URGENT! Senate Moves To Allow Military To arrest/hold Citizens W/O trial Vote Mon or Tues

[KingRobbStark]

It would seem the Patriot Act is not enough. It would seem that they need a bigger cock to fuck us over.

 

[Spikkle]

It would seem the Patriot Act is not enough. It would seem that they need a bigger cock to fuck us over.

S 1867 -- I guess we didn't get up to "1984" this year. Here is some information about it:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...n-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

And the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112ghDvp8

I read the bill, and it is very difficult to pin down. The relevant text in the bill basically requires a determined link to a specific organization (al Queda), but the entire document is really a "change description" to existing laws. Piecing the whole thing together would require following the instructions in all the parts of this bill and applying the changes to the referenced laws (which probably have other "change references") and merging the final result. Way too complex (by design?) for most people. One of the most interesting data points in the whole bill are the budgets (you can see where the 450,000,000 -- 450 Billion) is allocated down to the base level, and that it makes extensions to all existing citizen monitoring laws until 2017. Also of interest is that it documents the where the larger portions of our men and women in the service are deployed in conflict, including Africa, besides the "usual" places.

What stands out to me is this... the bill doesn't get specific about removing rights from citizens. BUT, that is what it's supporters are basically saying that it does. I wonder... What is hidden that I cannot see?

 

[patriot2008]

You can contact Right through the ALCU page with an already printed letter and it will automatically go to YOUR own congressman. I just changed a bit of the letter to let them know how serious and sneaky I thought this move was!


Direct link with ready made letter on this! https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

 

[sailingaway]

S 1867 -- I guess we didn't get up to "1984" this year. Here is some information about it:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...n-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

And the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112ghDvp8

I read the bill, and it is very difficult to pin down. The relevant text in the bill basically requires a determined link to a specific organization (al Queda), but the entire document is really a "change description" to existing laws. Piecing the whole thing together would require following the instructions in all the parts of this bill and applying the changes to the referenced laws (which probably have other "change references") and merging the final result. Way too complex (by design?) for most people. One of the most interesting data points in the whole bill are the budgets (you can see where the 450,000,000 -- 450 Billion) is allocated down to the base level, and that it makes extensions to all existing citizen monitoring laws until 2017. Also of interest is that it documents the where the larger portions of our men and women in the service are deployed in conflict, including Africa, besides the "usual" places.

What stands out to me is this... the bill doesn't get specific about removing rights from citizens. BUT, that is what it's supporters are basically saying that it does. I wonder... What is hidden that I cannot see?

Makes extensions to all citizen monitoring laws until 2017? So this includes an automatic extension of the Patriot Act and FISA through the NEXT Presidential term, essentially? On top of the indefinite detention without trial or charges?

 

[Soldier of Liberty]

S 1867 -- I guess we didn't get up to "1984" this year. Here is some information about it:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...n-That-Allows-U-S-Military-to-Detain-American

And the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112ghDvp8

I read the bill, and it is very difficult to pin down. The relevant text in the bill basically requires a determined link to a specific organization (al Queda), but the entire document is really a "change description" to existing laws. Piecing the whole thing together would require following the instructions in all the parts of this bill and applying the changes to the referenced laws (which probably have other "change references") and merging the final result. Way too complex (by design?) for most people. One of the most interesting data points in the whole bill are the budgets (you can see where the 450,000,000 -- 450 Billion) is allocated down to the base level, and that it makes extensions to all existing citizen monitoring laws until 2017. Also of interest is that it documents the where the larger portions of our men and women in the service are deployed in conflict, including Africa, besides the "usual" places.

What stands out to me is this... the bill doesn't get specific about removing rights from citizens. BUT, that is what it's supporters are basically saying that it does. I wonder... What is hidden that I cannot see?

This seemed pretty cut and dry, but tell me if I am missing something.

Section 1032

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

I read it here, and verified it here.


The first link above raised some valid questions to me. Why didn't the ACLU simply link to the offending passages of the bill, instead of trying to direct us to their message system for the Congress/Senate? In the first link the author is claiming the Udall amendment will do what the original complaints against the bill are alleged to do.

SOL

 

[sailingaway]

This seemed pretty cut and dry, but tell me if I am missing something.

Section 1032



I read it here, and verified it here.


The first link above raised some valid questions to me. Why didn't the ACLU simply link to the offending passages of the bill, instead of trying to direct us to their message system for the Congress/Senate? In the first link the author is claiming the Udall amendment will do what the original complaints against the bill are alleged to do.

SOL

thanks, I'm looking for it. I had to stop and comment on this definitional change however:

Expansion of scope of humanitarian demining assistance authority
to include stockpiled conventional munitions.

does that jump from Title XV directly to Title XXI?

