Posted on 11/25/2011 3:06:35 PM PST by Errant
Remember that debate between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, where Mr. Gingrich suggested we should expand and strengthen the Patriot Act in the name of protecting US citizens from terrorists? Mr. Gingrich indicated that there exists a line between criminal law and the war on terror, and that we need not worry the government will overstep its bounds.
While Americans enjoy the Thanksgiving weekend and join the annual running of the bulls celebration at malls and retail outlets, something sinister is taking place in Congress – and it should scare the hell out of you. If the President and Senate have their way, your front lawn will soon become a battlefield, and you’ll be subjected to military, not criminal, law.
From the ACLU Via The Daily Sheeple:
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. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. 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. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
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?
This is happening right now – IN AMERICA! A law that is designed to specifically bypass Constitutional protections and one that will undoubtedly be used against the American people to further advance and expand the national police state.
Once signed into law the President (or anyone of his minions within the Justice Department or Homeland Security acting on his behalf) can issue orders to arrest, detain and imprison an American citizen in the United States without due process. Since most terror arrests fall into the realm of national security, and therefore are secret, no evidence would ever need to be presented for the permanent detainment (and who knows what else) of an American imprisoned under this law.
This needs to be fact checked.
Take away that, and there is nothing holding down that lid.
People start getting grabbed off their lawn by the US armed forces, per the orders of some puke in DC, and there may well be lawmakers and enforcers of same sporting third eyes.
So, we just throw Amendment IV out the window? Folks, we cannot allow this to pass.
I sure hope that this isn’t true.
The thought of it makes me sick to my stomach.
we have that power now....just a little different wording...
Just asking
Check out the link to the Daily Sheepe @ the ACLU site. I'm not sure why the Senate even needs to be even voting on a Udall Amendment?
Never trusted Graham. IMO, the libbs have his FBI file or something and Mccain is McNutty...
I was bemused a few months ago to contemplate (right here on FR) fellows who said they were Marines, boasting of how they roughed up a civilian who was wearing a Marines T-shirt (not a piece of genuine or imitation official military garb) for a purpose not to their liking. They argued that they were the law with respect to such matters.
Isn’t this a trivial extension of the same thing, in fact is such a law even needed on the books?
Not at all if you ask me. The only law/act that seems to need to be strengthened is the Posse Comitatus Act
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
“Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk...”
OMG I agree with Obama about something!
“Check out the link to the Daily Sheepe @ the ACLU site. I’m not sure why the Senate even needs to be even voting on a Udall Amendment?”
I sound like the whole darn bill need to be 86ed.
Well, I meant aren’t the US armed forces, headed by the US President as Commander in Chief, already understood under the present legal system to have all authority over anything that might touch on a military purpose?
Or were those guys just woofing about a wildcat action and actually being a disgrace to the Marines?
Exactly!
SHTG doesn’t cite any passages from the bill.
“...The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets”
Probably more to the point. Amazing to read something sensible from those bumbling fools!
Things are Messed Up!
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.