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 can put this kid in jail too!
This is insane. The U.S. is set to become the great terrorising nation of the world, as they create laws that extend U.S. powers to other sovereign nation’s jurisdictions. Clearly not legal by other nations, but as long as it’s legal from the U.S. side then who cares, or so they seem to think.
All this talk about “security” just makes me feel so much more insecure. I want less of it, not more.
“EVEN Rep. Ron Paul”?
What do you mean *even*?!
The “Patriot” Act was just the beginning.
The inmates are clearly in control!
I am so glad McCain isn’t running for president again. I voted for him as I held my nose.
he is a disgrace.
Having been imprisoned and tortured you would think he would be rather more sensitive or at least give a rats bleep about the Constitution but nope.
Having been a constitutional law professor, you would think President Obama would be rather more sensitive or at least give a rats bleep about the Constitution but nope.
None of them give a rats bleep about the Constitution.
THROW THE BUMS OUT
Or Obama being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient
Clearly, representatives need a crash course in Civics & Constitutional history.
Sad.
We have nothing to fear. The Dem’s control the Senate.
And we know those peace loving Dem’s would NEVER vote for something as heinous as this!!
Kinda late for you to be frightened at this point. Your attempt to distance yourself from it is expected
i say these representatives need to be the first ones hauled in on this for treason.
🙂 have a nice day
The White House threatens to veto the bill. The Sec Defense says it’s a bad idea. It certainly sounds unConstitutional. So, I can understand why McCain would be for it. He’s never liked the idea of ‘posse comitatus.’ As an Arizonan, I’ve lived with the two-faced asshole for years. It just goes to prove we had no way to win in the last election.
Sadly, though O’Bama threatens a veto, I doubt he would. He’s always had a preference for getting rid of ‘posse comitatus.’ After all, he promised us a homeland army as well trained and armed as the expeditionary military!
Too bad Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance of winning. I’d almost be willing to put up with his isolationist policies just to get some freedom back in America.
Obama would like to dispense with Congress and rule by decree. Of course his spiritual father, Bush Jr., felt the same way about it.
“Too bad Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance of winning. I’d almost be willing to put up with his isolationist policies just to get some freedom back in America.”
As long as people think that, he doesn’t have a chance. Really need to change that.
The US military already has that power. See all the people in Guantanamo.
You got a point there. Libertarians don’t go for this sort of …police state behavior.
The progressive Democrats and the progressive Republicans will both vote for just about anything that grows the power of the Federal government. As far as they’re concerned the Constitution is dead.
“See all the people in Guantanamo.”
ATTEMPTED ex post facto law COMING SOON?
“The US military already has that power.”
Nope, that’s wishful thinking. The bill may be a CYA just in case someone else besides me notices, and brings it to the court.
Yeah, and if “The Committee” decides that the evil civilians are guilty, then drone the bastards!
WTF
I mourn for the nation I once though I lived in.
FUCK Levin
FUCK McCain
GO TO HELL
Those who forget history are doomed to relive it. Anyone remember the NAZIS?
Retroactive CYA for the people they are already holding without charges: This might be a key motivating reason for their worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill
A BRAZEN ATTEMPT TO COVER THEIR OWN ASSES FOR PAST LAWBREAKING BY GOVERNMENT?
Ooops, wait a sec., what’s THIS LITTLE THINGY?
Section 9 – Limits on Congress
No ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The only way to get rid of these slime buckets and douche bags is to crater the economy.
Then you’ll see the rats desert the sinking ship.
Sad to say things are going to have to get worse for them before they start to get better for us.
Your cancer chemo treatment on the economy is ridiculousness.
11/25/11 There are occasions in American life — and they come too often these days — when you want to scream: “what the heck has happened to this country?!”
— The Idea of America
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-idea-of-america-3/
I don’t understand something in the ACLU linked article; The text references S. 1867, but when you click the “Senators need to hear from you” link it takes you to a mailing stating you “I strongly urge the Senate to oppose sections 1031 and 1032 in [b]S.1253[/b], the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). ”
I looked up S.1253 and S.1867, and they both have the same name and sponsor. However, the text for both seems different on both. Admittedly, I don’t know how to read political mess that is legislative English, so perhaps I just do not understand the meaning of the two bills? In any event, can someone explain to me why there are two different bills listed on the ACLU website?
Both seems different on both; my clear mastery of the English language. Sorry.
Wouldn’t this violate the posse comitatus act?
Actually, I suppose they would simply use a different branch of the military than the army, to skirt the law…not that the government really cares about the law any more.
Just how much of the camel is in the tent now? There is a “real issue” about “non State aligned non-military belligerents.” If there were thousands of them being arrested/confined every year and a demonstrated inability for the police/courts to deal with them, then I suppose this sort of thing should be considered? Streamlined military court of initial review I’d think would be a minimum. To expressly state no charge no trial does take our response to the penultimate maximum extreme short only of shoot them on sight.
Ex Post Facto? Does not arise. If we have detainees illegally held now but this new law, we simply release them and re arrest–ie, in their holding cells in situ.
What to do with non-aligned terrorist combatants? On American Soil? Who ARE Americans???? Just ask the Americans of Japanese Descent.
Same as it ever was—with less hope, fewer jobs, and more wealth disparity and getting worse all the time that is.
Ha, ha.
The Mighty Zero, having considered using TSA Troops, as well as an Obama Jugend, must be pleased….
As for the rest of us, why is anybody surprised?
Too bad the NVA didn’t do us all a favour and squash that evil little bug McCain when they had a chance.
Big creepy country you guys have. Enjoy!
Enjoy the occupation.
American politician = traitor. You people DO remember what you’re supposed to do with traitors, DON’T you?
This law is how they’ll round up millions of citizens for the Rex84 camps
MSB, there are 12,400 billionaires? and 4 million millionaires?
The source for this article, that is linked above, is the blog of the ACLU. Even many of the links within that appear to just go to other ACLU pages, so I have yet to see an original source description of the legislation. They do link to a PDF at whitehouse.gov when saying the WhiteHouse is threatening a veto. First part of the PDF,THe White House supports passage. Now, hos much weight should the reader give to the rest of the ACLU’s interpretation? The White House’s primary objections are what I said above, the military already has the authority as part of executive power, so they don’t see any reason to codify it. Also, they don’t like the idea of abandoning their fantasy notion of civilian trials for these people, so they object to the part that says military commissions only, and use the ACLU talking points to object, that it would lead to the military policing the streets.
So the military are policing the streets comes from a provision that bans civilian trials for people in Guantanamo.
“‘Even’ Ron Paul”? You should look him up. He is the only serious candidate who wants to stop everything bad like this at once. Ron Paul is the only high-profile politician who takes the Constitution and civil liberties seriously.
No doubt the US Supreme Court will rule that the Founding Fathers had never wanted “… the right to bear arms and kidnap people also …” as a philosophy, else they would’ve explicitly said so. If it ain’t in the Constitution, it ain’t legal.