The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

“Don’t Be Fooled”: The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens

Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.

The bill is confusing. As Wired noted on December 1st:

It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.

The ACLU notes:

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:

“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“

Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so:

 

Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor – John McCain – said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo:

 

U.S. Congressman Justin Amash states in a letter to Congress:

The Senate’s [bill] does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad. The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.

Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:

One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – General Colin Powell’s chief of staff – says that the bill is a big step towards tyranny at home.  Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.

Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:

Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.

***

They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

Update: Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley writes:

Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

***

The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

And see this.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Mike S.

    “University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention”
    This statement is not exactly correct.
    http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/robert-chesney.html
    However, I’m not disputing the veracity of Chesney’s analysis on the issue.

  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd

    Can anyone detect a dementia like phenomenon taking place in the American system?

    • Heather

      Yes.

      Heather, occupy*82

  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    That first video is missing in youtube. The Levin one.

    • That Guy

      A copy can still be found on vimeo here http://vimeo.com/33232703

      (at least until that one vanishes without a trace as well)

      • Me

        I wonder if the uploader of that video is on his way to Guantanamo right now…

  • Caveat Emptor

    In his last years, Chief Joseph, Nez Percé (Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt) spoke eloquently against the injustice of United States policy toward his people and held out the hope that America’s promise of freedom and equality might one day be fulfilled …

    …these people have a hundred ways of saying what they do not mean.

    • Airomee

      Yeh What promise? Time to fight back. Uproot these corrupted politicians.

  • Mike

    Who does the Senate work for if not their constituents? This unlawful legislation was ordered by some very influential people, or syndicates. Legally speaking, the Congress, Executive Branch, or even the Courts cannot abrogate the 6th Amendment, an inalienable Right. The Senate is not authorized to grant powers unto the presidency not enumerated within the Constitution. How could this become a law when it violates the law? I believe the American People should insist that the 93 Senators supporting this bill should be formally suspended from their duties.

    • Beck

      Agreed.

      • Beck

        But who would we have do it?

        • Said

          State governments I would guess.

          • Dave

            This is the beginning of the end of our republic. The founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to assemble and forcefully overturn the Government if unreasonable tyranny was ever to overcome us. I’m glad we still have that protection.

            Unless this is quickly veto’d and overturned our Government has been compromised by corrupted agents of some more powerful institution or organization that does not represents the interest of the people.

            We can still hope the Supreme court can fix this problem but I’m already fairly convinced that branch of the Government has been corrupted.

        • Luke

          Velociraptors, with guns.

        • Justin Leone

          If things keep going the way they have been, my guess would be that, sooner or later, the people themselves will start doing it by force. I’m no longer so sure this would be a bad thing…

        • OBG

          According to Benjamin Fulford former Asian Bureau Chief for Forbes Magazine:
          “The word is that the Pentagon, the agencies and the militias are on the brink of taking violent action against President Obama and the Senators who claimed the right to kill and/or indefinitely imprison Americans without trial. The criminal cabal in Washington D.C. and Wall Street may be able to pretend they are setting up a fascist/totalitarian dictatorship in the US for a while longer but no serious armed group is going to support them. ”

          Let’s hope so.

      • LexRex

        Agreed

    • Rose B

      Would that we could.

    • snigguh

      absolutely. can we start a petition for that??

    • one love brothers and sisters

      “This unlawful legislation was ordered by some very influential people, or syndicates. ”

      I want names. I want PEOPLE held accountable for their actions. The government is made up of PEOPLE. seemingly powerful, yes, but PEOPLE none the less. We are all equal. They need to stop hiding behind their branches and job titles. We need to publish names, names, names and call for their resignation. call for their trials. each and every one of them. hold them accountable.

      Think about the power of those videorecordings catching the names of specific policemen during OCCUPY protest pepper sprayings.. those police are suspended because the mass public called for it. nothing will change if you are saying “the police are wrong” you can’t suspend “the police” but you can suspend “a policeman… deputy —-namehere—) the same goes for the names behind the CEO’s of corporations… (or the policymakers, senators, congress, government, administration, etc. we’re allowing them to hide by calling them by their job title) get their names out there. each and every one of them. This is not out of our hands. Who will do this research? We can’t trust the media, we can’t trust the government. We mus rely on ourselves alone. We have the duty to inform each other. Keep spreading the word, good people. Keep spreading the word.

