Indefinite detention for Americans

Published: 1 December, 2011, 18:30
Edited: 1 December, 2011, 18:30
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
A terrifying bill that will turn the US into a battlefield with dire effects for Americans has snuck into the Senate, and as lawmakers rush legislation through Congress, the nightmare National Defense Authorization Act is close to becoming a law.

Bipartisan support has allowed for the National Defense Authorization Act to quickly go through Congress, and while opponents of a particular amendment attempt to strike the bill from becoming a law, trickery on the Senate floor is keeping the Act on its way to approval.

If a Senate vote this week passes, Section 1031 of the legislation would turn America into a “battlefield,” says supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina.), and everyday citizens could be indefinitely detained by the military and held without charge.

An amendment to the act proposed by Colorado Senator Mark Udall was shot down via vote on Tuesday, and on Wednesday lawmakers moved to limit debate on legislation. A vote could now come as early as Thursday of this week. Should the Senate follow through as did the House, only the president of the United States of America himself could save his citizens from military rule.

President Barack Obama has vowed to veto the legislation should it make it all the way to the oval office, but with support waning for the commander-in-chief, a Republican could usurp Obama within a year and pass the bill into law.

The defense bill, with a price tag of $662 billion, is actually substantially more affordable than what Obama had asked Congress to come up with. Given the country’s dire economic condition and the president’s plea to the public that he can save the country, pinching pennies by way of approving the National Defense Authorization Act could be more than likely for the Obama.

“He has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that [is] 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs,” Daphne Eviatar, senior associate of Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program, adds to Democracy Now.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has attempted to propose an amendment that would explicitly remove Section 1031 right off the bill, but with lawmakers agreeing 88-12 today to hurry through legislation, his counter-clause is likely to never be brought up. The result? An amendment that gives the government the ability to imprison Americans without charge, indefinitely, that Republican Congressman Justin Amash has called “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.”

Goodbye, state detention centers and holding cells in cities far and wide. The National Defense Authorization Act stands to send Americans — guilty or not — all the way to Guantanamo. Ready your orange get-up and pray the president follows through with his promise to sink the bill, lest you want the US military to be the one doing the sinking on you. As RT reported earlier today,

Congress is also on the move to legalize torture techniques, a ruling that will welcome waterboarding back into the repertoire at Gitmo.

http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-detent...nse-613/print/

I don't know why the mod removed this story from issues, too drunk to understand it probably, but the story does belong in there. Obviously this is not going away.

Another case of America legislating themselves into a straightjacket, the FAA is also legislating for the deployment of Drones in US airspace, given that US citizens are now 'legitimate' assassination targets, the above legislation declaring the US a 'battlefield' really should be top of the agenda for Americans at the moment.

good story,

America is becoming a Nazi state, it has been clear for some time now

with Israel, they have a become a nice little axis of evil of their own

All part of our War on Terror. Having the US military able to hold citizens without a hearing or trial is taking away our rights. I hope Obama will veto as he has promised.

Why does everything have to be militarized now? The military will just get more power and more funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misskit

Why does everything have to be militarized now?

---

Any nation in love with it's military as much as the US is, is doomed.

I blame Bush...

On the bright side, if they're busy terrorising and assassinating their own, they will be too busy to do it to anyone else.

This bill was already voted upon, and nothing changed as far as US citizens go (laws regarding the detaining of citizens suspected of terrorism have been on the books since 2004):

Senate approves $662 billion defense bill - CBS News

Senate approves $662 billion defense bill


(AP) WASHINGTON - Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil.

The vote was 93-7 for the bill authorizing money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested and $43 billion less than what Congress gave the Pentagon this year.
Shortly before final passage, the Senate unanimously backed crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump. The vote was 100-0.
The Senate's version of the defense bill still must be reconciled with the House-passed measure in the final weeks of the congressional session.

Senate keeps controversial detainee policy in defense bill

In an escalating fight with the White House, the bill would ramp up the role of the military in handling terror suspects. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller both oppose the provisions as does the White House, which said it cannot accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."
Late Thursday, a White House official said the veto threat still stands.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al Qaeda or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

The legislation also would give the government the authority to have the military hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens. Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeatedly pointed out that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.

The series of detention provisions challenges citizens' rights under the Constitution, tests the boundaries of executive and legislative branch authority and sets up a showdown with the Democratic commander in chief. Civil rights groups fiercely oppose the bill.
"Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The bill reflects the politically charged dispute over whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals. The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror after they've succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.
The Senate rejected an effort by Feinstein to limit a military custody requirement for suspects to those captured outside the United States. The vote was 55-45. Feinstein said her goal was to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists."

