S-1867/NDAA changes in 2012

[Gunner3456]

S-1867 for Dummies

Senate Bill 1867 | Cancer Truth

Lone Star Watchdog: Do Not Let Our US Senators Who Voted for S1867 Return Home With Honor

It would be really nice if these internet bloggers would actually quote verbatim, and name the section of law, which creates all this hype.

What they need to do is read section 1032 which absolutely exempts US citizens from the force of this hype.

Those bloggers are squirrels, and if they keep climbing up a woman's leg they still won't find any nuts.

 

[novamind]

Why Obama may veto S-1867

Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867 | Fellowship of the Minds

 

[Gunner3456]

Why Obama may veto S-1867

Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867 | Fellowship of the Minds

Are all internet bloggers nuts, or just the ones I run across?

 

[CommandoJoe]

Here's some food for thought:

<broken link removed>

Why are they even asking this question? That's not what the military is for... Future plans?

From <broken link removed>

The controversial part of this bill comes in sections 1031 and 1032. After reading the headlines, I assumed this was an atrocious bill that put us all at risk. Then I saw some people saying it was much ado about nothing because it actually DOES say American citizens are exempt. The actual wording of section 1032, subsection (b)(1) is here: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

So the supporters of the bill say, "see, it says it does not extend to the citizens of the United States. So what's the problem?" Well, here's the problem &#8211; what it says is "THE REQUIREMENT to detain" doesn't extend to citizens. Ah. Interesting wording. I think I would have prefered wording a bit closer too "Citizens of the United States SHALL NOT be detained . . ." Instead, what we got was something that is wide open for interpretation. And we've all seen how the geniuses in D.C. are at "interpreting" things. One way this can be read is that the detainment is not required, but can still take place if deemed appropriate. Another way it can be read is that IF a citizen is already detained, it's not required that the rest of this bill apply to them, although it can . . . if deemed appropriate.

I've been in the military, I know how "required" works. I heard many times, "by law, I cannot require you to do this . . . but if you like you're job, I'd suggest you do." So when I read, "the requirement to detain," I hear, "but if you know what's good for you, you will." And then, if a case goes to court, the powers that be can say, the detention of this person or group of people was not required, nor was the rest of this bill allowing for indefinate detention void of due process required . . . but the determination was made that it'd be in America's best interest to go ahead and act in accordance with this law. And just like that, citizens are detained and there was no violation of this law. Interesting how that works.

From: The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support | End the Lie - Independent News

As I have detailed in two past articles entitled Do not be deceived: S.1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act and S.1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial, the assurances that this will not be used on American citizens are hollow, evidenced by the fact that the Feinstein amendment to S.1867, amendment number 1126, which, according to the official Senate Democrats page, was an attempt at "prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens" was rejected with a 45-55 vote.

...

1) The Department of Defense actually put a question on an examination saying that protests are an act of "low-level terrorism" (which they later deleted after the ACLU sent a letter demanding it be removed).

2) Anti-war activists and websites are deemed worthy of being treated as terrorists and being listed on terrorist watchlists.

3) We likely will never even be told how exactly the government is interpreting S.1867.

In the case of the PATRIOT Act (which is overwhelmingly used in cases that are unrelated to terrorism in every way), there is in fact a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, as revealed by Senator Ron Wyden back in May.

In October, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit (read the PDF here) in an attempt to force the government to reveal the details of the secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act.

As of now, we still do not know how the PATRIOT Act is interpreted by the government, meaning that we have no idea how it is actually being used.

I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make the assumption that S.1867 would be interpreted in a straightforward manner, meaning that all of the assurances being made by Senators are worthless.

...

Glenn Greenwald verifies this in writing the following as an update to the post previously quoted in this article, "Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein &#8212; to confine military detention to those apprehended "abroad," i.e., off U.S. soil &#8212; failed by a vote of 45-55."

Furthermore, as I detailed in my previous coverage of S.1867, Senator Lindsey Graham clearly said, in absolutely no uncertain terms whatsoever, "In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn't apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland."

If US citizens are exempt, then why was an amendment proposed (#1126 - Subsequently voted down) "to prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens" ?

Why does the entire world, "including the homeland", need to be designated as "the battlefield"?
Is anyone really foolish enough to think that al-Qaida or any other terrorists are hiding behind every shrub in the neighborhood?

Of course there is potential for terrorism anywhere, but between city, county, and state law enforcement, the FBI, and Homeland Security do we really need the military to combat terrorism on US soil? If there were daily terror attacks going on in the US then it would be a different story. But once every 10+ years? I don't think so...

Even if Obama were to veto this bill, as it stands now there are more than enough votes to overturn the veto if they all voted the same way again.

 

[revjen45]

Is this not a Bill of Attainder, which is specifically banned in the Constitution (Article 1, Sect. 9)? It is unconstitutional on the face of it, and all of the buffoons, poltroons, lechers, liars, knaves, shysters, thieves, usurpers, and Quislings who signed it have declared war on the People of America. They will never be forgiven and I wish them a traitor's fate.

 

[Gunner3456]

Is this not a Bill of Attainder, which is specifically banned in the Constitution? It is unconstitutional on the face of it.

I don't know. A bill of attainder would punish someone without a trial. With our Constitutional revisionists, all they'd have to say is that it isn't punishment. After all, people are held without bail before trial now and it isn't considered punishment. It's considered to be for the good of the people. Punishment comes after conviction.

This is why we need Gitmo. On US soil, you couldn't hold and water board people without a trial - not even non-US citizens.

 

[slimmer13]

Internment / Resettlement Specialist | GoArmy.com

 

[revjen45]

Reply to Gunner3456: True dat. The Neue Reich would call it preventive detention or some other legaloid tripe. In the 3rd Reich it was called Nacht und Nebel (night and fog). The unfortunate recipients of the Gestapo's attentions disappeared, were transported to an enhanced interrogation facility (I believe that's what such are called now), tortured, and sent to a concentration camp if they survived. The "Nacht und Nebel Decree" was issued 12/07/1941, and that title makes a great way to refer to S-1867.

 

[Gunner3456]

Reply to Gunner3456: True dat. The Neue Reich would call it preventive detention or some other legaloid tripe. In the 3rd Reich it was called Nacht und Nebel (night and fog). The unfortunate recipients of the Gestapo's attentions disappeared, were transported to an enhanced interrogation facility (I believe that's what such are called now), tortured, and sent to a concentration camp if they survived. The "Nacht und Nebel Decree" was issued 12/07/1941, and that title makes a great way to refer to S-1867.

All true except I still can't find proof that the current amended version of the bill applies to US citizens. If it does, I can't see the ACLU or the SC tolerating it for 5 seconds. Someone would file for and get a temp injunction.

 

[CommandoJoe]

All true except I still can't find proof that the current amended version of the bill applies to US citizens. If it does, I can't see the ACLU or the SC tolerating it for 5 seconds. Someone would file for and get a temp injunction.

It doesn't specifically say it applies to US citizens, but it doesn't specifically exclude US citizens, which is how it should be and what amendment #1126 would have done, but it was voted down... Typical political trickery and wrangling as usual.

The controversial part of this bill comes in sections 1031 and 1032. After reading the headlines, I assumed this was an atrocious bill that put us all at risk. Then I saw some people saying it was much ado about nothing because it actually DOES say American citizens are exempt. The actual wording of section 1032, subsection (b)(1) is here: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

So the supporters of the bill say, "see, it says it does not extend to the citizens of the United States. So what's the problem?" Well, here's the problem &#8211; what it says is "THE REQUIREMENT to detain" doesn't extend to citizens. Ah. Interesting wording. I think I would have prefered wording a bit closer too "Citizens of the United States SHALL NOT be detained . . ." Instead, what we got was something that is wide open for interpretation. And we've all seen how the geniuses in D.C. are at "interpreting" things. One way this can be read is that the detainment is not required, but can still take place if deemed appropriate. Another way it can be read is that IF a citizen is already detained, it's not required that the rest of this bill apply to them, although it can . . . if deemed appropriate.

And with respect to the ACLU, it is on their radar...

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...ing-force-indefinite-detention-bill-americans

http://www.aclu.org/fixndaa

 

[Gunner3456]

And with respect to the ACLU, it is on their radar...

Behind Closed Doors: Congress Trying to Force Indefinite Detention Bill on Americans » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

Sometimes the ACLU does a lot of good, and here they probably will. Sometimes I disagree with them so much I could never join them. One example is their current effort to reverse state laws which require ID to vote. What? Do they want every illegal in the country to vote. Well, probably, LOL.

LINK

 

[timac]

The Devil himself wanted this,

Sherrie Questioning All: Senator Levin revealed - It was Obama who required the Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens as part of the wording!

 

[Navvet]

and you are surprised about our 2 Senators? Well get ready to move to the Florida FEMA site. Be just like the Indians. We will give you a new home with warm houses and lots of food. It will start small at first then snowball, most Americans will agree with it. See Germany circa 1933.

 

[timac]

Not suprised at all of our 2 traitors.

 

[chemist]

Yes, the Obama administration specifically requested the language in NDAA enabling indefinite detention without trial for American citizens seized inside the US:
Proof Obama will sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law in a few days - YouTube

Now as far as you yokels who think that there's a GOP fix to our corrupt elected officials and their march toward fascism, I have nothing but disdain for you. It would take a willfully blind fool to ignore all the horrible, unconstitutional laws and "findings" that were shoved through by the GWB administration.

Divide and conquer is how the politicians have kept us powerless for so long. When I ask about the qualifications and positions of "your" candidate, all I hear is how awful "my" candidate is. We've all been voting AGAINST candidates forever; it's time to find someone who is:
• honest
• qualified
• not an elite
• not a banker
• has two brain cells to rub together

But like Chomsky said, if voting could change anything it would be ILLEGAL.

 

[novamind]

This Link contains a Petition to Stop the Madness or Maybe Early Detainment in a Camp with a Better Bunk Choice.

<broken link removed>

 

[novamind]

Now the trumpet summons us again not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. " -- John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Adress, January 20, 1961

 

[novamind]

While Denial is Bliss-Reality is Harsh

poorrichards blog: Ron Paul: Defense Bill Establishes Martial Law In America

 

[novamind]

Well it has happened, America is morphing into a new country that resembles nothing seen before. While we watch T.V. and play our video games happy in our own little worlds changes have happened that most were unaware of. No time to care about anything but their own self centered ways trusting those in power to keep them safe. It can't happen to me, all this hipe is much to do about nothing. Just a bunch of crazy internet bloggers going off of the deep end!
Most have no Idea what they have lost, how long it will be gone, or how to get it back.

R.I.P. America

 

[revjen45]

Just guessing, but it seems like the cretins who came up with Fast and Furious can now be expected to come up with a false flag operation. The Bongo Regime desperately wants another term, and his poll numbers are dropping at the speed of free fall. Congress is even less popular and no less dangerous to our liberties. Expect some atrocity to occur with the intent to create the pretext for the Regime to use the newly granted powers of Nacht und Nebel.

The only difference between the Evil Party and the Stupid Party is the specifics of the agenda they intend to force upon We the Peons. Evil + stupid = despicable.