RUSH: REGIME GRABS POWER TO DETAIN US CITIZENS

www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | Jan 3, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Regime Grabs Power to Detain US Citizens
January 03, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Yeah, and I can't believe that nobody's talking about that, either:
The thing Obama signed on New Year's Eve, the new Defense Authorization Act.
I don't know if people don't know what's in this or if other things take precedence.
Well, it is being reported because I saw it. I saw it reported.
Obama signed this thing, the new Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve.
Folks, you know what this thing does?
It allows the United States military to detain anybody for no reason!
They don't even have to charge you.
I mean, this is specified. This is not the Patriot Act.
This is way beyond. This is total authoritarianism.
This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics.
The government can detain anybody! All they have to do...
They actually don't have to do anything.

They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism.

They don't have to prove it, they don't have to have any evidence, they can charge you.
They can put you away in a jail, you are not allowed a lawyer, you are not allowed habeas corpus.
It's the most amazing thing.
Obama even issued a signing statement with it in which he said:
Don't worry, I'm not going to do this.
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do it.
Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president.
They can just decide to detain you. For no reason. I mean, literally no reason.
Where is the left on this?
Where are the civil libertarians?
This is...
You can talk about Bush and the Patriot Act all you want if you're a leftist and a Democrat.
Where are you people?
This is the biggest affront to the whole notion of civil rights that I can recall.
There is a column. Jonathan Turley, who is a legal beagle and a guest on TV shows.
He's a law professor at Georgetown or George Washington, I forget which.

He posted a column on his blog, and the UK Guardian asked for permission to publish it.
So it's on their website.
He basically says what I just said to you in terms of describing what this is.
The reason it was signed into law was so that the military could be funded.
The old argument was,
"If you don't sign this the military won't get funded."Nobody stood up against this.
It was the end of the year, everybody wants outta town to get home for the holidays or what have you.
But there it is.
Now, George W. Bush never even contemplated anything like this, and nobody's talking about it.
You can say,
"Well, Rush, come on.
They're not gonna just start detaining people left and right.
You know they're only gonna use this for people they suspect of being terrorists."

Well, how they gonna define "terrorism"?
If you are a liberal Democrat politician might you think that what happens on Fox is terrorism? (pause)
Might you? You know how wacky some of these people are.
So, anyway, it's out there.
It was signed on New Year's Eve, with a signing statement that said from Obama:
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do this.
That was his signing statement, essentially.
I'm paraphrasing the signing statements but that's essentially what he said.
And this from Business Insider.
"The United States authorities have offered to lift the threat of legal action against 11 Swiss banks in exchange for information."
This is part of a very long story.
"The justice department's doing everything it can to get the names of Americans who have Swiss bank accounts."

The Department of Justice damn near busted the United Bank of Switzerland over this a few years back
and now they're going after other Swiss banks.
The lawyers at the DOJ don't kid around. They're basically saying:
Give us the names of American account holders or we will sue the crap out of you.
So the IRS and the Department of Justice are now -- again, a Business Insider story -- grabbing new powers in the hunt for revenue.
There's two stories here.
The first is the Switzerland bank story where the DOJ is telling Swiss banks:
You tell us or we're gonna sue you until the cows come home,
and these banks are giving up the information.
Which, the coin of the realm in Swiss banking was privacy.
They're giving it up.
If you have a Swiss back the, the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, is going to learn about it.

They're gonna find out if you are doing something they don't like.
Not necessarily illegal.
Don't forget, now, they could say that what you're doing is aiding and abetting terrorism and detain you,
based on what they find in your bank account.
"A federal district court judge in California has given the IRS permission to serve a John Doe summons on the California State Board of Equalization"
that's the state IRS
"demanding the names of residents who transferred property to their children or grandchildren for little or no money from 2005 to 2010.
The IRS has used John Doe summons to seek lists of American taxpayers' unreported offshore accounts at Swiss bank USB and the HSBC bank in India.
These techniques have worked well in Switzerland, the hardworking folks at DOJ, IRS are now bringing them to California.
That means that the IRS can look at anybody's real estate transactions.

