Skip to comments.RUSH: REGIME GRABS POWER TO DETAIN US CITIZENS
Posted on 01/03/2012 3:21:42 PM PST by Yosemitest
January 03, 2012m paraphrasing the signing statements but that January 03, 2012m paraphrasing the signing statements but thatbrm paraphrasing the signing statements but that
January 03, 2012li
Yep. Not only did Obama lie when he said he was going to close Gitmo.
Now we shall see AMERICAN CITIZENS being sent there.
Brave New World, folks. The next 4 years will make the previous 4 seem like a Sunday school picnic.
Who brewed this one up?
Surely it can’t be the same clique that clamored for foreign terrorists in Gitmo to be seen in court?
This has got to fail. It’s a suspension of habeas corpus for Americans.
Scary stuff indeed.
So who’s gonna be the first Republican Candidate to make some political hay by promising to repeal this? Any guesses?
Except this is not really true, there is nothing govt can do under NDAA 2012 that it couldnt already do under the combined provisions of the Patriot Act and AUMF of 2001. It does not expand the scope and the provisions 1031, 1032 and 1033 do not give the govt new power to detain US authorities based on suspicion of terrorism. If you say so, than it suggests your understanding of existing law is not there. If this was passed before Bush, you know full well he would have signed it. I really hope that those who are in such hysterics over the notion that NDAA 2012 helps create a police state were at least somewhat against the Patriot Act and the AUMF 2001 and didnt just wholeheartedly cheer it on.
Does the NDAA expand the governments detention authority?
Nope. Under current law, the Obama administration claims the authority to detain:
persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces 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 hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.
That claim of authority is based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks, as informed by the law of war. The Bush Administration previously claimed very similar authority, albeit invoking not just the AUMF but also the inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution. In any event, such claims have been subjected to judicial challenge repeatedly, most commonly in the context of the Guantanamo detainee habeas litigation. As we explain below, the courts have had a decidedly mixed reaction in the pair of cases involving persons captured within the United States, but as for persons captured abroad, they have largely endorsed the governments position. The D.C. Circuit, in fact, has tentatively adopted a definition of the class detainable under the AUMF that is, if anything, broader than what the administration seeks. While the administrationand now Congresswould detain only on the basis of substantial support, the D.C. Circuit has articulated a standard which would permit detention of those who purposefully and materially support the enemy, even if not substantially.
In light of all this, a law that writes the administrations successful litigating position into statute cannot reasonably be said to expand the governments detention authority. In fact, to the extent that the new statutory language will preempt the arguably broader D.C. Circuit definition, it may actually narrow itif only very slightly. So lets compare the language of the administrations claimed authority (quoted above) to the language of the NDAA:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) 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.
They are almost verbatim the same. The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congresss stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and thats no small thing. But it does notnotwithstanding the widespread belief to the contraryexpand it. Nobody who is not subject to detention today will become so when the NDAA goes into effect.
The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta onlythat is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue. In theory, then, the circuit (or the Supreme Court) might at some point have concluded that support alone is insufficient to support a detention. The NDAA will ensure that this does not happen by making clear that independent support does count as a ground for detention (or at least it will do so as a matter of statutory interpretation; in theory, the door would remain open to some form of constitutional challenge, though it is difficult to see how that would work). So even as it marginally narrows the detainable class, the NDAA also tends to ensure that courts will not narrow the scope of that class further.
Dems have already called Tea Partiers domestic terrorists, hell right wing extremism was even labeled in memos as terrorists. Obama on record has said he will rule by Executive Order if he has too, now he can detain anyone he wants too. My friends we are under a defacto dictatorship.
The govt has already reserved the right to suspend Habeus Corpus in certain cases, so there isnt a lot of new stuff here in that department.
Thank you... but still I think it’s time to re-read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”
The questuion is, do any of them know about it?
And it was brewed by a mixture of liberal and genuinely conservative members of Congress. In fact, almost all Republicans, sans Ron Paul and Kirk, supported it too.
If the shoe were on liberals’ foot, they’d be screaming to the Supreme Court with their motions to pre-empt the law. So when liberals stuff it on conservatives’ foot, they do... nothing? I can’t believe this is going without a whimper, except for Rush Limbaugh’s jeremiad. Where is the legal fund to fight this?
The GOP really believed Obama when he said he wouldn’t use this B.S. against them? Obama complains it ain’t quite ideal... I don’t believe that. He snickered all the way to his signing desk in his jackboots.
Homeland considers almost all of middle America to be terrorist suspects. If you are evangelical, if you store food, if you don’t like homo’s...This is scary because the current admins definition of a terrorist is truly broad.
>> Except this is not really true <<
Looks as if Rush has joined the tinfoil-hat gang. He ought to leave this kind of nutty stuff to Alex Jones and Michael Savage. Very sad to see what appears to be the decline into irrelevance of a once-great man.
I told some them to go hide and watch. The new FEMA camps will be busting at the seams IMO not long after the Obaummer starts his crackdown on us conservative dissidents. Heil Obama!
So he don’t need no stupid law to do that. Then why pass this supposedly redundant turd upon the land?
Rand Paul stood against it.
Will Tea Partiers have the guts to show up at rallys this election ?