Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield”

ACLU Blog ^ | 11/23/2011 | Chris Anders

[autumnraine]

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, 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.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

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.

[hershey]

Everything is tied to the presidential election. If the dems believe they’re going to lose big time, Obama can declare martial law by one of his executive orders, postpone elections, and then say he saved the US. Think occupiers smashing windows and burning cars from sea to shining sea, all at the behest of Obama. Soros, unions, dems, MSM, they won’t leave a stone unturned in an effort to steal that election. If you think this is impossible, where have you been the past three years.

[drypowder]

that’s what this legislation is about, the elites in DC know we the people have had enough of their corruption at our expense

[GlockThe Vote]

Agreed. While I loathe the ACLU, I find myself increasingly siding with them on a lot of things.

This is bi-partisan police state bs!

[GenXFreedomFighter]

READ THE BILL:

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.

... snip ...

(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.

The way I read this, American citizens and legal aliens are specifically exempted from the requirement to detain enemy combatants. So, can someone explain to me why there is cause for concern?

[Erik Latranyi]

There is a thread here from SSI about how federal agents have basically infiltrated every rightwing group in this country.

Some believe the agents can steer these groups away from acts of violence or towards acts of violence.

Imagine another Oklahoma City Bombing scenario tied to a right-wing group (which will be linked to the Tea Party, of course)and Obama’s ability to use this new power to lock them up.

[Sudetenland]

I've been searching for an alternative source for this report from a reputable, sane webpage and can find none . . . lots of OWS, Paul, DU, conspiracy sources, but nothing from the sane side of the net.

I think I'll wait for calmer, less emotional, more reliable sources to discuss this.

Wake me when the Heritage Foundation, Michelle Malkin, National Review, or one of the more mainstream, conservative sites mentions this before I over-react.

[xrmusn]

I don’t care if they are fighting with Al Queada, we all know how this can be abused.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Well, I have always contended that people such as the ‘American Taliban’ early on in these conflicts, should have been turned over to our ‘ally’ in the particular skirmish. Once one fires on US troops, knowingly or unknowingly, especially in a hot zone, they become fair game.
If these recent three students were indeed throwing fire bombs at either side they should remain there to ‘face the music’ of no matter who they had a gripe with.

There has been a lot of ‘hand wringing’ around here about the audacity of the Iranians ‘detaining’ US CIA Operatives.
Sorry, but they knew the risks when they signed on and we also have a tendency to arrest and, in some cases, execute, spies for a foreign nation in this country.

Used to be a saying back in the ‘day’ that “Every time Russia arrests an American for spying, America arrests 5 Americans for spying”....

[winodog]

I say they are almost all globalists who will say and do anything to stay on the gravy train as well as have a seat at the table when it all crashes down.

[Howie66]

I have news for them. They are on the verge of pushing us too far.

[ChildOfThe60s]

John McCain is a lying traitor.

And anyone that thinks Romney wouldn’t go along with all of this is on acid.

[muawiyah]

More likely we need to raise up a people’s militia to do hand to hand combat in the streets with those who would attack and destroy our government. Sure can’t expect Obama and his running dog lackeys to defend our system.

[gitmo]

I had to look up Posse Comitatus. I was pretty sure I knew what it was. This is from Wikipedia:

The Posse Comitatus Act is an often misunderstood and misquoted United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385 ) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.

The statute only directly addresses the US Army (and is understood to equally apply to the US Air Force as a derivative of the US Army); it does not reference, and thus does not implicitly apply to nor restrict units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.

If this Wiki article is accurate, then Posse Comitatus provides for Congressional overrides. Is that correct, and if so why would this bill be a violation?

Now that part of imprisoning citizens without charge or trial would be a clear violation of numerous Constitutional protections in my untrained mind.

I strongly dislike what I'm reading about this bill. Please comment.

[autumnraine]

I’m no legal scholar, that is exactly why I posted it. To get the minds of you guys to help me out.

[ronnie raygun]

This ones for you patriots

[NoNAIS]

What concerns me is the fact that an Amendment is being proposed to “exempt” U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil from this Bill:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/your-front-yard-is-a-battlefield-senate-to-vote-on-legislation-that-allows-u-s-military-to-detain-citizens-without-charge-or-trial_112011

“But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

---

1. If the Legislation is so dangerous, why pass it in the first place?
2. How are we supposed to read the 678 page pdf and decipher the entire thing in the few days provided to form an opinion?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=s%201867%20%22national%20defense%20authorization%20act%20%22&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FBILLS-112s1867pcs%2Fpdf%2FBILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf&ei=4iLQTqqyNYjo2gW5z_W_Dw&usg=AFQjCNGnu8a63PkbLr6qgYO2Kmma3w6soA&cad=rja

...smells bad. Does not pass the “stink” test of common sense.

[ChildOfThe60s]

At the risk of sounding tin foil hat-ish, I believe this indicates a concern on their part that the American people are getting closer to a tipping point.

IMO, the size and strength of TEA Party types is alarming them. This bill is intended for us, not for terrorists or enemy combatants outside the US.

This portends very bad things for this country in the *near* future. Do not automatically assume the the 2012 elections taking place is a given.

[skeeter]

My instincts were correct - if the ACLU is against it it must have some redeeming qualities.

[LucyT]

. . . . Red Alert.

Article, then comments # 1 through # 36 .

Thanks thouworm.

[Ajnin]

Why won't they specify to exclude the US Homeland

American Citizens and Legal Residents are specifically excluded.

[ChildOfThe60s]

The way I read this, American citizens and legal aliens are specifically exempted from the requirement to detain enemy combatants. So, can someone explain to me why there is cause for concern?

1) Slippery slope incrementalism. No matter what kind of power you give the federal government, they *never* stay within the original defined limits
2) Consider the source. These people are *not* trustworthy.