Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law

http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/

The United States Senate is set to vote this week on a bill that would categorize the entire USA as a “battlefield,” allowing law enforcement duties to be dished out by the American Military, who in turn could detain any US citizen as a war criminal — even coming into their own homes to issue arrests.

The National Defense Authorization Act regularly comes before Congress for changes and additions, but the latest provision, S. 1867, proves to be the most powerful one yet in raping constitutional freedoms from Americans. Move over, Patriot Act. Should S. 1867 pass, lawmakers could conjure the text to keep even regular citizens detained indefinitely by their own military.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world,” adds Anders. “The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

txgirl69's picture
txgirl69
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 96
S. 1867, repeal of Posse Comitatus Act

This infuriates me. How did we fall to this point? How can those morons up there possibly believe they are doing anything good?

I'm a military member. We take an oath to defend the Constitution (not an administration) of all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We don't need to repeal the 4th amendment or the Posse Comitatus Act to perform that function.

Can anyone explain to me how "We the people" do not get to vote on this stuff? How is it Congress just writes up whatever they want and take a vote on it without it ever being voted on by the people? How does that work? - That should be stopped.

They would have a difficult time getting the U.S. military to turn on their own. Military leaders would have a lot of members going Absent WithOut Leave.

 

I always thought politicians would bring in the U.N. army to subdue civilians in the U.S.

Sorry for the rant, I (obviously) have strong feelings for our Constitution. If anyone knows the answer to my question, please enlighten me.....

Rita

 

txgirl69's picture
txgirl69
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 96
S. 1867, repeal of Posse Comitatus Act

This infuriates me. How did we fall to this point? How can those morons up there possibly believe they are doing anything good?

I'm a military member. We take an oath to defend the Constitution (not an administration) of all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We don't need to repeal the 4th amendment or the Posse Comitatus Act to perform that function.

Can anyone explain to me how "We the people" do not get to vote on this stuff? How is it Congress just writes up whatever they want and take a vote on it without it ever being voted on by the people? How does that work? - That should be stopped.

They would have a difficult time getting the U.S. military to turn on their own. Military leaders would have a lot of members going Absent WithOut Leave.

 

I always thought politicians would bring in the U.N. army to subdue civilians in the U.S.

Sorry for the rant, I (obviously) have strong feelings for our Constitution. If anyone knows the answer to my question, please enlighten me.....

Rita

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Bill Allows Indefinite Imprisonment of Americans, No Trial

Senate Bill Allows Indefinite Imprisonment of Americans without Trial (November 29, 2011)
"S. 1867, referred to as the National Defense Authorization Act bill, was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona) and was scheduled for a vote by the full Senate on Tuesday.
 
"Voices on both the right and left have expressed concerns about the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
 
"Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) has introduced an amendment to S. 1867 that would 'delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power,' according to the ACLU. 'The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.'
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Senate_Bill_Allows_Indefinite...

I remember back in the late 1990s, many conservatives were all about Clitnon and black helicopters and secret detention camps while many liberals scoffed. Then during the reign of Bush, Jr. many liberals were against the Patriot Act, torture, and warrantless wiretapping while many conservatives scoffed.

Personally, I don't think it's about party or left/right. It's authoritarianism versus freedom.

(Side Note: Is this the America that a President John McCain would have implemented?)
 
Poet

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Fascism with a smile slowly loses its smile

 We've seen this society of ours slowly turning from inverted totalitarianism, 'fascism with a smile', into something more overtly authoritarian and openly fascist....

 

...As oil, natural gas, water, agricultural land and mineral resources become scarcer, so land grabs or destabilising maneuvres are made to secure privileged access to them; this often underpins conflicts that, at least on the surface, are about ideology or religion.

The growing number of conflicts then has its own self-feeding dynamic. Increasingly “the market” reacts by growing a security, prisons and armaments sector with a vested interest in further sales, while mass psychology becomes more paranoid and sociopathic. 

 "Danger Ahead: Prioritising Risk Avoidance In Political And Economic Decision-Making".

