Posted on 11/28/2011 7:45:02 AM PST by jmaroneps37
As early as today the Senate could vote to strip us our 6th Amendment rights!
In a move that would make Joseph Stalin proud, Arizona Senator John McCain has joined Michigan’s Carl Levin in crafting a section of a bill designed to take away our rights to face an accuser and have a fair trial before being placed in prison.
A section of S. 1867 The National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by McCain and Levin would in effect give the President arrest powers. “… authorize the Chief Executive to order our military personnel to forcibly- if necessary- take any one, regardless of guilt or innocence, into custody without charges or a trial.
These “McCain – Levin” detainees could be held indefinitely with no due process or speedy trial.
As if this sneaky piece of garbage was not bad enough cowardly McCain and Levin pushed this bill through a Senate Committee in total secrecy with no public hearings or “leaks”….
Not a single Republican Senator brought this gross violation of our 6th Amendment rights to light. All of these feckless quislings turned their back on guarantees Americans have fought and died for over the past 236 years.
“…the 6th Amendment …..
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
What part of this wonderful document don’t these jerks understand?...
The saddest thing…..
(Excerpt) Read more at senate.gov ...
McLame is no friend of the Constitution. Remember McLame-Finegold?
I’ve read Section 1031, and it specificaly defines “covered persons” as 9/11 planners/helpers and members/supporters of Al Quaeda/Taliban “and associated entities”.
This is really overreacting. Yes, I understand the “nose under the tent” argument, but this ain’t it.
Colonel, USAFR
I guess if you spend enough time in a Communist POW camp some of their ideas do get planted in your mind. Never like McCain
If Dubya had proposed this as an anti-terrorist measure five years ago, at least half of FR would have cheered it to the skies.
I don’t believe the Constitution has a “people you really really don’t like at all” exemption for the rights therein.
McCain will do more damage to the USA than the viet cong with an anti-constitution police state measure like this.
Our lil pal Linsey Graham is also part of the gang.
Seem to have trouble finding the specifics of this Act.
But the Constitution specifically allows for suspension of civil rights by Congress under certain circumstances.
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
The wording is muddy and deliberately vague.
Captain Obama sees rebellion all over the place:
Georgia Businessman Who Hung “Not Hiring Until Obama Is Gone” Sign Reported To The FBI As A Threat To National Security
http://politicons.net/surprise-georgia-businessman-who-hung-%E2%80%9Cnot-hiring-until-obama-is-gone%...
S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION 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- Congress 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.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person 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) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by 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) Construction- 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.
(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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) 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.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after 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 effective date.
Elipsis: (...) Latin for you are about to be bullshitted by something taken out of context that is nowhere near accurate.
Though this is true, it is quite possible, considering the corruption of the court system as Western decadence has afflicted the United States, that corrupt courts will uphold this and render it de facto binding though illegal.
Exactly what threat are we facing that can’t be met by current law?
If you will notice and look back in time, except at election time Senate Republicans walk hand in hand with Senate Democrats.
.
Now, now don’t put any factual blockades before this firestorm of indignation...
That said, I don’t see any benefit to this law.
I think they were trying to make the law clearer for the military personnel- and this doedn;t do that IMO.
They should wait until the issues have been further explored in the courts.
Can you define ‘associated entities’?
Who exactly gets to 'define' said 'covered persons'? By oath or affirmation of any Elected Official? Any LEO? Who exactly? Is that defined in section 1031?
“Exactly what threat are we facing that can’t be met by current law?”
Obama needs to be able to crack down on protestors once he declares himself POTUS for life. This will allow him coverage and willing support of the military. That is, once he gets rid of those pesky heterosexuals in the military that are not in his pocket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.