I propose that this be presented as an EMERGENCY PROPOSAL for immediate consideration by the General Assembly on Friday, December 2.  Once adopted, it should be immediately disseminated to all news media.
Occupy Los Angeles Rejects the National Defense Authorization Act
 
Occupy Los Angeles demands that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act.  The legislation includes provisions which destroy the Constitutional rights of Habeas Corpus and Due Process.  American citizens and all people everywhere have the inalienable right to contest their imprisonment and a civilian trial by jury. We reject this and all legislation which abridges these rights as well as the false belief that doing so will make the nation more secure.  Additionally, the bill funds wars that the majority of Americans oppose.  These endless, senseless wars only serve the Corporatist interests of the 1% and we oppose this and all legislation which enables and perpetuates them.
Senate approves $662 billion defense bill
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57335281/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."
See:   http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
Briefing

 This bill is an omnibus Defense/War appropriations bill. This bill is passed through Congress every year to fund the wars and military projects.  It also frequently acts as a vehicle for significant policy changes. In it are certain sections pertaining to the detention of prisoners of war.  NDAA passed the Senate by a 93-7 vote on Thursday after passing the House in May.  The House and Senate bills will now be merged into a single bill that will then be sent to President Obama for his signature.

 

1)  A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES INTERPRET THIS BILL AS A GRAVE THREAT TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

2)  AUTHORS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL ASSERT THAT THE BILL DOES APPLY TO AMERICANS AND PERSONS DETAINED ON US SOIL

 

3)  PRIOR CASES

 

 

4)  NDAA 2012 IS AN EXTENSION OF AND ADDITION TO A LONG PROCESS OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ERECTION OF POLICE STATE

 

5)  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS VIOLATED BY NDAA 2012

 

Here is the text of the relevant sections the bill with areas of interest highlighted.

Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
S.1867.PCS

S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate – PCS)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112d7LgSC:e462417:

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) 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 coordination 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.

 

SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

 

•   (a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer-

 

◦                     (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

 

◦                     (2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--

 

▪                                       (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

 

▪                                       (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

•   (b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--

 

◦                     (1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;

 

◦                     (2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;

 

◦                     (3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;

 

◦                     (4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;

 

◦                     (5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and

 

◦                     (6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that--

 

▪                                       (A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and

 

▪                                       (B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.

 

•   (c) Prohibition in Cases of Prior Confirmed Recidivism-

 

◦                     (1) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.

 

◦                     (2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--

 

▪                                       (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

 

▪                                       (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

•   (d) National Security Waiver-

 

◦                     (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--

 

▪                                       (A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;

 

▪                                       (B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;

 

▪                                       (C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and

 

▪                                       (D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

 

◦                     (2) REPORTS- Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:

 

▪                                       (A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.

 

▪                                       (B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including--

 

▪                                                         (i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and

 

▪                                                         (ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.

 

▪                                       (C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.

 

•   (e) Definitions- In this section:

 

◦                     (1) The term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

 

▪                                       (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

 

▪                                       (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

 

◦                     (2) The term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--

 

▪                                       (A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

 

▪                                       (B) is--

 

▪                                                         (i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or

 

▪                                                         (ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

 

◦                     (3) The term `foreign terrorist organization' means any organization so designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

 

•   (f) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4351) is repealed.

 

 

 

 

1)  A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES INTERPRET THIS BILL AS A GRAVE THREAT TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

VIDEO LINKS:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiTPSKM0lek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z12l_Euc28U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVWh1Nxa17w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRqyQ5wnjw8

 
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

 ACLU:  http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock...

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Senate Poised to Pass Indefinite Detention Without Charge or Trial

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/senate-poised-pass-indefinite-dete...

 

December 1, 2011

Bill Will Further Expose American Citizens and Others to Military Imprisonment Based on Suspicion and Not Conviction

MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Your support helps the ACLU stand up for human rights and defend civil liberties.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 1, 2011

CONTACT: Mandy Simon, (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The Senate is poised to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, with an extraordinary expansion and statutory bolstering of authority for the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. A last-minute amendment was negotiated between Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that passed, but does not prohibit its application to American citizens or others in the United States.

Additional amendments offered by Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Feinstein to strike and limit the detention power were defeated despite strong showings of support.

 The Senate Punted On Terror Law Detainees—and That's a Good Thing

By ANDREW COHENDEC 2 2011, 4:05 PM ET

 

THE ATLANTIC

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/the-senate-punted-on...

 Congress's decision to avoid a decision on terror detainees shows how gridlock can sometimes work in the public's best interests

My Atlantic Colleague Conor Friedersdorf has a strong piece out today focusing on the latest machinations in the Senate on the topic of terror law detainees. While I agree with most of Conor's conclusions, especially about the venality of lawmakers who preach the virtues of "limited government" and then vote to infringe upon individual liberties, I write briefly to point out that, as bad as it may seem to some, what happened Thursday evening could have been a whole lot worse.

 In the National Defense Authorization Act, the Senate had before it statutory language that would have codified into federal law indefinite detention for American citizens. As I wrote five weeks ago, even this dubious language was better than the language initially proposed by the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. What's important to remember today is that neither of these bad measures passed into law. That would have truly been awful.

WASHINGTON — Defying the Obama administration’s threat of a veto, the Senate on Tuesday voted to increase the role of the military in imprisoning suspected members of Al Qaeda and its allies — including people arrested inside the United States.

 
Senate Approves Requiring Military Custody in Terror Cases

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

NEW YORK TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/senate-approves-military-c...

Published: November 29, 2011

By a vote of 61 to 37, the Senate turned back an effort to strip a major military bill of a set of disputed provisions affecting the handling of terrorism cases. While the legislation still has several steps to go, the vote makes it likely that Congress will eventually send to President Obama’s desk a bill that contains detainee-related provisions his national-security team has said are unacceptable.

The most disputed provision would require the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. The provision would exempt American citizens, but would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.

A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.

 

 Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial

WIRED

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

Here’s the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the Senate has tucked into next year’s defense bill: They don’t force the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as tonight.

There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force” can be held in military custody “without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.

But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights

By CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ceding-liberty-to-te...

DEC 2 2011, 11:17 AM ET 52

 Asked to deny presidential authority to indefinitely detain Americans without charges or a trial, they declined, citing the threat of al-Qaeda.

Is it lawful for the president to order any American held indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented in open court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? The U.S. Senate had a chance Wednesday to assert that no, a president does not possess that power -- that the United States Constitution guarantees due process.

 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urged her colleagues to seize the opportunity. "We as a Congress are being asked, for the first time certainly since I have been in this body, to affirmatively authorize that an American citizen can be picked up and held indefinitely without being charged or tried. That is a very big deal, because in 1971 we passed a law that said you cannot do this. This was after the internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II," she said. "What we are talking about here is the right of our government, as specifically authorized in a law by Congress, to say that a citizen of the United States can be arrested and essentially held without trial forever."

 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed.

"If we believe an American citizen is guilty or will be guilty of acts of terrorism, can we detain them indefinitely?" he said. "Can we ignore their constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely, without warning them of their right to remain silent, without advising them of their right to counsel, without giving them the basic protections of our Constitution? I don't believe that should be the standard."

 In the end, however, Feinstein and Durbin lost the debate.

The U.S. Senate refused to affirm that American citizens arrested in the United States shouldn't be subject to indefinite military detention on the president's order. Senator Feinstein's amendment to that effect went down in defeat with 55 historic votes against it.

 
Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans
http://rt.com/usa/news/detention-legislation-torture-senate-891/
Published: 02 December, 2011, 20:50

 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.

Senate passes National Defense Authorization Act, White House warns of veto
Seattle : WA : USA | Dec 02, 2011 at 9:39 PM PST BY Jennifer Rees
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11013544-senate-passes-nationa...

 The United States Senate has passed its edition of a bill that would empower the military to forever detain anyone who is considered to be part of any terrorist activity. Ninety three Senators reportedly voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), while seven opposed it and none abstained.

The National Defense Authorization Act allows funds amounting $662 billion for the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and military personnel. According to provisions of Subtitle D of the act, the U.S. military can indefinitely detain anybody, devoid of assuring a trial.

According to the rules of the business, the House will also vote on the bill. It will then square its version of the bill with that of the Senate prior to sending the legislation to the president. It should be noted that in late May the House held a roll call over the bill. The occasion was noted for 322 Representatives supporting the bill, 96 opposing it, while 13 abstained from taking part in the proceedings.

Later on, the Senate came up with a concession amendment in a 99-1 vote. The amendment stated that the National Defense Authorization Act will not affect the existing legal power of the government to jail people captured in the war on terrorism.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has accused the Senate of political micromanagement of national security. The White House on Friday reiterated its stand to veto a defense bill over the provisions of Subtitle D of National Defense Authorization Act that relates to controversial military detentions of anyone including all U.S. citizens.

It should be noted that in November the Obama administration said that its senior advisers would recommend a veto, stating the detention provisions of the bill could put a limit around the ability of law enforcers to fight terrorism and could make the task of putting off terrorist attacks more difficult.

 U.S. Congress enacts laws to hold civilians under indefinite military detention without trial

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/11/30/us-congress-enacts-laws-hold...

Thu, 2011-12-01 00:07 — editor

▪    Breaking News

Daya Gamage – US National Correspondent Asian Tribune
Washington, DC. 01 December, (Asiantribune.com):

 Under Sections 1031and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2012, the United States Congress has proposed to give the Department of Defense the explicit power to take civilians into military custody, detain them indefinitely with no charges or trial.

Well hidden in the 682-page long National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Bill under the title ‘Detainee Matters’ has received tragically sparse coverage in the American national media, widely-read national newspapers and broadly-watched national television channels blocking the existence of this impending legislation described by rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a draconian piece of law.

The ACLU in a letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Charles Grassley opposing the provisions of the bill said it “affects civilians who are otherwise outside of military control, including civilians within the United States itself.”

 
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Guantánamo for US citizens? Senate bill raises questions
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1203/Guantanamo-for-US-citizen...

The National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate this week could allow the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely. Civil libertarians are alarmed, and President Obama says he might veto it.

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / December 3, 2011

 The National Defense Authorization Act covering $662 billion in defense spending for the next fiscal year includes a provision requiring military custody of a terror suspect believed to be a member of Al Qaeda or its affiliates and involved in attacks on the United States.  
 
 A last minute amendment allows the president to waive the authority based on national security and to hold a terror suspect in civilian rather than military custody. But the bill would deny US citizens suspected of being terrorists the right to trial, subjecting them to indefinite detention, and civil libertarians say the amendment essentially is meaningless.

RECOMMENDED: Seattle arrests show how domestic terror fight is evolving

“This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent,” Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.”

Libertarians and conservatives wary of big government are speaking out against the bill as well.

"If the president thinks you are a terrorist, let him present charges and evidence to a judge,” Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said in a statement Friday. “He has no authority to lock you up without any judicial review, just because he and Congress believe he should have unlimited power. That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.”

Legislation passed by the Senate this week and headed for the House – and a possible presidential veto – could allow the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely.

 Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto

HUFFINGTON POST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-de...

 WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.

Paul's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.

"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."

Democrats who were also concerned about liberties compared the military policing of Americans to the detention of Americans in internment camps during World War II.

"Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment -- which has not yet gotten a vote -- that she said would correct the problem. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

 American citizens are celebrating in the streets as their government snatched final victory in the War on Terror on 1 Dec. 2011 -- through a maneuver that used legislative brilliance rather than bullets.

The moment of victory came when 61 senators passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2012 that allows the indefinite military detention on American soil of American citizens who are merely suspected of having connections to terrorism.

To understand the genius of this legislation, some background is necessary. The Patriot Act, passed before the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center had settled, had already removed the fourth amendment rights of Americans to privacy, allowing federal authorities access to the private affairs of individuals without any court oversight. That act had also removed their rights under the first amendment to free speech, by making it illegal, for example, for one American to tell another that he has been served with a warrant under the Patriot Act -- not, of course, a warrant issued by a court, but by a federal officer who can now write his own warrants without any judicial oversight.

What Senators McCain (R, Arizona) and Levin (D, Michigan), and those who voted for the legislation that they sponsored, cleverly realized, however, is that since the terrorists are attacking America for its freedoms and "way of life", the only sure way to win the war is to eliminate all of those freedoms and way of life so that the terrorists will have no further reason to fight. (This is why the comprehensive laws that already exist in the USA that make the aiding and abetting of any terrorist organization or activity a crime, but leave untouched the inalienable rights of American citizens, simply do not suffice.)

 
The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary
Buisness Insider
David Seaman|December 02, 2011| 37,238|81

Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all – this is a must read.

By the end of next 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.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-02/politics/30466471_1_guant...

Occupied America: Senate bill 1867 would allow U.S. military to detain and murder anti-government protesters in American cities

NATURAL NEWS
Thursday, December 01, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

 (NaturalNews) I don't know if you're all getting this through your heads yet, but Senate Bill 1867 -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- would openly "legalize" the U.S. government's detainment and murder of OWS protesters and the assassination of talk show hosts, bloggers, journalists and anyone who holds a so-called "anti-government" point of view.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034291_SB_1867_war_on_terror.html#ixzz1fVnpwCOi
Deranged Us Senate Votes For Military Detention Of All Terror Suspects And Permanent Guantánamo – Oped
Written by: Andy Worthington
EURASIA REVIEW

http://www.eurasiareview.com/02122011-deranged-us-senate-votes-for-milit...

Yesterday the shameful dinosaurs of the Senate — hopelessly out of touch with reality, for the most part, and haunted by specters of their own making — approved, by 93 votes to 7, the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (PDF), which contains a number of astonishingly alarming provisions — Sections 1031 and 1032, designed to make mandatory the indefinite military detention of terror suspects until the end of hostilities in a “war on terror” that seems to have no end (if they are identified as a member of al-Qaeda or an alleged affiliate, or have planned or carried out an attack on the United States), ending a long and entirely appropriate tradition of trying terror suspects in federal court for their alleged crimes, and Sections 1033 and 1034, which seek to prevent the closure of Guantánamo by imposing onerous restrictions on the release of prisoners, and banning the use of funds to purchase an alternative prison anywhere else. I have previously remarked on these depressing developments in articles in July and October, as they have had a horribly long period of gestation, in which no one with a grip on reality — and admiration for the law — has been able to wipe them out.

