Skip to comments.Lindsey Graham calls for using military against American citizens (Call Your Senators Now!)
Posted on 11/28/2011 2:08:59 PM PST by Bokababe
The US government has been slowly eradicating the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878. That act banned the US government from using the US military in domestic law enforcement. Over the past few decades the US government has repeatedly violated the act. However, many Republicans have insisted that the Posse Comitatus Act needs to be respected to protect the rights of American Citizens.
South Carolina's left-wing Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, however, is supporting provisions to eradicate Posse Commitatus and dramatically expand the powers of the Federal government.
The US Senate Armed Forces Committee, led by Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), held a secret closed door session to insert ominous new Federal powers into the Defense Authorization Bill. This is the annual bill to fund the US military. These new powers were requested by the Obama administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
What? Are you going to read all 682 pages?
Your post is very misleading, an you use the ACLU as a reference.
The bill is designed to cover only members of AL-Q and non-citizens of the US.
You called me what? Those are fight'n words!
Sounds like he wants his own version of “The Bonus Army”!
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.
17 (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
The offensive section is written so loosely that the bureaucrats who implement it can do whatever the hell they want. And when it all hits the fan these weasel senators who vote for it can say - this isn’t what I thought we were voting for.
“How did you find that so fast? Or did you help draft it?”
There are maybe three or four threads today on this. I did the research this AM. I already had the bill up because I was interested in the appropriations bill.
Is this so the military can legally sweep up tea party protestors?
Or, is this all about the coming economic collapse and the rioting and looting that will set fire to the nation’s concentrated Democrat parasite nests (”cities”) once the Democrat “free shit” armies start to receive less handouts from government?
Of course, I can’t see that happening. The Democrats would make sure the US military was pared down to the bone and every conceivable government function that benefits middle and upper class (especially white) taxpayers eliminated before the bums, deadbeats, and parasites who comprise the Democrat party “base” would get one dime less in handouts than they get now.
I'm aware and wish I could find a whole lot of Republicans -- other than Paul, Amash and a handful of other making a stink out of this, but I can't -- largely because powerful McCain and Graham are leading the charge for this. I'm putting out what's out there on the web about it.
When Lindsay Graham one of the bill's sponsors (along with John McCain) flat out say that this is declaring the US "part of the battleground", I'm taking his word for it.
Big One — Graham & McCain messing with Posse Commitatus.
I read Section 1031 and 1032 to be two separate powers. 1031 can hold ANYONE associated with 9/11, Taliban, Al-Queda or associated forces. Section 1032 covers captured in the course of hostilities persons. I am not sure why there is a distinction between the two, but they should add the exclusion clause in 1032(b)(1) for US Citizens to Section 1031 as well.
In general I am completely opposed to this entire approach, especially the vague language (i.e. associated forces). Depending on the administration, that could be anyone from OWS to tea party to militia to Catholics etc...just twist the facts to show they are subversive and said or did anything that might show an association to 9/11. This expansive power is too much and can be abused way too easily.
And I'll sell popcorn at the trials -- Oh wait, there won't be any.
Easy to fix - if the regime doesn't like you they revoke your citizenship.
Oh hell, just pass the thing then we’ll worry about what’s in it. Isn’t that what we do these days? That’s what princess Nancy says anyway.
536 people in DC need to go-—NOW!!!!!
I agree, the first section is for anyone. So it would cover these guys who leave the US and get training in Pakistan then return, as citizens, to hatch a plot.
Or training in Yemen, like Mehanna, or the guy who wanted to fly radio-controlled bombs.
If interpreted broadly, though, the law could be used to silence dissenters, but the people doing it would need to show some connection to the Taliban and their cheery buddies.
not sure I read it that way. It says;
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Unless I missed something somewhere, it doesn’t say they’re not allowed to detain citizens, just that it’s not a requirement.
Also whats up with page 349, section b2? It says;
A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Do you see them defining a belligerent act anywhere? Would hate to think what they would consider belligerent.
Yep...as if phone calls against the ObamaCare tyranny made a difference too.
well said - and see my last post about anyone committing a “a belligerent act”. Talk about an overly broad statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.