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

[maddogtiger]

Will Tea Partiers have the guts to show up at rallys this election ?

[HiTech RedNeck]

And as the word gets out, more and more of the GOP grass roots will caucus for Paul, robbing Mitt’s rivals of support... and (best case) we will get President Mitt Romney.

[emax]

Well i think even Obama can figure out that if he detained people he didnt like, it would come back to haunt him in the worse way possible. How hard would it be for a Republican president to argue that Obama is an enemy of the state ?

[Hot Tabasco]

How does a bill such as this ever get to the president's desk without first being approved by the GOP CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?

Forget Obama, it's our own representatives who are selling us out........

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Thank you... but still I think it’s time to re-read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”***

Look on the bright side of this! The government can now reopen some of those marginal gold and silver mines using “FORCED CONVICT LABOR”. Look on it as an OBAMA JOB CREATION ACT! You just don’t get paid for doing it.

Sarc/off

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh, doubtless they will, and they will get the same media smears as before. Such as allegations of filthy racist talk to some prominent Rat congresscritter of the melanic persuasion.

In the meantime, all we hear of OWS is their snappy chants — and the occasional drug overdose.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Obama will be safely ensconced in Kenya and/or be a protected U.N. diplomat.

[emax]

Same reason why the pass the NDAA every year; it is a bill every year that is upwards of 100 pages and largely says the same things each time. Same reason why Congress always passes laws that simply reaffirm existing laws. And of course, we cant forget that Conservative and Liberal elements of Congress passed it too. I am not saying I like it too-there are many badly written parts that I think should have never ever passed. But let’s please stop saying Obama did it on his own.

[Sun]

We need stronger conservatives in Congress who won’t vote for this kind of thing.

[emax]

And so you think the US military would tolerate using this bill to detain everyone who doesnt like Obama and those-at least 100s of 1000s-who protest him ? Esp since the bill does not give the president more authority for detentions than he already had ?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh no, of course Obama did not do it by himself. He just snickered watching the GOP do it to themselves.

It’s a worse danger in a Rat administration because they feel they have to be very politically correct about not singling out Moose organizations as “terrorists.” Instead, they will be told, in internal memos, to try very hard to lasso themselves some rednecks.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Between gay generals and moose who can now wear hijabs on their jihads, I’m sure something can be arranged.

[Longbow1969]

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.

Yup, I am pretty disappointed in Rush for marching down tinfoil hat lane on this one. Even his headline is ridiculous considering the Hussein regime didn't "grab" any power. It can hardly be considered some kind of power grab when the opposition party (in this case the GOP) supports and voted FOR the President to have this authority.

[Yosemitest]

"Who brewed this one up?"

Who? .... Good question!

' Kiss your liberty goodby.
Dictator Obama, with the help of backstabber John McCain, backstabber-in-training Lindsey Graham,
and terrorist Carl Levin, passed and signed a bill (S. 1867) inspired by

" The Notverordnung zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Decree For the Protection of People and State) .
The principle architect of this law was Reich President von Hindenburg -- under the dictate of Adolf Hitler.

Please, please, PLEASE ... READ Is The US Senate Committing Treason With the NDAA Bill? By Jeanine Molloff.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If Rush is genuinely mistaken, we’ll see an apology in a few days. But I’m not so sure he is.

[Michael Barnes]

Thing is pal, this administration will twist and contort ANYTHING to achieve it’s goal of killing off America. Remember, our own military has already been called “potential” terrorists by members of this administration not to mention the TEA Party.
We are not dealing with an administration with any amount of honor to actually follow the law; they’ll just make it up as they go to get AROUND the law.

[TigersEye]

But let’s please stop saying Obama did it on his own.

That is your big complaint? That 0bama is getting the blame?

[Joe Boucher]

Thanks,
I nearly forgot that little story.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I wonder if the vote for it is sparse in the new conservative freshmen who gave the House its GOP majority. That these guys said wait, not so fast, and it needed Rats.

[Yosemitest]

It IS true.

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

Read the original article again.

"One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens.
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation.
That spin is facially ridiculous.
The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated.
The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights.
Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial,
the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military.
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031,
which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial."

Now, let's make this REAL SIMPLE.

You're looking for a wavier THAT AIN"T THERE!!!
Text of Pages 426 thru page 432 of S. 1867.
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(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.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described
in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code
(as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country,
or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this
section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized
under section 1031 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co
ordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the
law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security
interests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited
to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2)
and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not
require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to
be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the
time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply
when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4)
may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third
country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.