The issue divided Democrats, with nine senators, many facing re-election next year, breaking with their leadership and administration to vote against the amendment. Republicans held firm, with only Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Lee of Utah backing Feinstein's effort.

"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said in defense of the legislation.

Last week, the administration announced a new set of penalties against Iran, including identifying for the first time Iran's entire banking sector as a "primary money laundering concern." This requires increased monitoring by U.S. banks to ensure that they and their foreign affiliates avoid dealing with Iranian financial institutions.

But lawmakers pressed ahead with even tougher penalties despite reservations by the administration.
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Kirk had widespread bipartisan support for their amendment that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, David Cohen, a senior Treasury Department official, and Wendy Sherman, an undersecretary of state, warned that the amendment could force up oil prices — a financial boon for Iran.

"There is absolutely a risk that in fact the price of oil would go up, which would mean that Iran would in fact have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less," Sherman said. "And our real objective here is to cut off the economic means that Iran has for its nuclear program."

Cohen said the amendment would tell foreign banks and companies "that if they continue to process oil transactions with the Central Bank of Iran their access to the United States can be terminated."

"It is a very, very powerful threat," Cohen warned. "It is a threat for the commercial banks to end their ability to transact in the dollar and their ability really to function as major international financial institutions," and one that could push allies away from contributing to a coordinated effort against Iran.

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/12/178.jpg

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/12/179.jpg

More artwork of David Dees:
GALLERY ONE......... GALLERY TWO......... GALLERY THREE

Not a Maddow fan, but this is effective,

Rachel Maddow on Obama's Indefinite detention ideas 5-21-09 - YouTube

Misunderstanding Capitalism

A portion....

"In anticipation, the government prepares to deal with its revolutionaries just as it deals with “insurgents” in Afghanistan or Iraq. The military, you will remember, is not learning how to win real wars. It learning how to hold down ‘terrorists.’ Today, the terrorists are in the Middle East. Soon they will be in the Midwest. Here’s the Business Insider:

The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary … Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all — this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons — without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

Yes, dear reader, corruption leads to discontent. Discontent leads to rebellion. Rebellion leads to repression."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

---

That is what made this legislation so scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FailSafe

This bill was already voted upon, and nothing changed as far as US citizens go (laws regarding the detaining of citizens suspected of terrorism have been on the books since 2004):

---

Whoa!

Don't mix facts with fantasy there FailSafe! These pathetic Chicken Little's now have another 'cause' to rail against besides the brutal police crackdown on the OWS scum!:rofl:

America is a new place in so many ways. Obama is a traitor to the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hampsha

America is a new place in so many ways. Obama is a traitor to the people.

---

Even worse than Dubya?:rolleyes:

Not worse, the same. You support your party despite its crimes against the people. That's sad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hampsha

Not worse, the same. You support your party despite its crimes against the people. That's sad

---

Big negativo on that. Never been a fan of the Patriot Act or any of the B.S. that came out of the aftermath of 9/11. They all (both partys) went waaaay over the top.

Everything came out after 9/11.

Obama is really a pussy and the same stooge as GW Bush, the real government is the Pentagon, it has been clear for sometimes since 911

Obama went back on all his promises, completely sold out

he might still get re-elected as there is no alternatives in the other camp, only bigger nutters

Hey, come on, the alternative is to be shot with no trial.

At least you will be fed and clothed for the duration. The ones left outside will be killing each other for a scrap of food soon.

I wonder what pushed the Pentagon taking over the US government in a silent coup ?

is it because they saw a complete cretin, GW Bush, become POTUS and thought it was the perfect time for them to take over ?

or was it the Israelis trying to have their way in the US government after that failed with the previous administration ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walkabout

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

good story,

America is becoming a Nazi state, it has been clear for some time now

with Israel, they have a become a nice little axis of evil of their own

---

With most of EU and Egypt they are in good company then? US hater

---

I think you'll find it's all of the free world.

A useful tool in the quest for liberty and freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Never been a fan of the Patriot Act or any of the B.S. that came out of the aftermath of 9/11. They all (both partys) went waaaay over the top.

---

WOW BOXER!!

You know I can barely describe how elated I am to see you express reservations about the over-the-top outcomes of 9/11, as enabled by both "the LEFT" and "the RIGHT" !! :bananaman:

It never did quite smell right, did it Boxer, that the 1500 page "USA Patriot Act" was already written prior to 9/11, and just waiting in the wings for some "catastophic and catalyzing event" to get rubber stamped by congress & GWB to become official police-state law-- and then along came 9/11 and viola!

It appears there's ample evidence to suspect that the "terrorist attacks" of 9/11 were perhaps, ahem, not quite what we were told, wouldn't you say, Boxer? :mid:.

