Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Major Shift, Legislation Would Mandate Military Custody of All Terror Suspects
nationaljournal.com ^

Posted on 09/05/2011 2:15:46 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

In Major Shift, Legislation Would Mandate Military Custody of All Terror Suspects

By Yochi J. Dreazen Updated: September 5, 2011 | 3:58 p.m. September 5, 2011 | 6:00 a.m.

A little-noticed provision of the National Defense Authorization Act would put all terror suspects into immediate military custody, a controversial change that would have significant legal repercussions for the ongoing war on terror.

The measure was tucked into the Senate’s version of the omnibus Pentagon spending measure shortly before Congress adjourned for its summer recess. Similar language had been in the House version of the bill, but it was stripped out after intensive back-channel lobbying by senior White House and Pentagon officials. The measure’s future will be decided when lawmakers from the two chambers meet in conference later this month to reconcile the two versions of the massive bill.

If the measure goes into effect, militants arrested while planning or carrying out a terror attack—or in the aftermath of such a strike—would be placed under military custody rather than being left to civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI. The measure wouldn’t apply to American citizens, but legal experts believe that it is written broadly enough to encompass large numbers of terror suspects.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/05/2011 2:15:48 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I am surprised it was McCain who slipped it into a bill. He is not known for sensible legislation. I guess he does have fleeting periods of sanity.


2 posted on 09/05/2011 2:20:16 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Kinda like saying Islam is not a religion!!


3 posted on 09/05/2011 2:23:36 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

And they will be at Gitmo??


4 posted on 09/05/2011 2:26:08 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

That would take Holder out of the picture.

A move forward.


5 posted on 09/05/2011 2:27:33 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

All good news!


6 posted on 09/05/2011 2:29:29 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The measure wouldn’t apply to American citizens

This is why the Democrats oppose this. If they could round up every white pro-life Christian American who owns a semi-automatic rifle into military camps, they would be the biggest supporters of this.

7 posted on 09/05/2011 2:33:39 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Holder will sue for custody and his judge will rule in his favor and he will hold the prisoner till the SCOTUS rules otherwise.


8 posted on 09/05/2011 2:34:05 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ....Rats carry plague)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

>>This is why the Democrats oppose this. If they could round up every white pro-life Christian American who owns a semi-automatic rifle into military camps, they would be the biggest supporters of this.

When I saw the title and started reading, my first thought was, “We’ve just given them the legal right to round us up for impure thoughts, counter-revolutionary speech, crimes against the Fatherland, or whatever they call it when fascism gains its stranglehold on our nation. I’m glad they threw in some protection for Americans.


9 posted on 09/05/2011 2:42:07 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (The solution to fix Congress: Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Since the Tea Party has been identified by this administration as a bunch of terrorists this legislation seems like a prelude to a crackdown on dissent.


10 posted on 09/05/2011 2:43:55 PM PDT by UnChained (The "stimulus" CAUSED the economy to tank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28


11 posted on 09/05/2011 2:45:34 PM PDT by 353FMG (Liberalism is Satan's handiwork.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I don’t know about that considering the short shrift the top military brass gave Lakin. Don’t forget Obama is CinC and as it stands now he can treat terrorists anyway he chooses.As far as I can see Obama is in no mood or hurry to meet out due punishment.


12 posted on 09/05/2011 2:58:07 PM PDT by noinfringers3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

Not if “they” consider TEA party members terrorists.


13 posted on 09/05/2011 3:18:31 PM PDT by mcshot (Hey we're turning upside down compliments of career politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

MP BTTT!


14 posted on 09/05/2011 3:27:31 PM PDT by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

“I’m glad they threw in some protection for Americans.”

Once Posse Comitatus is circumvented, the principle of Federal militarization of domestic security is established. Those “protections for Americans” can be removed later, after appropriate classes of “enemies of the people” have been ginned up to justify the ‘extension’ of the principle to all ‘potential enemies of the state’.

There is nothing about this proposal that should have conservatives cheering - - - forging as it does another link in the chain of the ‘national security warfare/welfare state’.


15 posted on 09/05/2011 5:32:35 PM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mcshot

Well by that logic anyone can define who is a terrorist? So, could we call liberal democrats terrorists? That interpretation would stretch the meaning for terrorist beyond credulity.


16 posted on 09/05/2011 6:13:29 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson