Congress to Vote Next Week on EXPLICITLY Creating a Police State

If You Thought Police Brutality Was Bad … Wait Until You See What Congress Wants to Do Next Week

The police brutality against peaceful protesters in Berkeley, Davis, Oakland and elsewhere is bad enough.

But next week, Congress will vote on explicitly creating a police state.

The ACLU’s Washington legislative office explains:

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.

***

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.

***

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?

***

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 senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown.

Part of an Ongoing Trend

While this is shocking, it is not occurring in a vacuum. Indeed, it is part of a 30 year-long process of militarization inside our borders and a destruction of the American concepts of limited government and separation of powers.

As I pointed out in May:

The ACLU noted yesterday [that] Congress is proposing handing permanent, world-wide war-making powers to the president – including the ability to make war within the United States:

***

As I noted in 2008:

An article in the Army Times reveals that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team will be redeployed from Iraq to domestic operations within the United States.

The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with “civil unrest” and “crowd control”.

The soldiers are learning to use so-called “nonlethal weapons” designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.

This violates posse comitatus and the Constitution. But, hey, we’re in a “national emergency”, so who cares, right?

(We’re still in a declared state of national emergency).

I noted a couple of months later:

Everyone knows that deploying 20,000 troops on U.S. soil violates Posse Comitatus and the Constitution.

And everyone understands that staging troops within the U.S. to “help out with civil unrest and crowd control” increases the danger of overt martial law.

But no one is asking an obvious question: Does the government’s own excuse for deploying the troops make any sense?

Other Encroachments On Civil Rights Under Obama

As bad as Bush was, the truth is that, in many ways, freedom and constitutional rights are under attack even more than during the Bush years.

For example:

Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history — even more so than Nixon.

As Marjorie Cohen – professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild – writes at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy:

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is facing court-martial for leaking military reports and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, is being held in solitary confinement in Quantico brig in Virginia. Each night, he is forced to strip naked and sleep in a gown made of coarse material. He has been made to stand naked in the morning as other inmates walked by and looked. As journalist Lance Tapley documents in his chapter on torture in the supermax prisons in The United States and Torture, solitary confinement can lead to hallucinations and suicide; it is considered to be torture. Manning’s forced nudity amounts to humiliating and degrading treatment, in violation of U.S. and international law.

Nevertheless, President Barack Obama defended Manning’s treatment, saying, “I’ve actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures . . . are appropriate. They assured me they are.” Obama’s deference is reminiscent of President George W. Bush, who asked “the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government” to review the interrogation techniques. “They assured me they did not constitute torture,” Bush said.

***

After State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley criticized Manning’s conditions of confinement, the White House forced him to resign. Crowley had said the restrictions were “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid.” It appears that Washington is more intent on sending a message to would-be whistleblowers than on upholding the laws that prohibit torture and abuse.

***

Torture is commonplace in countries strongly allied with the United States. Vice President Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s intelligence chief, was the lynchpin for Egyptian torture when the CIA sent prisoners to Egypt in its extraordinary rendition program. A former CIA agent observed, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear – never to see them again – you send them to Egypt.” In her chapter in The United States and Torture, New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer cites Egypt as the most common destination for suspects rendered by the United States.

As I pointed out in March:

Former constitutional law teacher Glenn Greenwald says that – in his defense of state secrecy, illegal spying, preventative detention, harassment of whistleblowers and other issues of civil liberties – Obama is even worse than Bush.

Indeed, Obama has authorized “targeted assassinations” against U.S. citizens. Even Bush didn’t openly do something so abhorrent to the rule of law.

Obama is trying to expand spying well beyond the Bush administration’s programs. Indeed, the Obama administration is arguing that citizens should never be able to sue the government for illegal spying.

Obama’s indefinite detention policy is an Orwellian nightmare, which will create more terrorists.

Furthermore – as hard as it is for Democrats to believe – the disinformation and propaganda campaigns launched by Bush have only increased under Obama. See this and this.

And as I pointed out last year:

According to Department of Defense training manuals, protest is considered “low-level terrorism”. And see this, this and this.

An FBI memo also labels peace protesters as “terrorists”.

***

A 2003 FBI memo describes protesters’ use of videotaping as an “intimidation” technique, even though – as the ACLU points out – “Most mainstream demonstrators often use videotape during protests to document law enforcement activity and, more importantly, deter police from acting outside the law.” The FBI appears to be objecting to the use of cameras to document unlawful behavior by law enforcement itself.