So I know I've asked you in other threads for your opinion of the few items below, but you never obliged. So here I'll take this opportunity to ask again,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HansuMan

Now tell me this Boon, have you seen this story covered on your "left vs right" US/Western media anywhere?
[...]
how about this story,

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org - YouTube

and what about this story?

9/11 and Israel: Alan Sabrosky’s Shocking Press TV Interview

Alan Sabrosky, US Marine Corps veteran says Israel did 911. - YouTube


In your "LEFT vs RIGHT" paradigm Boon, which "side" of that model accounts for "the media's" (both "left" AND "right") conspicuous omission of the above 3 stories?? :wiggle:

---

You see Boxer, I view the reticence you've smartly expressed above about the over-the-top outcomes of 9/11, as enabled by both "the LEFT" and "the RIGHT"--- as a bit of a cry for help. Despite the know-it-all persona you generally labor so hard to project here at TD; the honorable paleo-conservative inside you is desperately seeking answers and TRUTH.

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/11/479.jpg

Consider HansuMan, here to help you, Boxer. :chitown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humbert

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misskit

Why does everything have to be militarized now?

---

Any nation in love with it's military as much as the US is, is doomed.

---

True... look at Alexander the Great.

Surely this bill is unconstitutional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Surely this bill is unconstitutional?

---

Obama says it is, much to his credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HansuMan

WOW BOXER!!

---

You know, you'd seem much less of a twat if you called posters by their real handle, no matter how odious they may be, and stopped spamming every thread related to the US with 9/11 conspiracy links.

Published: 2 December, 2011, 20:50
Edited: 2 December, 2011, 20:50
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
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.

Only seven members of the US Senate voted against the National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday, despite urging from the ACLU and concerned citizens across the country that the affects of the legislation would be detrimental to the civil rights and liberties of everyone in America. Under the bill, Americans can be held by the US military for terrorism-related charges and detained without trial indefinitely.

Additionally, another amendment within the text of the legislation reapproved waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” that are currently outlawed.

"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens,” Christopher Anders of the ACLU tells the Associated Press.

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.

http://rt.com/usa/news/detention-leg...ate-891/print/

Invaluable in the quest for liberty and freedom.

The US really is a shit hole these days. What food for the Alex Jones types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

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.”

---

When you have ignorant kunts like this running your country and using make-believe terrorist organisations to pass bills which effectively turn it into a police state, you can safely say it's fucked.

RIP The Land of the Free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

.
RIP The Land of the Free.

---

It hasn't been that for a loooong time...

Boonme, you are part of the problem. You and your ass party created this state. Stop the bs I didn't support this stuff comments. You like this Nazi stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hampsha

Boonme, you are part of the problem. You and your ass party created this state. Stop the bs I didn't support this stuff comments. You like this Nazi stuff.

---

B.S. You don't your ass from your elbow what I like or do not like...

...love people who put others into little boxes and identify such...:mid:

You put yourself into the boxes in your 19,000 posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hampsha

You put yourself into the boxes in your 19,000 posts.

---

:rofl:

Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans

Published: 12 December, 2011, 22:01
Edited: 12 December, 2011, 22:44
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
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.

https://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detent...vin-635/print/

Sadly, the USA currently lacks a responsible and truly independent Supreme Court that would throw this piece of shit legislation into the cesspit where it belongs.

Those are the same 'Judges' that sold your democracy downstream with the 'Citizens United' decision. Whoever is funding the proliferation of billboards you will surely see in election year could be literally anyone, because their confidentiality is now protected as a corporation. Koch Bro's, Soros, French arms manufacturers, the PLA, or Mother frikking Theresa- literally anyone can be funding those campaign adverts under corporate camouflage, and you dear US citizen have no right to know, thanks to Citizens United.

The pace at which democracy in the USA is deteriorating is really quite alarming.

I wonder how many people would support the use of predators on US soil to take out local threats? They seem to be good enough for other countries. Will they be used one day?

Predator drones are already being used here for local law enforcement. Suppose it's just a matter of time before they "take out" threats.


The Los Angeles Times[at]yesterday[at]reported[at]that local police in North Dakota used a Predator B drone — the most common unmanned aircraft employed by the U.S. military to attack and kill “insurgents” in the Muslim world — to apprehend three men. The suspects had refused to turn over six cows which had wandered onto their land (the laws governing open-range ownership are in dispute and the farm owners claimed they are entitled to keep the cows); after being tasered in an earlier incident on their land for allegedly resisting arrest, they brandished weapons at the officers who came to seize the cows. The police, armed with a warrant, then called in a Predator drone to fly over their land, locate them, and transmit video images to the police; when the drone revealed the suspects were unarmed, the police entered their property and arrested them.

The growing menace of domestic drones - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

It is yet another day that I am sad to be an American.