      Hear the words of the rastaman say “Babylon, you’re throne gone down gone down. Babylon you’re throne gone down.”

      and realize also that we’re the ones that possess freedom, have always possessed it from the get go. it’s mind body and soul, they can’t control. no matter what someone writes on paper, don’t make it truth. the closer we are to our roots and nature, the less we’ll think we need them. and the more who realize this, the stronger we are. love your neighbor. we are in this together. one love.

      • V

        Here is a list of all the senators that voted for this bill:

        • Daniel Akaka
        • Lamar Alexander
        • Kelly Avotte
        • John Barrasso
        • Max Baucus
        • Mark Beqich
        • Michael F Bennet
        • Jeff Bingaman
        • Richard Blumenthal
        • Roy Blunt
        • John Boozman
        • Barbara Boxer
        • Scott P Brown
        • Sherrod Brown
        • Richard Burr
        • Maria Cantwell
        • Thomas R Carper
        • Robert P Casey Jr
        • Saxby Chambliss
        • Daniel Coats
        • Thad Cochran
        • Susan M Collins
        • Kent Conrad
        • Christopher A Coons
        • Bob Corker
        • John Cornyn
        • Michael B Enzi
        • Dianne Feinstein
        • Kirsten E Gillibrand
        • Lindsey Graham
        • Chuck Grassley
        • Kay R Hagan
        • Orrin G Hatch
        • Dean Heller
        • John Hoeven
        • Kay Bailey Hutchison
        • James M Inhofe
        • Daniel K Inouye
        • Johnny Isakson
        • Mike Jonhanns
        • Ron Johnson
        • Tim Johnson
        • John F Kerry
        • Mark Kirk
        • Amy Klobuchar
        • Herb Kohl
        • Jon Kyl
        • Mary L Landrieu
        • Frank R Lautenberg
        • Patrick J Leahy
        • Carl Levin
        • Joseph I Lieberman
        • Richard G Lugar
        • Joe Manchin III
        • John McCain
        • Claire McCaskill
        • Mitch McConnell
        • Robert Menendez
        • Barbara A Mikulski
        • Jerry Moran
        • Lisa Murkowski
        • Patty Murray
        • Ben Nelson
        • Bill Nelson
        • Rob Portman
        • Mark L Pryor
        • Jack Reed
        • Harry Reid
        • Pat Roberts
        • John D Rockefeller
        • Marco Rubio
        • Charles E Schumer
        • Jeff Sessions
        • Jeanne Shaheen
        • Richard C Shelby
        • Olympia J Snowe
        • Debbie Stabenow
        • Jon Tester
        • John Thune
        • Patrick J Toomey
        • Mark Udall
        • Tom Udall
        • David Vitter
        • Mark R Warner
        • Jim Webb
        • Sheldon Whitehouse
        • Roger F Wicker

        The bill was voted with 86 against 13. The 13 that were opposed to it were made up of 6 democrats, 6 republicans, and 1 independent. More research and names on the way.

  • Duncan

    Treason.

  • vin

    Anyone who would conspire to deny Americans their inalienable rights provided by the United States constitution is a terrorist. These 93 lawmakers are terrorists.

    • Florian

      The US armed services all swear an oath to uphold the constitution against enemies forgein and domestic.

      Well… doesn’t it kinda define “domestic enemy” if somebody plots and implements a plan to violate the constitution? So technically, the government is now a domestic enemy and the armed service is sworn to defend against that.

      Awkward.

      • Rose B

        Suspicion is NOT proof. Remember “Innocent until PROVEN Guilty”? Apprehending and holding citizens….WITHOUT CHARGE! …. is a SERIOUS violation of our precious liberty. That’s what the Rule of Law is supposed to address. THIS law attempt to legitimize tyranny. We’ve been duped. We weren’t paying enough attention, and now we’re screwed!