"With John Doe warrants they can go fishing and snooping in whatever they like."
Now, again, I'm reading this from Business Insider which is a website.
Think of it what you will.
"The country starved for revenue.
The outfit that's charged with collecting that revenue has an army of tough minded lawyers behind it.
It will have the power to turn over stones as it pleases.
In the end, this effort will raise some additional revenue, it'll scare the heck out of a few people as well;
some people will cheer it.
I see the John Doe warrants as a big and dangerous step and a very slippery slope," writes the writer here,
"sure won't do much for Uncle Sam's image but a lot of people aren't gonna care."

In fact the entire Democrat Party voting base is gonna be encouraging this. The entire Occupy Wall Streeters.
Go get a John Doe summons and find every transaction of everybody that's got any money
and find out if they're giving money away to their kids or whatever or putting their real estate in their kids' names or what have you.
As far as the Defense Authorization Act,
"According to Senator Carl Levin, it was Obama who required indefinite detainment that included US citizens."
Remember, we have killed an American citizen with a drone. Al-Awlaki.
We've done that. He was an American citizen.

"According to Senator Levin, it was Obama who required that his powers to be able to detain anybody for no reason, include US citizens.
The original bill was focused on enemies of America, terrorists specifically.
Levin said there was language in the bill to exempt US citizens but Obama asked for that language to be removed. Lindsey Graham has said the same thing, according to the Congressional Record."
Lindsey Graham said,
"Why did we take out the language Senator Levin wanted me to put in about an American citizen could not be held indefinitely if caught in the homeland?
The administration asked us to do that."

So while Obama's out there trying to blame this on Congress and having a signing statement saying,
"Well, you know, I'm never gonna do this,"
it was Obama who required the language be in the legislation.
This was on New Year's Eve.
So it's like four days ago that this was signed,
of course it's a weekend, and not a whole lot of this is being reported, certainly not being discussed.
I'm telling you what's in the bill
and I'm telling you what's a in the signing statement --
and, of course, the message is gonna be,
"Well, wait a minute now. Why are you concerned?
If you're not doing any anything wrong, you'll not show up on anybody's radar."
Well, let's define doing something "wrong."
You live in Venezuela and you say something about Hugo Chavez gaining weight while on chemo
and you don't believe he's really got cancer and you could end up in jail.
That's what dictators do.



END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links



• The NDAA's Historic Assault on American liberty - Jonathan Turley
  
• Business insider: The IRS & DOJ Are Grabbing New Powers In The Hunt For Revenue
  
  
• Digital Journal: Obama Demanded NDAA Include Americans for Indefinite Detainment
  
  

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

[Sprite518]

10 to 1 most of the congress did not read the bill.

[Sprite518]

Opposition party???? Thanks for the laugh! Yeah the RINOs are real opposition party! LMAO! Too funny!

10 to 1 most of the congress did not even read this bill.

[Yosemitest]

"Please explain this video?
Proof Obama will sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law"

To explain it, let's read the part of the original post starting this thread, that explains it.

This is the biggest affront to the whole notion of civil rights that I can recall.
There is a column. Jonathan Turley, who is a legal beagle and a guest on TV shows.
He's a law professor at Georgetown or George Washington, I forget which.

He posted a column on his blog, and the UK Guardian asked for permission to publish it.
So it's on their website.
He basically says what I just said to you in terms of describing what this is.
The reason it was signed into law was so that the military could be funded.
The old argument was,
"If you don't sign this the military won't get funded."Nobody stood up against this.
It was the end of the year, everybody wants outta town to get home for the holidays or what have you.
But there it is.
Now, George W. Bush never even contemplated anything like this, and nobody's talking about it.
You can say,
"Well, Rush, come on.
They're not gonna just start detaining people left and right.
You know they're only gonna use this for people they suspect of being terrorists."