 

The prison industrial complex will grow, dissident voices will be suffocated, and what once was unthinkable authoritarian behavior will become the norm.

 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
txgirl69 wrote: This
txgirl69 wrote:

This infuriates me. How did we fall to this point? How can those morons up there possibly believe they are doing anything good?

I'm a military member. We take an oath to defend the Constitution (not an administration) of all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We don't need to repeal the 4th amendment or the Posse Comitatus Act to perform that function.

Can anyone explain to me how "We the people" do not get to vote on this stuff? How is it Congress just writes up whatever they want and take a vote on it without it ever being voted on by the people? How does that work? - That should be stopped.

They would have a difficult time getting the U.S. military to turn on their own. Military leaders would have a lot of members going Absent WithOut Leave.

 

I always thought politicians would bring in the U.N. army to subdue civilians in the U.S.

Sorry for the rant, I (obviously) have strong feelings for our Constitution. If anyone knows the answer to my question, please enlighten me.....

Rita

 

Rita,

A question that I've always contemplated is "How would the members of the military (re)act if ordered to oppress their fellow citizens?" Obviously, you can't speak for all military personnel but do you have any sense of how many would object enough to make a difference? How many would blindly follow orders or willingly carry out orders that violate the principles of freedom? What effect would that have on the ability of the military to follow through with that oppression?

P.S. Thanks for your service to the U.S. military.

concernedcitizenx5's picture
concernedcitizenx5
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 15 2011
Posts: 26
Rita wonders how it came to this?

The answer is complicated. But it comes down to elected officials who no longer represent the ignorant people (I will not use the word citizen as that implies responsibility to those being called such). Any elected official who creates a law that goes against the constitution has just made themselves a domestic enemy. It is in our oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Any orders given will hopefully be reviewed by a officers corp who are loyal to the constitution. Hopefully this is just scary tactic propaganda.

elsur's picture
elsur
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 10 2008
Posts: 49
Has This Passed in the House

Does anyone know if this bill has yet to be passed by the House of Representatives?

 

txgirl69's picture
txgirl69
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 96
Crossing the Rubicon?

Good Morning,

Earthwise: My colleagues (the ones I hang out with and call friends) indicate they are ready to abandon the military if ordered to oppress fellow Americans. We talk amongst ourselves sometimes... it is so surreal. We don't know what to expect anymore.... The young troops are the ones we're unsure of.... We don't know if they understand what's at stake. Unfortunately, I think most of them, like most of their parents, are oblivious to all of this... We spend time with them, gently trying to broaden their horizons and get them to think a little bit. We have to be careful, we could get in  trouble for "political prozelytizing" or harassment.

I second Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

What effect would their disobedience have on the oppression? A great deal. Without "good order and discipline" the military would most certainly fail to oppress an armed and angry Republic.

ConcernedCitizenx5 - thank you for your explanation. I hope your right about this measure being reviewed by officers loyal to the Constitution - Most people today don't know what it is or what it means, they don't teach today's young people about any of this stuff.

Elsur: last I heard, it did pass the Senate. That was on ZeroHedge this morning.

V/R,

Rita

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
elsur wrote: Does anyone
elsur wrote:

Does anyone know if this bill has yet to be passed by the House of Representatives?

 

The sister bill did pass the house without this awful amendment. What remains to be seen is if the amendment is included in the revised bill.

msnrochny's picture
msnrochny
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2010
Posts: 65
Look at How the Political Parties Voted

I took a look at how Republicans and Democrarts in the Senate voted for and against the Udall Ammendment, which would have stripped out the wording that may permit Americans to be arrested without cause.  Interestingly, the party that always rants about us needing less government, overwhelmingly voted against the Udall ammendment.  I believe only 3 Republican Senators voted for the ammendment.  All others lined up and apparently thought this was some wonderful legislation to support, and that no ammendment was necessary.  There were some Democrats who voted against Udall's Ammendment as well, but many more voted for it.  So the party of more government voted to ammend the legislation, and the party of less government voted to keep it unchanged.  The hypocracy of all this is very difficult to swallow.