    • Raymond Chandler III

      Not terrorists they are traitors.

    • chrissie

      Respectfully, Vin, the Declaration of Independence refers to our inalienable rights — life, liberty, pursuit of happiness — with which we are “endowed by our Creator” (not by the Constitution).

      • d. brown

        how refreshing to know there are still those who know such things about the foundation of this great country. Continue on chrissie!!!!!

  • Geert

    Thanks ‘vin’, ‘Duncan’ and others.

    They are indeed violating constitution. Already longer than during this bill. They are directly neglecting the effects of decline within our competitive scheme within our economy. Already for decades. Effects are malformed marketing as well as resulting insecurity and terrorism. Instead of informing about it, working the facts, these so called ‘leaders’ continue to jeopardize our (nations) security. They are indeed terrorists and guilty to treason. We should prosecute them, and take their right to be in Congress, making Congress a bogus unconstitutional institute. They have been misinforming our people on a very regular basis and they work according to a scenario which proves criminal intend. We need marketing to reform to quality assurance instead of revenue assurance as well. Would any of you readers have a clue how many damage, hurt we’ve already inflicted on other people worldwide, unconstitutionally? Do not believe you can escape from Newton’s third law; reactions equal actions. You have a responsiblity. Stand up now, inform yourselves and your fellow being and start getting real and correct leadership in Congress, otherwise government such as city councils and true judges that do not (let) violate our constitution. Thank you.

  • Josh

    Big Brother will protect us from ourselves.

    • This and That

      Umm do you really believe that?

  • http://telesio.wordpress.com jones

    With this bill it is I think clear that the 2000 elections were a legal coup.

    They’re already broadening the scope of this legislation. “For the DoD to instruct its employees that lawful protest activities should be treated as “low-level terrorism” is deeply disturbing in and of itself. It is an even more egregious insult to constitutional values, however, when viewed in the context of along-term pattern of domestic security initiatives that have attempted to equate lawful dissent with terrorism. Examples of this shameful pattern can be seen in the Pentagon’s monitoring of at least 186 anti-military protests”

    http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf

    To see more of the framework into which this latest legislation fits, you might look at John Yoo and his legal opinions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Legal_opinions

    One of his main “innovations” was to change the legal meaning of “unlawful enemy combatant” to avoid our obligations under the Geneva Convention. This is significant because, under the constitution, a treaty such as the Geneva Convention has the full weight of law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_order

    The constitutional problem with the Defense Authorization Act is primarily it’s violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights_into_due_process

    though, combined with efforts to chip away at habaes corpus and possee comitatus, obviously presents certain “Kafkaesqe” difficulties. Habaes corpus, of course, is a legal precedent some 900 years old, and it is not encouraging that elected officials would try to restrict it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#MCA_as_an_unconstitutional_suspension_of_habeas_corpus

    Due process has been eroded elsewhere too, such as where President Obama has recently authorized the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/30/anwar-awlaki-extrajudicial-murder

    Beyond the erosions of fourth amendment protections in the wake of the PATRIOT ACT, is the contention by Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden that there exists a classified interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT permitting the government to effectively expand the scope of the legislation, perhaps a legal opinion modeled after John Yoo.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/us/politics/justice-dept-is-accused-of-misleading-public-on-patriot-act.html?_r=1

    Finally, there is a parallel development of the militarization of police and the incorporation of local law enforcement into the national intelligence infrastructure. Local law enforcement is coupled with federal intelligence agencies through “intelligence fusion centers”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center

    and the sharing of military hardware with local law enforcement:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12

    This is all coupled with the creation of NORTHCOM under the 2006 Military Commissions Act (possee comitatus)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command#Related_legal_changes

    which is active, and was even mobilized during the BP oil spill, among other incidents and war games

    http://www.northcom.mil/news/2010/050510.html

    What all this means is that Congress is methodically codifying a parallel system of government and administration.

    Under Bill Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive 67 (superceded by Bush’s Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51) plans were put in place for a parallel executive function. Contemporary implementations of this planning began under Reagan through the “Restricted Interagency Group” and the “Rex 84″ tests

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

    and continue today under “Continuity of Operations” activated in the wake of the 911 attacks

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._government_response_to_the_September_11_attacks#Invocation_of_the_continuity_of_government

    The Military Commissions Act creates a parallel judicial system, allowing the government to choose based on arbitrary circumstances how individuals will be handled, what rules of evidence apply, and how court proceedings are to be conducted. This contradicts the principle of “rule of law.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

    That’s the quick rundown on what these people are doing.

    • Soryang

      Yoo’s legal arguments concerning indefinite detention of “enemy combatants” is based upon misuse of the terminology of the law of armed conflict. Those who are only detained are detainees. Captured enemy combatants are prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are detainees who have engaged in criminal activity. Yoo conviently doesn’t distinguish the two categories, in effect, by making the false factual assertion that guerilla war and sabotage are something new. The failure to distinguish among the different classifications reveals a total disregard for the Geneva Conventions. An unlawful enemy combatant is not a member of a recognized and identifiable armed force of a state. Therefore he or she is merely a criminal at large and held as a “detainee.” A detainee is by definition not a citizen of the state who detains them. An unlawful enemy combatant, is held as a detainee subject to criminal prosecution. In an occupied territory this could be by the martial tribunals of the detaining power or the criminal courts of the host nation or the criminal courts of the nation to whom the detainee belongs as a national. Guantanamo is none of these legally when dealing with a US citizen.

    • LexRex

      Superb. Thanks for the links

    • Rose B

      Well stated and documented. Thank you.

  • atom sarni

    interesting, of course this new ‘law’ is now being put into place since occupy movement has the U.S. government uneasy about a possible non-violent revolution; wealth inequality has harmed and/or destroyed societies in the past. The 1% will not go quietly, or quickly, or without a fight. Those whom have and print the money, make the laws so everything they do is nice & legal.

    Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
    http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDTalks_video+%28TEDTalks+Main+%28SD%29+-+Site%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

  • Rustydog

    Before 911, there were definitions of soldier, citizen, combatant, mercenary and the like. How you classified determined which system of justice had jursidiction; militay or civilian. Post 911, a new term has come into use- the “enemy combatant”. Both the Federal Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court disagree as to the extact definition of this new class of “enemy”. In a nutshell, if you are designated as an “enemy combatant” by either the president or the department of defense, then the traditional rule of law no longer applies; or the 3rd or 4th Geneva Convention articles- citizen or not.

    • chrissie

      Prosecute and dismantle the Clandestine Imposters of America and the Consolidated Instigators of Aggression

  • Fateh

    @vin – Absolutely correct.

    Sadly, I’m going to bet this law will first take effect upon an American protestor petitioning for redress of grievances who perhaps ends up using a little bit of excessive force (perhaps unjustifiably, perhaps out of anger) who will be detained under this law, within the next 12 months. In other words, the first victim of US Sponsored terrorism on it’s own citizens, will be an Occupy Protestor, protesting against the government, and he/she will be arrested and labeled a terrorist before the end of 2012. And it will spark a real riot, rather than a peaceful one. Ironic, isn’t it.

  • 27 year old college grad

    This.

    Reading about this just makes me want to cry.

    I believed in my country, the U.S.A., so damn much.

    I’m going to have to do away with my idealism, my beliefs in the good of men, and become hardened, cold, and tough.

    I will have to learn to quietly dissent. My online identity will be scrubbed completely because my views may be considered inciting terrorism.

    The Occupy Movement hit the nerve so much that they are clamping down on all of us, again saying this is to protect us. (Or better yet, not saying anything at all.) Exposing the way they fleeced our country, our political system, our environment, our health, our economy, our dreams. . . Exposing them has resulted in this clamp-down.

    My family won’t understand. My friends are barely catching on. They have no idea what is about to be taken from them.

    I’m in love with a man from the military. Will he be coming to arrest me? Will I have to fight him on the battleground that is the United States?

    This isn’t a damn game: this is very real. And it could happen very soon. . .

    • Mother, Wife, Daughter,…. American

      I can relate to how your feeling. I knew for several years something was very wrong and I was so glad when people started to wake up and protest and see what was going on. But now….I love my country and am crying!!!!! I realize somewhere along the line we lost our freedoms…we only thought that we were really different from other countries. As the quote says “No one is more enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free”.

      No one close to me sees what is going on and they think that I am paranoid. I am afraid for our country, my family, and our world. What have we become? What do we do?

      Wish you all peace

    • Said says

      I doubt it, but maybe the government has knowledge that would make this necessary.

      Either way I wouldn’t want to live in this country.

    • JM

      The news is indeed sad and depressing. However, there is still hope that America will wake up before it is too late. It is in this nation’s blood to fight for its rights; the day we keep silent is the day we lose that fight, so don’t give up! Talk to your boyfriend about his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Keep sharing your concerns with your friends. One person at a time, we can reclaim our country by spreading the message of liberty.

  • Michael Gutten

    Kick that traitorous jew levin and that homo Graham out of our govt! They don’t represent the vast majority of Americans who truly love America

    • Jason

      Totally not the spirit of the article or the comments after. I think being treacherous, unconstitutional traitors is more than strong enough, and factual.

    • Luke

      @ Michael Gutton: Excuse me, but as horrible as all of this is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation of anyone involved.

      Now more than ever, we need to stop dividing ourselves up based on such frivolous criteria; smaller groups are more easily conquered, after all. In the end, we are all Americans and we’re all going to have to face this situation. Together.

    • LexRex

      Don’t forget the PHONY “war hero” McCain.

      A low-life weasel who pulled his Daddy’s rank to pull hm out of his hot-dogging troubles, even after he got shot down in Vietnam. A scumbag who collaborated with the enemy, so even now, years later he tries to cover up his own treason and spilling his guts to the enemy (which resulted in increased US casualties after he got his private nurses) by demanding torture and unlimited warrant-less detention.

      Yeah, McCain got shot down and was injured in the crash, but he collected the rewards of better men than him who paid the last full measure of devotion because of his cowardice and collaboration with the enemy. For that same enemy McShame later did all he could to give MFN status too, while abandoning the hundreds of POW-MIAs left in prison camps, insulting their families and sabotaging efforts to secure the release of POWs. That’s a story the bought-and-sold national media buried for their favorite RINO.

      In the video above McCain huffs and puffs and bluffs about protecting the military he’s done everything he can to put in harm’s way. He rattles off meaningless statistics, and vague “anyone who poses a threat” blather. Well, just who is it that poses a threat? And who determines that threat Senator? What are the specific criteria, Senator?

      John McCain is the same lack-luster presidential candidate who soft-balled his campaign to let Obama take the White House — McCain, whose own natural citizenship required a Senate vote to approve, gave Obama a pass and has done all he could to keep the imposter in office!

      John McCain is the same creep that has worked for open borders and amnesty, but has levered this legislation to unconstitutionally suspend the Bill of Rights! John McCain is Obama’s favorite “Republican” because he’s such a reliable “bi-partisan” ally. You can tell from the video above that if Juan McCainez had his way, Rand Paul would be on a waterboard in Guantanamo tomorrow!

  • phobos2011

    What is to be done? Going on about our daily lives feels like acceptance.

  • sagechild

    I don’t know if I would ever want my American husband to ever cross the border into the United States again. Not that Canada isn’t without its own issues. This is sad. And scary. And will end ugly.

  • Robert Taylor

    Military records on my family go back to, and include, the revolutionary war, so how betrayed do you think we feel, (myself and 3 brothers are veterans).

  • Brian

    The ACLU’s claim that: “There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill).” is patently false. Paragraph (e) of Section 1031 states:

    “Nothing in this section shall be
    construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
    the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
    aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
    captured or arrested in the United States. ”

    Again, this is paragraph (e) of SECTION 1031, NOT Section 1032.

  • Soryang

    Ex parte Quirrin was wrongly decided as to petitioner Haupt, the US citizen. Read Ex parte Milligan one of the greatest legal documents ever written.