Well, how they gonna define "terrorism"?
If you are a liberal Democrat politician might you think that what happens on Fox is terrorism? (pause)
Might you? You know how wacky some of these people are.
So, anyway, it's out there.
It was signed on New Year's Eve, with a signing statement that said from Obama:
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do this.
That was his signing statement, essentially.
I'm paraphrasing the signing statements but that's essentially what he said.
And this from Business Insider.
"The United States authorities have offered to lift the threat of legal action against 11 Swiss banks in exchange for information."
This is part of a very long story.
"The justice department's doing everything it can to get the names of Americans who have Swiss bank accounts."

The Department of Justice damn near busted the United Bank of Switzerland over this a few years back
and now they're going after other Swiss banks.
The lawyers at the DOJ don't kid around. They're basically saying:
Give us the names of American account holders or we will sue the crap out of you.
So the IRS and the Department of Justice are now -- again, a Business Insider story -- grabbing new powers in the hunt for revenue.
There's two stories here.
The first is the Switzerland bank story where the DOJ is telling Swiss banks:
You tell us or we're gonna sue you until the cows come home,
and these banks are giving up the information.
Which, the coin of the realm in Swiss banking was privacy.
They're giving it up.
If you have a Swiss back the, the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, is going to learn about it.

They're gonna find out if you are doing something they don't like.
Not necessarily illegal.
Don't forget, now, they could say that what you're doing is aiding and abetting terrorism and detain you,
based on what they find in your bank account.
"A federal district court judge in California has given the IRS permission to serve a John Doe summons on the California State Board of Equalization"
that's the state IRS
"demanding the names of residents who transferred property to their children or grandchildren for little or no money from 2005 to 2010.
The IRS has used John Doe summons to seek lists of American taxpayers' unreported offshore accounts at Swiss bank USB and the HSBC bank in India.
These techniques have worked well in Switzerland, the hardworking folks at DOJ, IRS are now bringing them to California.
That means that the IRS can look at anybody's real estate transactions.

"With John Doe warrants they can go fishing and snooping in whatever they like."
Now, again, I'm reading this from Business Insider which is a website.
Think of it what you will.
"The country starved for revenue.
The outfit that's charged with collecting that revenue has an army of tough minded lawyers behind it.
It will have the power to turn over stones as it pleases.
In the end, this effort will raise some additional revenue, it'll scare the heck out of a few people as well;
some people will cheer it.
I see the John Doe warrants as a big and dangerous step and a very slippery slope," writes the writer here,
"sure won't do much for Uncle Sam's image but a lot of people aren't gonna care."

In fact the entire Democrat Party voting base is gonna be encouraging this. The entire Occupy Wall Streeters.
Go get a John Doe summons and find every transaction of everybody that's got any money
and find out if they're giving money away to their kids or whatever or putting their real estate in their kids' names or what have you.
As far as the Defense Authorization Act,
"According to Senator Carl Levin, it was Obama who required indefinite detainment that included US citizens."
Remember, we have killed an American citizen with a drone. Al-Awlaki.
We've done that. He was an American citizen.

"According to Senator Levin, it was Obama who required that his powers to be able to detain anybody for no reason, include US citizens.
The original bill was focused on enemies of America, terrorists specifically.
Levin said there was language in the bill to exempt US citizens but Obama asked for that language to be removed. Lindsey Graham has said the same thing, according to the Congressional Record."
Lindsey Graham said,
"Why did we take out the language Senator Levin wanted me to put in about an American citizen could not be held indefinitely if caught in the homeland?
The administration asked us to do that."

So while Obama's out there trying to blame this on Congress and having a signing statement saying,
"Well, you know, I'm never gonna do this,"
it was Obama who required the language be in the legislation.
This was on New Year's Eve.
So it's like four days ago that this was signed,
of course it's a weekend, and not a whole lot of this is being reported, certainly not being discussed.
I'm telling you what's in the bill
and I'm telling you what's a in the signing statement --
and, of course, the message is gonna be,
"Well, wait a minute now. Why are you concerned?
If you're not doing any anything wrong, you'll not show up on anybody's radar."
Well, let's define doing something "wrong."
You live in Venezuela and you say something about Hugo Chavez gaining weight while on chemo
and you don't believe he's really got cancer and you could end up in jail.
That's what dictators do.