The Internet has been labeled as a breeding ground for terrorists, with anyone who questions the government’s versions of history being especially equated with terrorists.

Government agencies such as FEMA are allegedly teaching that the Founding Fathers should be considered terrorists.

The government is also using anti-terrorism laws to keep people from learning what pollutants are in their own community. See this, this, this and this.

Claims of “national security” are also used to keep basic financial information – such as who got bailout money – secret. That might not bode for particularly warm and friendly treatment for someone persistently demanding the release of such information.

The state of Missouri tried to label as terrorists current Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters, former Congressman Bob Barr, libertarians in general, anyone who holds gold, and a host of other people.

And according to a law school professor and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act:

Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an “unlawful enemy combatant” and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

Obama has refused to reverse these practices.

There Is Still a Chance to Stop It

The ACLU notes that there is some hope:

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

***

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

***

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

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Simon C.

    WHAT’S ALL THE UPROAR? READ THE PARAGRAPHS IN QUESTION AND MAKE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS…

    Subtitle D–Detainee Matters

    SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    (a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.
    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, as follows:
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
    (1) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    (d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

    SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.
    (2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be–
    (A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and
    (B) a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    (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(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that date.

    Source:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112XxVsa9

    • kerston

      Determined how? If held with no trial indefinately? Who determines and how is it Constitutional without due proccess of law?

    • CJ

      Simon read the MIACC report from 2009 and the SPLC Report from 2010 Both include Ron Paul supporters as “potential terrorists” as well as gold/silver owners, third party supporters, it goes on and on thats why the uproar son

    • James Barry

      You have no idea how laws like these are enforced in courts (not even Article III courts, mind you). When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, he at least didn’t CODIFY IT INTO LAW. Are you a 14 year old neo-nazi, or are you just stupid? You don’t deserve freedom if you can’t even understand when it is being encroached upon.

    • Jo

      So in other words, they should be going after Cheney, Bush, Ashcroft, Rice, Rove and Silverstein? (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

      • Bob

        WELL SAID….

      • darma2u

        Water boarding, Extraordinary rendition just ways of controlling, so nothing surprises me

    • Freddy Boisseau

      Simon you are correct, they are trying to pull a “rope-a-dope” on us. I have read the text of the Senate Bill S.1867 and here is what it says.

      Original Text of the Bill
      (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
      (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.
      (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

      I do not know why what I found was different from what you posted, but it is very clear it does not apply to US citizens.

      Here are Udall’s Amendments

      SA 1107. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:
      Strike subtitle D of title X and insert the following:
      Subtitle D–Detainee Matters
      SEC. 1031. REVIEW OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
      (a) In General.–Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:
      (1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).
      (2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.
      (3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.
      (b) Covered Persons.–A covered person under this section is any person, other than a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, whose detention or prosecution by the Armed Forces of the United States is consistent with the laws of war and based on authority provided by any of the following:
      (1) The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
      (2) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
      (3) Any other statutory or constitutional authority for use of military force.
      (c) Congressional Action.–Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.
      (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.–In this section, the term “appropriate committees of Congress” means–
      (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
      (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

      SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
      At the end of section 1031, add the following:
      (f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

      http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/as-written-sections-1031-and-1032-of-s-1867-does-not-apply-to-u-s-citizens/

    • KishinD

      Actually the Udall amendment changes nothing of consequence to the citizen. The first parts ensure that the military can only detain US citizens abroad, not on US soil. The second defers the extent of military ability on US soil to an executive branch team for further review. The Udall amendment essentially changes the deciding authority of the extent of military power at home from the legislative branch to the executive. So screw him, shame on the ACLU for promoting it through fear, and we the people need to push for an end to all indefinite detentions and the open-ended “hostilities” created by the Patriot Act and others.

      • T

        Your forgetting one very critical part here… Our founding father, in their great foresight sought to keep the use of military power out of the absolute control of the executive branch.

        Why you might ask?

        Because of the very statement you just made, “The Udall amendment essentially changes the deciding authority of the extent of military power at home from the legislative branch to the executive.” Any government that has a single leader at the helm with a military force at his disposal risks becoming a dictatorship or autocracy.

        That is why our forefathers made declaring war so damn difficult. Because once the ball starts rolling, it can be near impossible to stop. And if the ball can start rolling at homefront, well everyone grab your guns…

  • http://danightman.livejournal.com Steven P. Cornett

    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.