The House has already approved their version of this legislation.  The only hope left is that Obama will veto it (he claimed he would, but we'll see).  It does not appear there are currently enough votes to override an Obama veto, but that could change (it's apparently close).

As was stated above, I just do not understand what our leadership is thinking anymore.  This is a sad amd frightening example of the disconnect and lack of accountability that exists between our government and the people.  Although to be fair, "The People" get the government we deserve.  And 90% of us likely have no clue this vote even took place.

msnrochny's picture
msnrochny
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2010
Posts: 65
Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans

http://rt.com/usa/news/detention-legislation-torture-senate-891/

 

The terrifying legislation that allows for Americans to be arrested, detained indefinitely, tortured and interrogated — without charge or trial — passed through the Senate on Thursday with an overwhelming support from 93 percent of lawmakers.

For the biggest supporters of the bill, however, history necessitates that Americans must sacrifice their security for freedom.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a backer of the legislation, says current laws protecting Americans are too lax. Rather, says the senator, anyone suspected of terrorism "should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer."

Graham adds that suspected terrorists, “should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al-Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us,” although other legislation in the bill isn’t exactly humane. Waterboarding, sleep-deprivation and other methods outlawed in the 2005 Anti-Torture Act will be added to a top-secret list of approved interrogation techniques that could be used on suspects, American or other.

Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte said last week that "terrorists shouldn't be able to view all of our interrogation practices online,” and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) added during debate this week, "When a member of Al Qaeda or a similar associated terrorist group, I want . . . them to be terrified about what's going to happen to them in American custody.”
"I want them not to know what's going to happen,” added the senator and former presidential candidate.

Not only won’t they know their gruesome future, but they wouldn’t know their own rights — that’s because they won’t have any.

"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights," adds Kelly.

While lawmakers rallied with overwhelming support to approve the legislation against terrorists, it can also be applied to anyone, including American citizens, who are even suspected of terrorist-ties.

President Barack Obama has pledged in the past that he would veto the legislation if it made through Congress, and a White House official told the AP on Thursday that that threat still stands. As Obama is faced with a country on the brink of economic collapse so close to Election Day, however, a change of heart couldn’t be out of the question — the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 comes at a price-tag of nearly $30 billion below what Obama had asked for.

WoW!

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
Exact quotes?

 Has anyone read the actual bill?  I downloaded it and the sucker is HUGE.  Does anyone know exactly where in this bill the language regarding what troops can and cannot do on american soil is located?  News articles seem to be discussing two seprate issues:  permission of troops to act on US soil and permission to arrest and detain citizens indefinitely....    

Can anyone tell me where these are in the bill?  I'll start reading it line by line this week,  but I do still have a job and this could take major time.  I'd really appreciate a helping hand!

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
land2341 wrote:  Has anyone
land2341 wrote:

 Has anyone read the actual bill?  I downloaded it and the sucker is HUGE.  Does anyone know exactly where in this bill the language regarding what troops can and cannot do on american soil is located?  News articles seem to be discussing two seprate issues:  permission of troops to act on US soil and permission to arrest and detain citizens indefinitely....    

Can anyone tell me where these are in the bill?  I'll start reading it line by line this week,  but I do still have a job and this could take major time.  I'd really appreciate a helping hand!

 

Here is the link:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

This is S.1867 of the bill

Sec 1031

Page 362

Line 8.

Waiver for National Security - The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intellegence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the secretary submits to congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in national security interests of the United States.

This is the opening Paragragh and references "paragraph (1)"  which is just below which states:

The United States Citizen- The requirement to maintain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Essentially its double talk. The waiver allows for detainment of anyone. All it takes is for the Secretary of Defense to request it.

This is in violation of the habius corpus.

 

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
So that is the detention piece

 Thank you so much Johnny!  That is the detention piece.

What about the ability to utiloize troops on US soil?  Many of the ewns articles are talking about this as if the language allows the federal government to use the military to deal wth national security threats on US soil.  As in deploying troops against US citizens.  This does not read that way to me.