  • charlie m

    Doesn’t ANYONE actually READ the whole thing? Does anyone actually not just take things out of context?

    Go here and find for yourself – http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf (Hint – there’s a Find function at the top. Punch in sec. 1031 – and READ THE THING!!!)

    sec. 1031 d.) – [Caps mine] Nothing in this section is intended to limit or EXPAND THE AUTHORITY of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    SEC 1031 e.) “Nothing in this section shall be CONSTRUED TO EXISTING LAW or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States…”

    In other words, all existing laws apply – even to “lawful resident aliens of the U.S.”

  • anonymous because no longer free

    thanks charlie….it’s so easy to get swayed by those who go straight to the fearful place without rational thot. And, I haven’t read it so I don’t know the reality of it either!

  • Dave

    Apparently they’ve forgotten WWII and the wholesale interment/detainment of Americans of Japanese descent. Which we later paid restitution for, admitting the act was wrong.

  • nouveaupoor

    Great, now we have a Gulag law so the corptocracy can arrest people who want to close their account at Bank of America.

  • nouveaupoor

    There is a reason the ACLU and others are concerned about this legislation. The wording is contradictory in two different parts, and according to a legal expert therefore can be construed to override the clause exempting American citizens.

  • nouveaupoor

    Here’s what the ACLU said:

    “There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

    But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

    I don’t know if you want to take Graham’s word for it. But I think there is still cause for concern, if not outright mass panic.

  • concerned citizen

    the legislation follows the aba memberships’s long term desire to abolish “bail” in favor of “detention” and “release”. it started in 1950’s and 60’s and culminated with the bail reform act of 1966. that led to bra 1984 – which finally gave u.s. judges the discretion to preempt the right to bail with detention either inside the four walls of a jail, or via gov’t supervised alternative detention schemes like daily reporting, daily drug testing, electronic ankle bracelets, house arrest, etc… approximately 95% of all accused’s awaiting trial are incarcerated/supervised/monitored by the fed gov’t pending their trial. thats right – 95%. this new pending legislation now plugs in the military justice system into the equation. aba membership wins (the miltary court system needs miltary lawyers too) – you the citizen – lose. just think of all the future money and lawyer jobs that will be spent/created on motions litigation appeals etc… haggling this issue, case by case – ad infinitum – in the years to come, then multiply that amount by 100 to get the true amount the taxpayers will fund – another legal industrial complex win. ka-ching.

  • Thalia Anne

    Wouldn’t like half of our military say fuck it anyways instead of following this bill? I mean our military actually knows what an actual “terrorist” is, and once they are told who the person is and why Wouldn’t they just say no? I’ve just been wondering this for a while now…

    • This and That

      Most of the time though the military personnel aren’t told why, but just told to do or given the minimum Intel to get the job done. Soldiers aren’t bred to ask why but to carry out actions.

  • JAQUEBAUER

    WE have lost any resemblance of a representative government. Congress is a lap dog to Obama, and we are but hours away from being a police state. This Obama will use this to confiscate our guns, by declaring a class of weapons as verboten. Then confiscation begins. A 30 day grace period then you are declared an enemy if you fail to turn over your prize collection. No reimbursement either. Possess one round and its the gulag. Possess a contraband weapon and you are shot on sight.

  • Clem Kadidlehopper

    The Extraoridinarly rich pull the strings
    By David Rothkopf
    WASHINGTON: We didn’t elect them. We can’t throw them out. And they’re getting more powerful every day. Call them the superclass.

    At the moment, Americans are fixated on the political campaign. In the meantime, many are missing a reality of the global era that may matter much more than their presidential choice: On an ever-growing list of issues, the big decisions are being made or profoundly influenced by a little-understood international network of business, financial, government, cultural and military leaders who are beyond the reach of American voters.

    In addition to top officials, these people include corporate executives, leading investors, top bankers, media moguls, heads of state, generals, religious leaders, heads of terrorist and criminal organizations and a handful of important cultural and scientific figures. Each of these roughly 6,000 individuals is set apart by their power and ability to regularly influence millions of lives across international borders. The group is not monolithic, but none is more globalised or has more influence over the direction in which the global era is heading.