    Wouldn’t the real solution be to delete the harmful passages and don’t replace them at all?

    In other words, actually uphold the rights of the accused??

    • KishinD

      Yes, that’s the solution. Udall amendment to the controversial pieces of the bill is no better than the controversial pieces themselves. End the terror created by the “War on Terror”!

      • KishinD

        And, I meant to say: there is only one piece left before the complete institution of global tyranny through American military. S.3327, HR 5237 are currently stuck in committee (since spring of 2010). It’s Lieberman’s “[Accused] Terrorist Expatriation Act”. If it passes in any form, if included in another bill or on its own, being accused by the State Department, DoD, or DoJ is sufficient to revoke citizenship and deny any constitutional rights to the accused. And thanks to this bill (amendment or not), it will include US soil.

        The provisions of s1867 are the second-to-last step. If they become law, the only remaining step towards total tyranny is Lieberman’s baby. If that happens, expect a merger of military and police, along with further unification of federal agencies as tasks transfer to DHS authority/responsibility. It’s an interesting time to be an American.

  • jon

    Why do you provide links labeled “Udall Amendment” – several of them in fact – that DO NOT LINK TO THE AMENDMENT? You want me to look at the source documents? You want me to take this seriously? Then do not trick me into going to an ACLU site to sign a petition about something I HAVEN’T READ YET!

    I am a politically active member of this nation and I do not being manipulated by the government… or you. In these times I feel we have to be aware of any attempts at disinformation from any source. Active manipulation of your readers like this makes me wonder who is behind the screen, and what are their real motives. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, man. If you’re linking to a petition then say so. Give some respect to your readers.

  • george

    if the people rise up with one voice we can stop them from making America a police state.

  • Beth

    Hmmm. There is a deliberate vagueness in the definition of ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ that I don’t like. Quoting the definition from Title XVIII, Chapter 47A, Subchapter I, Section 948a (7): “UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
    against the United States or its coalition partners; or (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.”
    The term Coalition Partner is defined a few lines earlier in Section 948a (3) as: “COALITION PARTNER.—The term ‘coalition partner’, with respect to hostilities engaged in by the United States, means any State or armed force directly engaged along with the United States in such hostilities or providing direct operational support to the United States in connection with such hostilities.”
    It’d be nice to assume that only Al-Qaeda and affiliated entities or 9/11 terrorists is what is really meant, and so go back to sleep, but the deliberate vagueness in terms opens up for our government the ability to attribute ‘hostilities’ to whomever it decides is ‘belligerent’ to it and a threat to its policies, such as suggested above in the article. Don’t think it beneath our government to act in the fashion this article suggests.
    Constitutional limitation? Yeesh, our 3 government branches have been making a mockery over the last few years especially of the Constitution, operating in manners not proscribed by it, such as the Persident sending the military over to Libya without Congressional approval. Like it’s reasonable to trust the government in this specific area to be Constitutional?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZCHjGkTPg&feature=related Mike

    Really want these people in charge of your liberties?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZCHjGkTPg&feature=related

    Yes, we have always had psychopaths in government, but in this age of a media that ignores its responsibility to both report on real news, as well as investigate, we are opening up the hen house and allowing the wolves to take charge.

  • brad

    I R S can allready do this.

  • Kane Bonkers

    The Udall Amendment is a step in the right (no pun intended) direction. We already have an out of control government (imho) that has little or no concerns for the Rule of Law under our Constitution. If this amendment helps to reign them in…then I say vote it in.
    Of course, with a government that only pays attention to “convenient” laws, what makes you think they’ll follow this one?

  • http://lintonloop.blogspot.com/ Linton

    I’m with Simon C. I don’t love the idea of giving the executive branch even more power, but it sounds like this bill has protections for American citizens to me.

  • catt

    First google “Bush outlaws protest” ………………. now come to an understanding that they have prison camps built and are going to ‘manage’ OWS by using these items… they are talking about American citizens who are protesting against the government !!!!!

    do not laugh at me over the Bush executive order…… people have disappeared from it…. there is no ‘due course’ the government does not have to say who they have declared a non-entity and they are not allowed to say….. but if it is someone you know, and you offer them a sandwich or a ride…. you have just become an enemy of the state yourself….

    READ IT>>>> ALL OF IT and then please come back and explain how the GOP is throwing screaming fits over Obama’s writing an executive order that helps the economy????

  • joseph

    I wonder how much ammunition sales have increased in the last month?