I am plowing my way through the bill but not finding that part.  Is it there or are people extrapolating?

 

I'm not saying this isn't bad,  I just want to be completely clear about what kind of bad and how bad it is......

SGT777's picture
SGT777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 3 2011
Posts: 3
S 1867

CM members- The link below will take you to a congressional bill tracking site. It is official. We can keep a watch on all the activity that our LAW MAKERS are up to. I am (chuckle) waiting on a REP to sponsor a bill to do away with congressional INSIDER TRADING.

 

sarge//          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
Tracking bills

 You can also track and get the entire document of any bill through the library of congress which will give you the whole enchilada. Who, what where when etc...

 

http://www.thomas.loc.gov

 

 

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/

Think that President Obama will stand by his word and veto the legislation that will allow the government to detain American citizens without charge or trial? Think again.

The Obama administration has insisted that the president will veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill that passed through the Senate last week. Under the legislation, the United States of America is deemed a battlefield and Americans suspected of committing a terrorism offense can be held without trial and tortured indefinitely. Despite the grave consequences for citizens and the direct assault on the US Constitution, the act managed to make it through both halves of Congress but President Obama says he won’t let it become a law.

According to Senator Carl Levin, however, Americans should be a bit more concerned about what the president’s actual intentions are. Levin, who sits on the Armed Services Committee as chairman, has revealed to Congress that the Obama administration influenced the wording of the act and shot down text that would have saved American citizens from the indefinite imprisonment and suspension of habeas corpus.

(Click image above for video of Senator Levin's speech)
 

Senator Levin told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin. “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

John Wood of Change.org writes that President Obama proposed a veto of Section 1032 of the NDAA, which does not pertain to the detention of American citizens. Rather, that section deals with the use of the US military in taking custody of suspected criminals. Section 1031, which actually deals with the indefinite imprisonment of Americans, remains not only unopposed by the Obama administration, but the president has made sure that the law specifically includes Americans, urging Congress to redraft the legislation with increasingly confusing wording that makes the legalization detrimental to America.

President Obama could sign off on the legislation as early as this December 13 if he chooses not to exercise his veto power. The bill, which includes budgetary provisions for the US military, comes at a price-tag several billion dollars cheaper than the president had asked for of Congress.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Johnny Oxygen
Johnny Oxygen wrote:

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/

Think that President Obama will stand by his word and veto the legislation that will allow the government to detain American citizens without charge or trial? Think again.

The Obama administration has insisted that the president will veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill that passed through the Senate last week. Under the legislation, the United States of America is deemed a battlefield and Americans suspected of committing a terrorism offense can be held without trial and tortured indefinitely. Despite the grave consequences for citizens and the direct assault on the US Constitution, the act managed to make it through both halves of Congress but President Obama says he won’t let it become a law.

According to Senator Carl Levin, however, Americans should be a bit more concerned about what the president’s actual intentions are. Levin, who sits on the Armed Services Committee as chairman, has revealed to Congress that the Obama administration influenced the wording of the act and shot down text that would have saved American citizens from the indefinite imprisonment and suspension of habeas corpus.

(Click image above for video of Senator Levin's speech)
 

Senator Levin told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin. “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

John Wood of Change.org writes that President Obama proposed a veto of Section 1032 of the NDAA, which does not pertain to the detention of American citizens. Rather, that section deals with the use of the US military in taking custody of suspected criminals. Section 1031, which actually deals with the indefinite imprisonment of Americans, remains not only unopposed by the Obama administration, but the president has made sure that the law specifically includes Americans, urging Congress to redraft the legislation with increasingly confusing wording that makes the legalization detrimental to America.

President Obama could sign off on the legislation as early as this December 13 if he chooses not to exercise his veto power. The bill, which includes budgetary provisions for the US military, comes at a price-tag several billion dollars cheaper than the president had asked for of Congress.

Just another example of talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Obama's deception is legendary in inner circles. 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
House member ferrets out the danger

 

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan expresses his concern to House conferees:

http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/NDAALetter.pdf

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments