Posted on 11/28/2011 12:08:43 PM PST by opentalk
Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial. The ACLU reports even US citizens wouldn't be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the "battlefield" in the War on Terror. Termed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and drafted behind closed doors by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) the NDAA would:
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
While S. 1235 had some very scary language in it, apparantly this one, S. 1867, does not and applies only to foreign capture of noncombatants, but under the law of war.
the government has always had this authority... and the people have and always will have the duty to abolish those who authorize it.
t
This bill is very dangerous to say the least!
This same objective has been used in the past in different parts of the world and never with a good outcome, ask anybody who survived Nazi Germany about these tactics and remember they were also the first to bring gun control into effect as well!
i lost all my guns in a boating accident... terrible losses... but i didn’t itemize them...
The first people targeted by this will be gun owners and people like us with conservative views. we will be considered a security threat.
You never know what will come out of a conference committee.
Confirmation please.
If true, then we are at the end phase of democracy.
Then there is only one question. Where do we go?
It’s the “Martial Law” act.
Guess what they will be sweeping for? Your Guns!
This country is finished.
Posse Coma Tata
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2813112/posts
If so, the language is in posts 12 and 21. In part the language says:
(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.
So...the US military could arrest someone in, say, Peoria, but NOT any of the 5,000 illegals who cross our Southern border EVERY NIGHT.
And that when we are enforcing YEMENI borders. And Korean borders.
Nice, huh?
Oh, hell no. Juan McLame is at it again. AZ - get this guy out... please!
Will muslims be included in this bill or are they exempted?
I noticed that stuff too, but even a blind pig can find an acorn.....
They are right about the verbiage of the two bills.
Who sponsored this?
These comments were from Sen. Linsay Graham regarding the Bill
..But we need to let this President know, and every other President, that if you capture someone in the homeland, on our soil--American citizen or not--who is a member of al-Qaida, you do not have to give them a lawyer or read them the rights automatically. You can treat them as a military threat under military custody, just like if you captured them overseas.(page 44)
..This bill is a very sound, balanced work product, and I will stand by it, I will fight for it, and I respect those who may disagree. But 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. Why did they ask us to do that? It makes perfect sense. If American citizens have joined the enemy and we captured them at home, we want to make sure we know what they are up to, and we do not want to be required, under our law, to turn them over to a criminal court, where you have to provide them a lawyer at an arbitrary point in time. So the administration was probably right to take this out.(page 45)
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.