    Doubt it? Just look at the current financial crisis. As government regulators have sought to head off further market losses, they’ve found that perhaps the most effective tool at their disposal is what the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank described to me as their “convening power” their ability to get the big boys of Wall Street and world financial capitals into a room or on a conference call to collaborate on solving a problem. This has, in fact, become a central part of crisis management, both because national governments have limited regulatory authority over global markets and because financial flows have become so large that the real power lies with the biggest players such as the top 50 financial institutions that control almost $50 trillion in assets, by one measure nearly a third of all assets worldwide.

    Most major companies are both bigger and more global today, which effectively makes them able to pick and choose among various governments’ regulatory regimes or investment incentive programmes. They play officials in country X against those in country Y, gaining leverage that makes the old rules of trade obsolete. The world’s biggest corporations, such as Exxon or Wal-Mart, have annual sales (and thus financial resources) that rival the gross domestic product of all but the 20 or so wealthiest nations. The top 250 companies in the world have sales equal to about a third of global GDP (these are very different measures, but they give a rough sense of relative size).

    Major media organizations such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which is effectively controlled by a single individual, touch far more people each day than any national government can. Just a few weeks ago, Italian media billionaire Silvio Berlusconi once again used his extraordinary resources to win election as prime minister, which will give him a seat at G-8 summits and other global conclaves. Even global terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda or Hezbollah have both the ability, through their international networks, and the will to project force more effectively on an international level than all but a handful of governments.

    The people who run these big international organisations can have much more power over key aspects of your daily life and over global trends than most officials in Washington are likely to have, except in the most extreme circumstances. They can affect investments and job creation, shape culture and influence lawmakers. The Federal Reserve Bank has played a critical role in the financial crisis, but it couldn’t have intervened successfully without a financial leader like Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, which stepped in to purchase the failing investment bank Bear Stearns.

    The rise of the global superclass signals the latest evolution in the age-old tale of the few who corner the market on power. There have always been elites. But this contemporary group is very different from those that preceded it. Study these 6,000 or so individuals, and you’ll find that unlike past aristocrats who inherited their wealth, many Bill Gates, for instance, or Warren Buffett have built their fortunes over their lifetimes. Many more come from the worlds of business, finance and media than in the past.

    In a world with only two kinds of international institutions weak and dysfunctional the members of this superclass are filling a power vacuum when it comes to influencing decisions about transnational issues such as financial-market regulation or climate change. (Many countries voted for the Kyoto accords on global warming, but it took just Exxon and a handful of other oil companies to successfully lobby the White House to opt out and undercut the entire initiative.) In so doing, they raise real questions about the future of global governance. Will the global era be more democratic or less so? Will inequality continue to grow, as it has for the past three decades of this group’s rise, or recede? Will the few dominate because the government mechanisms that traditionally represent the views of the many are so underdeveloped on a global scale?

    One distinguishing characteristic of the superclass is the concentration of extreme wealth in the hands of so few. Inequality has always existed in the world, but the international trend toward leave-it-to-the-market policies of the past 25 years has resulted both in great growth worldwide (what superclass member Martha Stewart might call “a good thing”) and in growing inequality (not so much, as superclass member Jon Stewart might say). Today, the world’s more than 1,100 billionaires have a net worth that’s roughly double that of the bottom 2.5 billion people on the planet. The richest 10 per cent of adults worldwide own 85 per cent of global wealth, while the poorest half only barely one per cent. The world’s almost 10 million millionaires have seen their wealth double to nearly $37 trillion over the past 10 years.

    Growth is taking place, but it is disproportionately benefiting the few. And there’s a sense that the issue of class conflict, confined not too long ago to the ash heap by our (premature) celebration of the “end of history” after communism’s fall, remains with us.

    A backlash is inevitable. Are these elites especially talented? Hard-working? Lucky? Some are all of these things. But conspiracy theories don’t hold water in a group whose members are so diverse and self-interested. Still, when their self-interests align to cause them to act together, they can be hard to resist. They often get their way and thus often get much more than the rest of us. And that leads to angry reaction. “When a CEO is making more in 10 minutes than an ordinary worker’s making in an entire year … something is wrong, something has to change,” Sen. Barack Obama declares on the stump. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton chimes in that “it is wrong that somebody who makes $50 million a year on Wall Street pays a lower tax rate than somebody who makes $50,000 a year.”

    The next US president will still be the most powerful person in the world because of his or her control of the nation’s unparalleled military might and influence over our economic and political resources. But that influence is on the wane, for a number of reasons: the relative decline in the power of national governments; the relative rise in the power of others in the world’s fastest-growing places; US trade and fiscal deficits; and a third, geopolitical deficit arising from both damaged national prestige and what might be characterized either as Iraq fatigue or as having learned from the mistakes of the past several years.

    None of this makes the decision that US voters will make in November less important. Government still offers the average citizen the best means of counterbalancing the superclass or redressing growing inequality. And governments will have to play a key role in shaping the new regulatory frameworks and governance mechanisms that will be essential to a more balanced distribution of power in the global era. But what it does mean is that “change” isn’t just a slogan in this year’s campaign. It’s a reality that will redefine the landscape of power worldwide for US presidents of the future.—Dawn/ The LAT-WP News Service © The Washington Post

    Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is the author of ‘Superclass: The Global Elite and the World They Are Making’.

  • Josh

    The military isn’t going to go out and start executing US civilians in large numbers… but just because they are human/real people too… does NOT mean they will make their own decisions and stand up for what’s ‘right’ here. Soldiers take commands (PERIOD). If a soldier is given intel that labels a US citizen as a terrorist… and simultaneously given ORDERS to detain this citizen using any means necessary… the soldier WILL follow those orders.

    This IS a very dangerous bill with wording that CAN be interpreted in a horrific way (and look at the way even seemingly clear laws are already being twisted) – so we SHOULD all be very worried, involved, and active!

    Will we see violent reactions towards our socialist, constitution-stomping ‘government’…? Probably not until it’s too late (if it isn’t already). You see… those who would oppose this, can easily be silenced by this (the ‘law’) with no due process.

    Who’s standing in the way of ANYTHING now? Well… legally… nobody. If you don’t believe you should EXERCISE your 2nd amendment rights – you should sit down, shut up and start supporting the direction we’re headed in – because WE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT immensely… the scales should be more even… the people need to BE free (not just ask for it, hope for it, talk about it) – but DO IT. If anybody attempts to infringe upon that – ensure you’re already prepared. JOIN a local militia! Not one around? Start one – even just your friends/family/neighbors. Alone we are vulnerable – together… we’re a force to be feared.

  • Josh

    Bottom line: Go buy a gun for yourself and everyone you love – and stock up on ammo – if you don’t need them, your children/grandchildren will.

    Again – strength in numbers!!!

  • World

    This is Treason !!!!! They are Traitors , and I know for a Fact the people are too stupid and lazy to care and to even do anything about it , COWARDS !!!!!!!!!

  • yo man

    Its not long till this indirect dictatorship take direct control. Look at how easy they can do it with just the roughly million mercs in our armed forces who r a political don’t care about net hing but there paycheck n survival, the millions of Allah praisrs who follow the propaganda to destroy the western civilization, and worst of all the artificial intelligence in national geographic trained with in fort benning Georgia that will have the technology to know who to shoot n when to shoot in a couple years. The only way to survive this is gonna be making a compound with alternative energy n an indoor produce garden or ur gonna be a slave for the rest of your life unless u wanna live outside there capture where u have to eat others to keep ur kids alive almost like the movie the road. We can’t do anything about this but spread ur words to neone u can make it common knowledge before they succeed more than the nazis, they r ruining ur soil n ripping up ur constitution. They made u something our forefathers were not… citizens r what u r, when u should be sovereign nationals, next kid u have should not have a social security number

  • Jev Adiah

    It’s not like someone who is already indefinitely detained in some hole is going to get a lawyer, and complain about all of this. The military is already detaining people at black sites…….

 

 

Twitter