[KalashnikovJosh]

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial | World news | The Guardian

WH OKs military detention of terrorism suspects - CBS News


This has also been covered by http://drudgereport.com/

Some blogs of interest-

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/12/14/house-lawmakers-pass-defense-bill/

A change to the detainee provision exempts U.S. citizens, but it does not guarantee suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens, a trial, and leaves open the possibility of indefinite detention.

Sipsey Street Irregulars: It begins. Predatory regime of both parties provides citizenry with another reason to shoot first and ask questions later when a raid party comes to your home.

We Have Crossed the Rubicon by Eric Peters

The CLAIM by the supporters of this odious Enabling act is that they won't be going after "common criminals" and only going after those affiliated with "Al Qeefda" or whatever.
Yet,we've all seen government get power directed at one specific object,and then expand it from horizon to horizon.This is what the entire problem with government has been about for at least 100 years.
Even longer.
By our 2nd presidency,we were having problems.
I again refer to the Alien and Sedition Act and the resulting Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

I would also like to remind readers that the REALITY is,that the Department of Homeland Stasi has on NUMEROUS occasions labeled those who's beliefs fall under the "constitution loving,God fearing,right wing" - "homegrown terrorists".

Excerpt from news article:
The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

So we again see the open-ended newspeak designed to counter anything but the broadest interpretation of this new government power-
"or associated forces"

The wording is such that any shyster lawyer for the government will be able to draw up a memorandum at some point in the near future equating, say, criticism of the federal government’s policies in the Middle East with “substantially supporting” the enemies of the United States. As defined by the United States.

That is, as defined by the government.(We Have Crossed the Rubicon by Eric Peters)

Of course,this verbal finagling falls way short of the REALITY of this new "law"-

If they can make you disappear,and not have to satisfy the 5th Amendment nor writ of habeas corpus,then they can take you for any reason and there is no challenge available to actually determine that you fall within the scope and purview of this "law". That is,unless you count a kangaroo court "military tribunal",which does not answer to the Constitution nor provide any sort of public purview where the actions of this government can be seen by all.

No way to make sure the law makers AND enforcers aren't breaking the very law they are using.
No check,no balance.

Nada.

"Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer."- Senator Lindsay Graham.

Being able to arrest and detain anyone it chooses without having to answer for such actions is the absolute hallmark of a totalitarian oligarchy.

Welcome to the Peoples Demokratik Socialist Nanny State of Amerika.

[neilage66]

A sad day which bodes ill for the Republic.

We have been declared the enemy...again.

[alsaqr]

Here is the entire US defense appropriations law. For your reading enjoyment; go to page 359, Subtitle D, Detainee Matters, and read sections 1031-1037.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
4 The disposition 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 Commis11
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 coun17
try, or any other foreign entity.

[opaww]

Buy more ammo but buy it quickly

[Firearms4ever]

This is just great........NOT!!!!

[alsaqr]

i hate working with PDF stuff. More:


(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

21 (21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
22ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.

[BigByrd47119]

As I have said before and I will say again, the greatest risk to the Second Amendment isn't attacks aimed directly at it. Its a whole lot bigger than that...

[texaswoodworker]

And so it begins. They will turn this around and use it against us. Anyone who does not comply with their ideals will be labled a terrorist and will never see the light of day again. This is the begining of the end of a free America. Some of you may think this will not happen, but look at the thousands of examples of this exact situation throughout history.

[alsaqr]

Deleted. Read the defense appropriations bill.

The bill specifically states that military detention does not apply to US citizens and resident aliens.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

[KalashnikovJosh]

And there lies the rub.
Why are senators like Graham saying stuff like this-

Graham added that it was right that Americans should be subject to the detention law as well as foreigners. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next," he said. "And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'"

If this does not apply to US citizens?

My guess is that if they declare you a "terrorist" or link you to a "terrorist organization",then are they claiming you've "forfeited your citizenship" as a result?

IMHO- this bill,like many others,if not ALL of them these days,are so full of legalese and carefully worded contractions,that we'll have to see what actually happens as a result of its passing.

And what Graham and McCain have to say about this bill is telling as to the intention of its drafters.

Historically,we can look to the Alien and Sedition acts to see how such broad legislation can in fact affect Americans- John Adams had a senator arrested under that law for referring to Adams as "his rotundness".
The poor guy spent 2 years in jail for that remark.......

In any case,we've seen the Obama administration ignore the 5th amendment when it came to Anwar al-Awlaki:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Personally,I'm not against using special forces or even mercenaries hired by the power of congress to issue marque of reprisals,to hunt down and capture these people,and bring them to face Constitutionally sanctioned justice- and if they resist,then so be it,they get popped.

But a missile strike without even attempt to capture?

On closing this post,I'd like to point out that Judge Andrew Napolitano,a man who is intimately familiar with the law as he has served in the justice system,has also raised the alarm about this issue along the same lines as others-
That this bill gives the military the power to detain Americans indefinitely,without access to due process or other protections as per the Constitution.

His show,Freedom Watch,airs on the Fox Business channel every night of the week.