---

Now don't you understand?
It's about "funding the military", but it's NOT about "funding the military". It's about shutting down any, and I mean ANY, threat to Obama!
It's about brute dictatorship.

/ul

[Sprite518]

You said in post 88,

“simply stating outright that clause 1031 doesnt apply to US citizens could be interpreted to mean other clauses do-a large potential problem. I dont know the govt’s exact reasoning”

In other words you admit you are defending something that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND? OMG!

Let me make this CLEAR for you.

The congress had “language” (aka written) in the bill that specifically said to “exclude” U.S. Citizens concerning detainment without trial. The Obama administration came back to the congress and said to “remove” that provision out of the bill that said this does not apply to American citizens.

Here is the proof if you do not believe me. This is from a one of the top democrats in the congress talking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSgZUT8X5tI

[emax]

Here, a link where someone else explains it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions

I know it’s from daily koz but at this point debaters on all sides are already using links from liberal sites, in particular salon.com, to prove points so to heck with it.

Another link, about the rest of What Carl Levin said:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/rest-of-what-senator-levin-said.html

In short, the video leaves out important details; Levin said the same things I reiterated before. That the NDAA 2012 does not give our administration power it did not have under Patriot Act, AUMF and other previous laws. So if one supported these laws when Bush approved them and are in hysterics now, it makes zero sense.

[Sprite518]

Great info and thanks!

[emax]

None of us, whether attacking or defending this, know the exact reasons why those who drafted and passed this law phrased it like they did. None of us know the govt’s reasoning-and I will admit that I dont. Or why they needed to pass it if it just reaffirms existing laws. None of us can know what they were thinking-someone might think he/she knows, but they dont.

[Pelham]

“Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president.
They can just decide to detain you. For no reason. I mean, literally no reason.”

Looks like Obama dug up Abe’s old playbook. Must be something about Illinois Presidents.

[TigersEye]

Thanks. I guess that makes my point better than I did.

[Sprite518]

Okay the first link looks like it was written by the attorneys from the administration trying to confuse people.

I know you got this from a Team Obama web site. So it does not have much weight. Moreover, I can assure you the person who wrote it did not know what they were talking about. It's obvious because it lacks clarity, chronicle order, and straight to the point. It's a smoke screen.

I did not even bother with your second link. Sorry but don't want to look at another smoke screen from the administration.

1) If this has nothing to do with it, then why would the Administration insist on striking the language?

2) Furthermore, why would Obama himself, more or less, note paraphrasing “Don't worry I will not use this power”?

If he does not have the power and this is just another normal bill...., then why would he even mention it???

[Pelham]

That's Khrushchev, tovarisch. Don't the cheat the comrade dictator out of his h's.

[Sprite518]

Oh I see....

You don’t know for sure even though you are defending it as if you wrote the bill yourself.

At the very same time you are attacking Rush, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, etc... as nuts even though, through your own words, you are not sure that you are really right?

LOL! Thanks for the laugh!

[emax]

” know you got this from a Team Obama web site. So it does not have much weight. Moreover, I can assure you the person who wrote it did not know what they were talking about. It’s obvious because it lacks clarity, chronicle order, and straight to the point. It’s a smoke screen.”

It isnt from the administration, it is from an independent poster at dialy kos-not from the Obama team- and it is not any more poorly written and not any more of a smoke sreen than that Jonathon Turley column.

For the other questions,

1. It could be because the Administration AND members of COngress as I am unconvinced that the administration were the only ones who insisted on it, was because they didnt want to have only one clause exlude US citizens; what if other parts the bill were then interpreted as directly applying to US citizens ? That is how sticky and muddled the law can get.

2. Because he is aware of the public outcry over the concern about the possibility of NDAA being used to detain Americans without trial, and so he wants to keep some public support by binding himself to a signing statement, even though the bill does not specifically allow the administration more power than it had to detain Americans. And he knows that the military would hold him accountable and refuse to support detaining Americans for protesting. For all the problems and complaints about Obama, the guy knows about public relations. That’s a critical thing that got him elected in the first place, after all.

