[EjPWyPm4]

US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge

US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge

Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act NDAA) bill, currently being considered in the US Senate, would authorize the military to unilaterally abduct and imprison any person anywhere in the world without charge or trial—including US citizens within the United States.
if this is not vetoed and sent back for another vote then eny protest or anti war words could be construed as being against the government
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD...
WITHOUT CHRGE OR TRIAL...
ANY PERSON...
no matter the citizenship...

anyone acting or speaking out against the actions of the government is a trator .....
subject to military incarceration


The military detention provisions are written in impenetrable legal and military jargon and incorporated into an obscure section of a defense spending bill (sections 1031 and 1032 of Senate Bill 1867, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”).
During the official proceedings, many senators were unable to agree upon the meaning of these provisions, including whether US citizens would be subject to indefinite detention without trial.
“affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (B) pending disposition under the law of war.”
Covered persons under subsection (b ) include anyone “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.”

Translated in to plain English, this means that the US military can unilaterally cause any person to “disappear,” imprisoning him or her indefinitely—without trial, without a warrant, without the involvement of an attorney or a judge, without respect for international law, and without giving any reasons.

[rJohutozsfds]

US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge

US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge

Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act NDAA) bill, currently being considered in the US Senate, would authorize the military to unilaterally abduct and imprison any person anywhere in the world without charge or trial—including US citizens within the United States.
if this is not vetoed and sent back for another vote then eny protest or anti war words could be construed as being against the government
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD...
WITHOUT CHRGE OR TRIAL...
ANY PERSON...
no matter the citizenship...

anyone acting or speaking out against the actions of the government is a trator .....
subject to military incarceration


The military detention provisions are written in impenetrable legal and military jargon and incorporated into an obscure section of a defense spending bill (sections 1031 and 1032 of Senate Bill 1867, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”).
During the official proceedings, many senators were unable to agree upon the meaning of these provisions, including whether US citizens would be subject to indefinite detention without trial.
“affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (B) pending disposition under the law of war.”
Covered persons under subsection (b ) include anyone “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.”

Translated in to plain English, this means that the US military can unilaterally cause any person to “disappear,” imprisoning him or her indefinitely—without trial, without a warrant, without the involvement of an attorney or a judge, without respect for international law, and without giving any reasons.

I don't even think this court would uphold this law.

[Foriaelalse]

Fema camps baby

[eEwbYjOH]

I don't even think this court would uphold this law.

Yeah, I think if it passed, Scalia alone would have an aneurism. I think the US could very well be screwed if the family of the American citizen they assassinated as a terrorist took it to court.

[lh88gFzI]

Local spin:

Senate Passes National Defense Authorization Act; PA Sens. Have No Response on Indefinite Incarceration Provision | PhillyNow | A blog about Philadelphia news, politics and culture by Philadelphia Weekly


We’ve been contacting both Pennsylvania Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey all week to get the rationale behind their Tuesday votes in favor of Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Neither Democratic Senator Bob Casey, nor Republican Senator Pat Toomey have responded to PW’s calls for comment on this issue. Neither have commented to other news sources or on their websites, either.

Casey’s office sent out a press release praising the passage of the bill, though did not mention his votes in favor of Section 1031. Instead, his office wrote of the amendments Pennsylvania’s Democrat added to the bill, such as “Hold Pakistan Accountable on IEDs,” “Strengthen the National Guard” and “Require Sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran.”

[arreskslarlig]

Where are the local "Blame Obama" fans? Give them a few minutes to catch up.

[layevymed]

US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge

So you believe that this one bill defines freedom in America?

Please tell me you aren't that naive

[Blacksheepaalredy]

First off, consider the source of Preesi's post: The World Socialist Web Site. Secondly, nothing in the detention language applies to citizens and legal residents of the U.S.

Subtitle D, Section 1031:
"10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States."

Subsection (b) {emphasis added}
"8 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
9 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require11
ment to detain a person in military custody under
12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
13 States.
14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require15
ment to detain a person in military custody under
16 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
17 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
18 taking place within the United States, except to the
19 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
20 States."

Full text of the bill is available here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1867es.pdf

[plantBanceper]

I think this is allowed under the Commerce Clause since it affects interstate commerce.

[tweriaroats]

First off, consider the source of Preesi's post: The World Socialist Web Site. Secondly, nothing in the detention language applies to citizens and legal residents of the U.S.

Subtitle D, Section 1031:
"10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States."

Subsection (b) {emphasis added}
"8 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
9 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require11
ment to detain a person in military custody under
12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
13 States.
14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require15
ment to detain a person in military custody under
16 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
17 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
18 taking place within the United States, except to the
19 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
20 States."

Full text of the bill is available here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1867es.pdf

They altered it..before that stuff wasn't in the original.


UPDATE: The provision was finally altered to exempt “American citizens.” According to Time, “Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.” The Senate also blocked an amendment that would limit military custody to those terror suspects caught overseas, the goal of which was to make sure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.”

[orillaVar]

wonder how it will pass thru the house


votes

C-SPAN | Key Votes

when does accountability come in. i hear wells fargo just donated 100 million to jails in america
question
are they for our elite czars
or
for the general public

[c6vkuNRg]

They altered it..before that stuff wasn't in the original.

Bills go through mark-up sessions. They almost never pass unaltered....unless they're naming a post office. And, no, it's unlikely to pass the House.

[KuRoregioNka]

Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans — RT
The terrifying legislation that allows for Americans to be arrested, detained indefinitely, tortured and interrogated — without charge or trial — passed through the Senate on Thursday with an overwhelming support from 93 percent of lawmakers.
Additionally, another amendment within the text of the legislation reapproved waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” that are currently outlawed.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a backer of the legislation, says current laws protecting Americans are too lax. Rather, says the senator, anyone suspected of terrorism "should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer."

[Onervemurce]

hmmm.very confused about this bill...too long to read ...

OpEdNews - Article: S 1867: Killing The Bill of Rights and Declaring War on Americans

Harvard Law and Policy Review » SB 1867: when the war comes home

The buzz around the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, SB 1867, has been growing for months now. Rumors that I personally heard as early as July, said the bill would allow the military to capture and detain without trial U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

The text of the bill is more confusing, mainly because it’s so long. However, I believe the offending part is Sec. 1032 (a), which states that the military “shall” hold a person captured in the course of the war on terror in military custody until the military can determine the person’s disposition under the law of war.

There does not appear to be a territorial limitation on this directive, so it probably also applies within the United States. Sec. 1032 (b)(1) specifically states that the requirement to take to detain a person in military custody doesn’t extend to U.S. citizens. So, it’s not required, but does that mean it’s still allowable? Is it now OK to detain an American citizen in the U.S. without the traditional protections of the Bill of Rights?

The Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill because it attempts to micromanage the fight against terrorism. Despite the threat, the senate passed the bill that was authored by Carl Levin and John McCain.

When the war on terror comes home, its raises new sets of questions and makes us reanalyze what we are currently doing overseas. Acknowledging the fact that Al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists might be right here in the United States, I wonder how we would feel about drone attacks. Is an acceptable amount of collateral damage in Pakistan also acceptable in Pittsburgh?

[sleelverrex]

a declaration of war

Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians!

[BuyNetHosting]

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

video

Another Link With Video From The Huffington Post

Just Ignore Your Rights & They Will Go Away