

[KCIndy]

By they way, anyone know if they voted on this yet? I feel the need to call a public servant.

According to www.thomas.gov the bill was placed in "consideration" on 11/18 and as of the moment, there has been no vote.

Make sure you give your Senators an earful!

[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&amp;feature=uploademail

[Matt Collins]

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


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

[HOLLYWOOD]

US Senate KILLS UDALL Amendment only 37 Senators supported the American People.


61 Nays... The Nazi Regime of the US Senate and stepped closer to POLICE/PRISON States of America

[Anti Federalist]

US Senate KILLS UDALL Amendment only 37 Senators supported the American People.


61 Nays... The Nazi Regime of the US Senate and stepped closer to POLICE/PRISON States of America

Yeah, all those calls, faxes, emails and what not, really worked.

I think very few people, even here, truly understand what is happening here, not just with this atrocious piece of legislation, but overall.

The framework is in place for Soviet, Nazi, Maoist style tyranny.

That is not hyperbole, paranoia or hyperventilating.

It is not being used in wholesale fashion, yet, so most people just sluff it off as being inconsequential.

Let one massive terror attack happen, real or false flag, and this nation will go into full blown, concentration camp, lockdown, overnight.

This is not going to end well.

[Cowlesy]

Yeah, all those calls, faxes, emails and what not, really worked.

I think very few people, even here, truly understand what is happening here, not just with this atrocious piece of legislation, but overall.

The framework is in place for Soviet, Nazi, Maoist style tyranny.

That is not hyperbole, paranoia or hyperventilating.

It is not being used in wholesale fashion, yet, so most people just sluff it off as being inconsequential.

Let one massive terror attack happen, real or false flag, and this nation will go into full blown, concentration camp, lockdown, overnight.

This is not going to end well.

I completely agree with this post.

Two years ago, I would have called it uber hyperbole and paranoia.

But when you think about it, as well meaning as some of the current people in the Congress are today, they are not legislating for 15 years down the road when the demographics of the nation have shifted, the laws are still in place, and some leftist regime thinks it is payback time to all the personal-responsibility advocates/rightists/libertarians who rail against egalitarianism and utopian visions of a leftist socialist paradise.

That's the rub. They legislate for today, not to preserve the rights of future generations.

They can't see that a decade or two for now, a radical regime could be instituted here to come down on all your well-meaning libertarian heads like a ton of bricks.

They'll be more than happy to use the power of the State to silence you. In fact, it's already happening. (http://biggovernment.com/cowens/2011/11/28/richmond-city-audits-local-tea-party-after-standoff-with-mayor/)

[AGRP]

Yeah, all those calls, faxes, emails and what not, really worked.

I think very few people, even here, truly understand what is happening here, not just with this atrocious piece of legislation, but overall.

The framework is in place for Soviet, Nazi, Maoist style tyranny.

That is not hyperbole, paranoia or hyperventilating.

It is not being used in wholesale fashion, yet, so most people just sluff it off as being inconsequential.

Let one massive terror attack happen, real or false flag, and this nation will go into full blown, concentration camp, lockdown, overnight.

This is not going to end well.

I realized that when TARP was passed with virtually no protests and as of now virtually forgotten by those who are screaming for more of the same via wanting the very same type of people responsible for it to be elected. Why not just pass a 500,000,000,000,000 to bail out all banks? I would wager that if that was actually done that the general population would go along with it just as with TARP. The general population is simply too dumbed down.

[Lucille]

We Arizonans need to recall that BSC! sumbitch, like yesterday. Who's with me?!

The craven un-American criminals on Capitol Hill pose the gravest threat to the American people, to the country, and to the world. What kind of despotic hell are these evil bastards creating for us and future generations to suffer under? If we allow this to go on, posterity will spit on our mass graves, and curse us until the day they die.

ETA: I checked neoclown central (hotair) for any mention of this. Bupkis. Those little fascists love this shit, which is why they wouldn't bother mentioning it. Same with RedState.

The comments on that Hill piece are pretty much all opposed, and outraged.

[pcosmar]

That's the rub. They legislate for today, not to preserve the rights of future generations.

They can't see that a decade or two for now, a radical regime could be instituted here to come down on all your well-meaning libertarian heads like a ton of bricks.

They'll be more than happy to use the power of the State to silence you. In fact, it's already happening. (http://biggovernment.com/cowens/2011/11/28/richmond-city-audits-local-tea-party-after-standoff-with-mayor/)

I disagree. They legislate to add to and increase control incrementally.
Joe Biden wrote the Patriot act in 1995.
It has been both parties over decades with an agenda.
Each building on that last. All growing the Police State.

There is a long range end game. Has been for years.
I suspect we are close to the closing of the trap.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History

[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.

[specsaregood]

We Arizonans need to recall that BSC! sumbitch, like yesterday. Who's with me?!


You can't recall US senators, as there is no federal provision for it. It doesn't even matter if your state has a provision for it. NJ people ran into this issue with Sen. Menendez just 2 years ago.

[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&amp;feature=uploademail

[Matthew5]

Senator Feinstein’s amendment, which would have limited applicability of the NDAA’s detention provisions to terrorism suspects captured abroad, was rejected in a 45-55 vote this afternoon

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/feinstein-amendment-rejected-45-55/

The next amendment coming up is the most important...to keep Americans off the detainment list.

[Brett85]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/feinstein-amendment-rejected-45-55/

The next amendment coming up is the most important...to keep Americans off the detainment list.

It's hard to believe how 55 Senators could vote against such a common sense amendment. What's wrong with these people?

[pcosmar]

It's hard to believe how 55 Senators could vote against such a common sense amendment. What's wrong with these people?

Because this @#$% Bullshit was aimed at Americans from the beginning.
That is the main purpose from inception.

[Brian4Liberty]

Anyone get the results for 1126?

[pcosmar]

Anyone get the results for 1126?

Feinstein Amendment rejected 45-55

:mad:
expected actually

[Soldier of Liberty]

I haven't yet read this amendment, but according to the ACLU website, Udall has proposed an amendment that will correct this. Here is a clip from aclu.org.



If you go back to the link I posted previously, the author is claiming the UDALL Amendment is the problem...............All this legal-ese is confusing.........I don't think that Lindsey Graham and John McCain are bluffing or playing some game, why would they, and I have yet to hear any kind of retraction from them about their comments....I wish their was a concise, quoted explanation on this that I could try and wrap my head around.


SOL

[Matthew5]

Both Feinstein amendments failed 45-55. However, at the last moment, she struck a compromise with Levin and McCain basically saying the sections shall not conflict with current war time law. Basically, changing nothing and "trusting" (her word) that McCain and the gang will keep their word.

The compromise amendment passed 99-1.

[ZanZibar]

McCain and Lindsey Graham....


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

[Kylie]

God help us. These motherfuckers are evil.

Truly evil.