  • Bob

    Simon C and Linton have to be commended as the “It cannot happen here” crowd. You would have made good Germans.

  • Raymond LaFauci

    Both Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) should be tried for treason for this covert attack on our basic freedoms. This action is huge and to do this during Thanksgiving shows what kind of frauds of representation this two old school shills are.

  • ian Moore

    ** None of it sounds like DEMOCRACY to me…. from greek DEMOS ‘People’ and CRATOS ‘Power’ **
    it looks like people disempowerment to me.
    good luck over there in America.
    from OCCUPY EXETER UK…

  • Suzanne Sanders

    Please read the bill. This article is missing a very important part. The first person who left a comment even high lighted it. If you read it like you should it does not pertain to American Citizens
    LOOK AT THE SECTION THAT SAYS UNITED STATES CITIZENS! READ
    SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
    ) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    (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(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
    (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.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

  • Foreigner

    USA in 1989 was a police state, so now surprise in 2011…

  • JC

    For those who say this law has nothing to do with American Citizens and that they will be protected, remember that the Propaganda Wing of our Federal Government said the same about the Patriot Act.

    Read this:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5468299.story

    So far over 200 American citizens that had little to do with terrorism have been convicted of crimes under the Patriot Act. This article is just for starters, there are plenty more all over the Internet.

  • http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/carl-herman Carl Herman

    The 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) already legislated this risk of declaring/dictating any person as “unlawful enemy combatant” and subject to any treatment and with zero rights. As I wrote about this: MCA text allows this to be applied to “persons;” which means American citizens:

    “DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.”

    “Dispositive” in law means “providing a final resolution,” and “having control over an outcome.”

    The US updated MCA in 2009, but the current status has become even more tragic-comic. The US now claims legal right that if a US president so dictates, American citizens are targeted for assassination by US military. President Obama authorized a list of American citizens to be killed, with the first assassination reported on September 30, 2011. The term for this policy is extrajudicial assassination. [2]

    “Let that sink in. The U.S. presidency, supposed leader of the free world, has a clandestine committee that chooses American citizens to assassinate. This from the administration that promised unprecedented transparency and a ratcheting back of Bush-era civil liberties abuses. This from the president who vowed to restore habeas corpus and subject executive war powers to judicial scrutiny. This from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. … For generations much of the world has been under the spell of the lie of American democracy, the propaganda that the brutality of power politics can be tempered through elections and an eloquent piece of parchment.” [3]

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now. 1 of 6 – National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/occupy-this-us-history-exposes-the-1-s-crimes-then-and-now-1-of-6#ixzz1f6ytxwGJ

  • Moe

  • lowercase

    Apparently very few see a perspective on this S.1867 fiasco that some others see. Could this have been an attempt to MANIPULATE the PEOPLE into urging their Senators to adopt Udall’s extremely dangerous amendment(s)? Which amendment? SA 1112 and SA 1113 amendments ALSO belong to Udall? The S.1867 bill was not intended to apply to US CITIZENS. According to Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1032, United States CITIZENS are exempt from the provisions of the bill.

    Then, when we check out Udall’s SA 1112 and SA 1113 proposed amendments. SA 1112 drags US citizens INTO INCLUSION UNDER MILITARY AUTHORITY to DETAIN, at the end of Section 1031. And SA 1113 strikes the standing EXEMPTION for US CITIZENS by removing THE ENTIRE “Detainee Matters” Subtitle D, Sections 1031 and 1032 ALTOGETHER. (The original bill contains the US CITIZEN EXEMPTION in Section 1032, under Subtitle D.)

    WTH?!!

    We are told by many media sources the ACLU and Mark Udall can “save the nation” if we all contact our Senators asking they vote to ADOPT the UDALL AMENDMENT.

    Why would any sane citizen wish to jump out of the frying pan into the fire by urging adoption of ANYTHING from Udall? And I for one am NOT CONVINCED this was a simple mistake on the part of the ACLU.

  • http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/congress-to-vote-next-week-on-explicitly-creating-a-police-state.html NothingGoodCanComeOfThis

    Creation of a police state will show overt action the govt is taking to incite its Citizens. I’m realizing, that’s the strategy now. Strategy to create division will not fair well, it will only unite and mobilize The People rapidly. This is very dangerous territory, telling American Citizens their 1st Amendment is being erased. You Cannot Erase The Bill Of Rights. The Govt knows very well what they will be creating by taking American’s Rights Away. Nothing Good Can Come Of This Action.

 

 

Twitter