Skip to comments.Senate slams human rights with NDAA 2013 troop deployment on US soil
Posted on 12/06/2012 12:33:00 PM PST by lowbridge
In a slam to human rights in the United States, on Tuesday, Senators unanimously passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2013, including potential dictatorial capacity to deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil to arrest citizens.
One amendment to the 2013 version of the defense spending bill unanimously passed Tuesday by the Senate clarified the right to trial of citizens and permanent legal residents detained under the relevant sections of the revamped measure, but according to civil and human rights experts, this amendment created the potential for even more rights violations than NDAA 2012.
The amendment, "the Feinstein-Lee Amendment," was cosponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). In an interview Tuesday with The New American, spokesmen for Lee and Paul admitted that the amendment did not go far enough in the defense of due process, but said it was a step in the right direction.
It might look like a fix, but it breaks things further," explains Chris Anders, an attorney with the Washington, DC legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Feinstein's amendment says that American citizens and green-card holders in the United States cannot be put into indefinite detention in a military prison, but carves out everyone else in the United States.
The Feinstein amendment may imply that the military has the right to act within the United States. Theres been a longstanding principle that the Constitution applies to all persons in the United States. We dont divide up who gets rights by citizenship status. Nobody gets thrown under the bus in terms of due process in the United States, he says.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Will American boys and girls open fire on their own people?
If they are shot at first?
Those filty communists. And they keep getting elected.
Best bring a lunch, this might take a while.
Let us remember that these troops might be required to arrest the Obamadork and his cadre of felons in the (hopefully) near future.
The military hates, loathes, despises, and f*rts in the general direction of the dork...as they all realize that the lower ranking private or seaman has far, far more ability and morals than does the Dork-in-Chief.
But, but, Rand Paul co-sponsored the bill. So it must be good ...
With propaganda and drugs, they will. You betcha.
It’s called “programing”. Works everywhere it’s tried.
See Rwanda genocide.
Some will, some won’t...most will.
Thank you, Johnny. Somehow your remarks always seem to lend me a little comfort. I am grateful.
A shadow over the Land
Yes, the last time was the “War of Northern Aggression” in 1861. But this one will be the War of Socialist Aggression! The largest armed population in the world is the American public.
America as the land of the free is now dead. we need a revolt soon!!
I pray every night that the SEALs will decent upon the ONE, either while in the White House or on his $4 MILLION vacation in Hawaii. He’s committed multiple treasonous offenses, to include ‘Fast & Furious’, funding the MB, bombing Libya without consent from Congress, and Benghazi.
I believe the operative model for the Feds will be Sherman’s concept of “Total War.”
I must be missing something. Why would he do that?
Towards the end of the article:
“Feinstein’s amendment says that American citizens and green-card holders in the United States cannot be put into indefinite detention in a military prison,but carves out everyone else in the United States.
The Feinstein amendment may imply that the military has the right to act within the United States.”
So it is NOT to detain citizens. (Opps - I missed the word “INDEFINITE”. So if they say I’m to be put away for exactly 5 years for posting on FR that would be okay?! Seems to me it IS. Otherwise they would have left that word out).
I just caught that upon review, but lets say that it was NOT meant to EVER detain citizens.
But it is using the military. So I suppose a likely scenario would be if the military helps along the border and catches an illegal coming across (say a muslim with some containers of sarin gas) - they could detain him. But then that brings up using the military on U.S. soil.
But I imagine that in the past where the military (National Guard) has helped with riots, etc. they have detained people and turned them over to police for booking and a trial. (Is the national guard in those cases not really the “military” as they are under the governor of the state?) This amendment sounds more like keeping the entire thing “in-house” under the military.
And while I don’t think having the people get dumped into the black-hole of a military justice system is good - on the other hand we had that one terrorist held in Guantanamo that they wanted (or maybe they did?) tried in a public court in New York City. Although that guy was captured out of our country I believe.
In the article the ACLU lawyer says something like “the Constitution applies to ALL people in the U.S. - not just its citizens.” I’’ll show my ignorance and ask if that is true? I’m guessing that in a lot of cases it is such as free speech, search and seizure, etc. But they obviously shouldn’t vote, etc.