Remember the explanation of NDAA I mentioned at lawfareblog by Benjamin Wittes and Robert Chesney? Dont tell me those guys dont know what they are talking about either.

[emax]

BTW, that first link was mostly text taken directly from the senate processions and only a small part of it was the author’s commentary.

[Sprite518]

Thanks for trying emax, but you have not convinced me at all that what is being said by Drudge, Rush, Savage, Jones, DU, Etc is not true.

What it's a big conspiracy by both the left and the right??

You even have Obama admitting it's there.... He just denied he had anything to do with getting this new power.

[emax]

Just in case anyone hasnt seen it, here is Feinstein’s statements about her ammendment that passed 99-1 after Obama first threatened to veto:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-passage-final-transcript-from-senate-floor/

And the Hamdi case, part of existing law (that NDAA 2012 DOES NOT CHANGE) which gives info on what the govt has been considered able to do under AUMF laws:

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/hamvrum

[Prole]

The Kenyan Sh!t locked up LTC Terry Lakin because Lakin had the spine to question Obama's lies and deceit about where he came from.

If King S#it is willing to lock up and ruin the military record of a decorated and well respected Lieutenant Colonel to protect a series of LIES, then you can bet he would have no reservations about arresting and destroying the lives of American civilians as well.

[Ron H.]

And so you think the US military would tolerate using this bill to detain everyone who doesnt like Obama ....

Perhaps not quite at this point BUT I do see the time coming in the not too distant future when that will indeed happen. I've lived long enough to see Americans lying down and taking so much loss of freedom and loss of or reduction in their rights that back in my day would surely have caused the people to rise up with arms and brought down this banana republic like regime.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are under constant assault by Obama and his Administration and anyone who would deny that isn't living in the real world. One thing I know about the lefties and other American hating Obama-lites is that they don't give up. They are winning through incrementalism, the tried and proven method.

[Sprite518]

Think you are one of the few people that think this is business as usual...

Most people on all sides of the aile, including the President, agree this is a new power.

[emax]

Among Congress, only Ron and Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham have said for sure that they believe this bill gives them a sort of new power. And the number of people who believe that this is a new power is inflated by those who went into hysterics without understanding the provisions in detail. In particular, I have shown statements of support from Rubio and Levin stating that this does not give the govt new detention powers, and when Feinstein introduced her ammendment that passed she also stated that, with this addition, there would be no new powers. And I showed an explanation, from legal experts far more qualified to speak on the matter than Rush Savage, Alex Jones, Drudge and most DU posters, that this does not give the govt power it did not already have in the AUMF and the Patriot Act. If someone thinks that this bill goes way beyond the AUMF and Patriot Act, then they very likely do not understand this bill and how it oompares and contrasts with AUMF and Patriot Act. I dont know for sure, but among those who think this is a new power, I doubt most who think this is a new power even know what the AUMF is.

The vast majority of Americans are uneducated about the Congressional laws and acts they live under, how they relate to SCOTUS rulings and the extent that Congressional Laws and Presidential actions fall in line with the Constitution. Decades of substandard public school education and colleges that refuse to simply teach the facts about American history, law and govt have made it incredibly difficult to be truly informed regarding what our rights are and how well they are being protected. That goes for Americans of all political orientations. That is something to be truly scared of. To quote Stalin “Ideas are more dangerous than guns we dont let them have guns, why dont we let them have ideas”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/20/1047407/-Greenwalds-3-NDAA-myths-is-moony-and-wrong

This is yet another explanation about how this is not a new power. Note that, regardless of one’s view on how well this is written, that this author is clearly against the provisions and so clearly is not a govt mouthpiece. I have also, for the record, stated that there are many sloppily written and vague clauses about this that I do not like at all. I do not think this is a very good bill. I am just contesting the notion that this was a scheme to suddenly give the govt freedom to round up ordinary Americans and protestors at will.