Posted on 12/19/2011 8:35:57 AM PST by geraldmcg
When the rule of law no longer applies, the rule of men takes over. That's what happened on December 15, 2011 when the U.S. Senate passed a defense reauthorization bill that would allow the military to detain and incarcerate indefinitely without trial or charge American citizens as terrorism suspects, even when arrested on U.S. soil.
Barack Obama pledged as a candidate for the presidency to close down Guantanamo Bay as a holding facility for enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields. But now he supports the legislation which he is poised to sign into a law that will give him the absolute power to incarcerate Americans in that dreaded facility for indefinite detainment.
The action would be the most stark repudiation of the constitutional guarantee of the right to habeas corpus since Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the War Between the States.
It would also violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the Army from being used as a domestic national law enforcement authority.
This draconian legislation is a bipartisan betrayal of the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law and the common-sense, the very limited-government ideals upon which the country was founded.
There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a potential terrorist including anyone who has more than seven days of food in their house. So if someday you receive the midnight knock on your door and you are shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, you may take comfort in knowing that your fate is in the hands of one man -- Barack Obama. And he and he alone, under the new law, would hold the power to set you free.
NOTE: This videtorial was based on a December 15, 2011 WND editorial by Joseph Farah, founder of WND.com
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Yep, we saw it coming.
Imagine how much damage will done during a second term.
Ping to an old friend.
They need someone to fill those non exsisting fema camps.
So when can we expect to see domestic terrorist George Soros frog-marched in front of the cameras?
Has this made it though the House? If so, how? I’d have thought the Tea Party gang would have stopped it..
DHS, TSA, ATF and all the rest are the worst evils put upon freedom loving citizens that have ever been conceived. All invented with good premises, but very quickly turned to Gestapo Goose Stepping Jack-Booted Thugs. Now they seek to add our domestic military to the mix.
Extreme bad law. The military should never be used on our soil even for terrorists acts. That should be handled by the FBI or the CIA if proof that the subject are terrorists. Then the case should be handled by the Justice Department with Congress oversight. This is very serious. Might be a better way and would like to hear of better solutions.
INDEED.
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
or anything else inconvenient.
I assume Ron Paul would be opposed to this, but are any of the other Republican candidates speaking out against this? If they start bringing it up as a campaign issue it would force Obama to backtrack fast.
There is nothing wrong to call on US military to address a shooting threat on US soil, however their job is to fight a war no matter where it is. Not arrest people in their homes. Example: bad guys get a hold of a few M1A2 tanks and drive them toward NYC: you need US military with Hellfire missiles and other assets to stop them, no LE agency has those capabilities.
Funny how they fight for terrorists in other countries to have rights under the US Constitution and yet seek to deprive Americans from those same rights.
That is what the National Guard is for! Most, as I was once a member, are always in a state of readiness and can be called up by the Governor if it cannot be controlled by civil law enforcement.
I am having trouble with the level of excitement over this part of S. 1867 as noted in this article. In my PDF version with link noted below, pages 359-371 on my PDF for Sec. 1032 say that U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens are excluded.
To my estimation, if anything the bill lacks guidelines for a turnover of suspects to the FBI or some such similar agency. However, that principle is probably spelled out in some other part of the U.S. Code dealing with Posse Comitias.
My problem comes from noting Google now calls up dozens of articles headlining the bill legalizes sodomy and bestiality. Article 125 of the UCMJ says those acts are simply wrong, but our legislators cannot allow that definition to stand after their repeal of DADT. SB 1867 substitutes in Section 551(pages 131-149 on my PDF) myriad descriptive phrases such as “unlawful force”, “rendering unconscious”, “causing bodily harm”, “sexual contact”, “lack of consent”, and “place in fear”. The problem is all the new phraseology includes the word ”person”.
Now that issue should have the people from PETA up in arms. The Army still has quite a few horses and the Naval Academy mascot is a goat. The first reactions by the military are hesitant references to “good order and discipline”. I am not sure that statement provides a lot of comfort to the animals pacing nervously in their stalls.
Reading on (page 140 on my PDF) I find Article 120b troubling, because the language of the bill says a person must be less than 16 years of age to be considered a child. I have always thought of those folks living at home and going to high school as children.
Text UCMJ
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm
Government Senate Repeals Bans on Sodomy and Bestiality in the Military
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senate-repeals-bans-on-sodomy-and-bestiality-in-the-u-s-military/
S. 1867 Text
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
George Washington and Alexander Hamilton didn't scruple over habeus corpus in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1799 when federal soldiers, at their command, hauled westerners out of their homes at midnight, took them back east over the mountains to cities on the seaboard, and held them without trial, some for years.
Abraham Lincoln and General Burnsides didn't hesitate to ignore habeus corpus during the Civil War when Burnsides, as military commander of the old northwest locked up political opponents - elected members of state congresses, newspaper editors, and any others that opposed Republican policy in the pursuit of the war.
Those are just two of many instances that might be cited over the course of our country's history. So I don't think this is the end of habeus corpus quite yet. A violation maybe, and it needs to be addressed. On the other hand, given the trajectory of history towards an ideal of one world government, a smaller human population, and a ruling elite that strides across the face of the world like demigods in complete harmony with nature, you never know for sure. After all, to make that omelet called the "Congress of Humanity in Solidarity with the Earth" more than a few eggs have to be broken.
Yes but NG and USMil has basically the same capabilities. They are just under different command. However in practice, you have NG fighting together with USArmy in Iraq etc.. under Fed Command, I don’t think the Governor of a state commands NG Units in Iraq. My point is as far as that law is concerned in reality NG and USMil is the same thing.
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.