States pile on against federal detention plan

WorldNetDaily ^ | Feb 16, 2013 | Alyssa Farah

[wesagain]

"Indiana, South Carolina both bucking idea of arresting, holding Americans"

WASHINGTON – Bills opposing the controversial National Defense Authorization Act have popped up in both the Indiana and South Carolina state legislatures.

The NDAA was harshly criticized by some as unconstitutional due to language in Sections 1021 and 1022 that allows for the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens without due process.

Both bills would nullify the NDAA in its current form by denying law enforcement or any government official the right to carry out any act of detaining a citizen without due process.

In Indiana, the bill passed through the Corrections and Criminal Law Committee unanimously after testimony from sponsor Sen. Jim Banks and Elkhart County Sherriff Bradley Rodgers.

In South Carolina, the NDAA Nullification Act S.92 passed the Judiciary Committee 16-4. The bill was pre-filed last fall by Sen. Tom Davis who called Sections 1021 and 1022, “a direct threat to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of South Carolina.”

The next step for the bills in each state is to reach the floors of their respective Senates for a vote.

Shortly after the NDAA’s signing a bipartisan team including former Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf and Ronald Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein went to work opposing the provision of the NDAA which allows for the detention of U.S. citizens.

“Journalists aren’t safe. Union leaders aren’t safe. Activists aren’t safe. Liberty is not safe,” Wolf, an author of half a dozen books, said during a conference call to supporters.

People Against the NDAA (PANDA) Indiana Team Leader James Kerner praised Bank’s testimony saying, “I suggest the ACLU, Occupy movement, Tea Party movement and Oath Keepers throw their full support behind Sen. Banks. He should be made a household .......

[driftdiver]

oh cmon we can trust our govt. /s

[beelzepug]

Has a national emergency been declared? Has habeas corpus been suspended?

Maybe the re-election of 0bama IS such an emergency but could the pResident declare martial law because of his own election?

[Sherman Logan]

In general Congress is considered the only body that can suspend habeas corpus under the Constitution, unless it delegates this power to the President.

There have been exceptions, but to my knowledge these were limited to the early days of the Civil War, when there quite obviously was an existential emergency threatening the government created by the Constitution.