 

[sailingaway]

This seemed pretty cut and dry, but tell me if I am missing something.

Section 1032



I read it here, and verified it here.


The first link above raised some valid questions to me. Why didn't the ACLU simply link to the offending passages of the bill, instead of trying to direct us to their message system for the Congress/Senate? In the first link the author is claiming the Udall amendment will do what the original complaints against the bill are alleged to do.

SOL

OK, I haven't read the whole thing, but that says that one section's provisions for detaining people, which go even FURTHER than 1031 has that caveat. It doesn't impact Section 1031 as far as I can tell, which says"

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-
7 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
9 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-
13 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
20 sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS360
•S 1867 PCS
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.
3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
4 position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-
17 try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.
(e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2)

Note that under Section 1032 they are to be held in MILITARY custody, and there is no 'or' regarding even military tribunals (which are not REQUIRED but only an OPTION in 1031), and no reporting to congress regarding individuals held. That is the one that has a 'no citizen' caveat and a 'no permanent legal resident so long as it is regarding actions performed in the US' (I guess they can grab you on suspicion in another country if you are a legal permanent resident. Don't go on vacation abroad, is the moral here....)

And when you note that both categories can be held without trial, that isn't all that comforting.

I also find eerie that statement that 'this is not intended to expand presidential powers' indicating agreement that that had been allowed all along.

 

[Carehn]

I left messages that may get me on a list. I can't hold back the rage this puts me in. I know it will pass because every thing i oppose always passes.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.”

Worthless POS that broad is, glad I left that line blank last go around.

NH's federal representation is awful.

I'd just as soon have democrats, although I suspect that Shaheen is for this as well.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Listen guys, here's how it works:

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military

You just have look at the article and how its parsed, without reading through 3000 pages of legal bullshit.

Wherever the president decides to use the military, under this bill, the military will have the "right" to detain anyone, indefinitely, without trial, even if a US citizen.

So all the president has to do is declare an emergency, call out the NG, or use the military for the Drug War, (which happens all the time) and there you go, "indefinite detention".

 

[Anti Federalist]

I will not disocurage calling and e-mailing but I think most of you know as well as I do that it will do nothing. Every single message they get could be against this and they will do it anyway.

Pretty much that.

And there will be a little grumbling from the lunatic fringe and the refuseniks (that's us), nothing that can't be handily managed and this will sail through.

Literally the entire nation rose up in outrage against TARP, absolutely flooded and shut down, fax, phone and emails to DC, it ran 100 to 1 against...

And they just went ahead and did it anyway.

 

[sailingaway]

Pretty much that.

And there will be a little grumbling from the lunatic fringe (that's us) and the refuseniks, nothing that can't be handily managed and this will sail through.

Literally the entire nation rose up in outrage against TARP, absolutely flooded and shut down, fax, phone and emails to DC, it ran 100 to 1 against...

And they just went ahead and did it anyway.

they were beaten back for one vote cycle. They knew America hated it and knew they knew and were doing it anyway. They couldn't pretend it was uncontroversial.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Well if anyone was in denial. Welcome to the Police State Folks!

 

[Aden]

Rand should filibuster this.

 

[sailingaway]

Rand should filibuster this.

If he can. Fillibuster only means making it take 60 votes to pass, now. One person can no longer talk it to death. If it is overwhelmingly going to pass, it doesn't help. But I am very interested in what he will do.

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Okay, everypeoples.

Time to stop thinking of Alex Jones as some kind of nut. That goes for Jesse Ventura as well. Folks like them are only nutty until they're proven right, as they are being proven correct now.

John McCain and some Democrat wrote a bill stripping Americans of their Civil Rights at the whim of the President. Any one of us on these forums could be deemed a threat (a domestic terrorist), picked up, and hauled away to a concentration camp. It's not like our government has done this before or anything, like to the Japanese in WW2. Nah.



Take the Red Pill. Every day. Dr. Paul's orders, lol.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

If this is not the inspiration that fence sitters need to put everything they have into getting Ron Paul elected Commander In Chief... well... I don't know what it would take.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Has everyone been using their social media accounts to getting the word out to eceryone... even the few corporate media marionettes that have the balls to bring this up on air?

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Has everyone need using their social media accounts to getting the word out to eceryone... even the few corporate media marionettes that have the balls to bring this up on air?

I have posted it on my Facebook but outside of the usual crowd (Ron Paul supporters), nobody gave a shit! They have better things to worry about such as football and what is on sale at Wal-Mart.

 

[affa]

Why is the media no reporting this? Not just msm, nothing. Is somebody interpreting it wrong? In this day and age you can't pull a coverup of this magnitude off. I wrote my senators anyway, actually reading it before voting would be nice.

sure you can. heck, they don't report on important things all the time.