 Senate votes to allow indefinite detention of Americans

POLITICO

The Senate on Thursday evening essentially blessed the indefinite detention of American citizens who join up with Al Qaeda.

By a 45-55 vote, senators rejected an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would have excluded U.S. citizens from the detention authority created by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed just after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Feinstein's amendment would have inserted language excluding Americans into the detainee provisions of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

During floor debate on Feinstein's proposal, some senators argued that Supreme Court decisions make clear that American citizens can be detained under the law of war. They point to a 1942 decision upholding the trial of an American-born saboteur before a military commission and a 2004 decision in which four justices endorsed an opinion that found the government has the right to detain a U.S. citizen who joins with enemy forces. However, other senators said the facts of those cases don't squarely endorse the open-ended detention of a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil.

 
Senate Detainee Provisions

ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
10:06 pm December 1, 2011, by Jamie Dupree

The U.S. Senate on Thursday night struck a bipartisan deal that modified controversial language in a major defense policy bill which had drawn strong opposition from critics in both parties, who charged it would allow the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military.

The 99-1 vote came after several days of heated debate on the Senate floor over whether this defense bill really changed how U.S. citizens accused of supporting terrorists would be treated, or if critics were right that U.S. citizens could be held by the military indefinitely without the filing of formal charges.

Compromise language developed in part by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was ultimately approved, which read as follows:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

The compromise won almost unanimous support, as Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) said he would fight to protect that language in upcoming House-Senate negotiations; it was unclear whether the language would be accepted by the White House, which has threatened to veto the entire defense bill.

Earlier, the Senate had twice defeated efforts to water down the detainee provisions in this bill, as a majority of Republicans joined with a dozen Democrats to keep detainee language that some Senators said allowed for indefinite military detention of civilians, a charge that leading Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) bitterly disputed.

Backers of the bill's original language wanted more power for the military to deal with terror suspects, even if they were Americans arrested on U.S. soil.

"The Obama Administration's decision to detain people as enemy combatants is within the President's power to do so," argued Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said American citizens can already be detained indefinitely, as he brushed off charges that this bill would wrongly restrict important constitutional rights.

 http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/01/senate-d...

 

 Senate backs military custody for terror suspects    

Susan Cornwell
Reuters
9:32 p.m. EST, December 1, 2011

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-usa-detaineestre...

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate voted on Thursday to broaden the armed forces' powers over suspected militants, requiring that foreigners allied with al Qaeda be held in military custody even if they are captured in the United States.

 The Senate voted for the terror suspect provisions as part of a huge defense bill that was passed by a vote of 93-7. It authorized $662 billion for the armed forces and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2012.

 That is $27 billion less than what Obama requested and $43 billion less than the amount Congress approved for the same purposes a year earlier, reflecting the new emphasis on budget-cutting to rein in the national debt.

 The legislation also allows the government to keep terrorism suspects in military custody indefinitely, without trial. It must still be melded with a House of Representatives version, which contains similar provisions on detainees, before being sent to Obama for his approval or veto.

 It was the latest battle in a long struggle between Obama, a Democrat, and some lawmakers over whether terror suspects should be prosecuted as "enemy combatants" before military commissions, or as criminal suspects in U.S. federal courts.

 Republicans and some Democrats have urged that only military courts be used, and Congress repeatedly has voted to limit transfers of detainees from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

 

IMPACT ON U.S. CITIZENS
American citizens are exempted from the mandatory military detention requirement. The legislation also has waivers allowing officials to place a prisoner in the U.S. criminal court system if it is in the interest of national security, but FBI chief Robert Mueller and others have argued that the waiver procedure is too awkward.

 Amid concerns the provisions might impinge on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens in military custody, the Senate passed an amendment saying nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights.

 Some analysts said that fudged the issue.

 "(It) doesn't clear up the confusion around who the provisions cover -- which is really a reminder of why military and law enforcement officials, as well as past interrogators, are against the provisions in the first place," said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the non-profit National Security Network.

 Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, sought unsuccessfully on Thursday to limit the military custody requirement to suspects captured outside the United States. The Senate voted her proposal down, 55-45.

 Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued that ordinary criminal courts had produced lengthy sentences for convicted terror suspects such as convicted shoebomber Richard Reid, who received a life sentence in 2003 after he pleaded guilty to trying to blow up an aircraft.

 But Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte warned al Qaeda might send others to attack the United States if it thought that suspects captured on U.S. soil would not go into military custody.

"In our country we need the authority in the first instance to hold those individuals in military custody," she said.

 Otherwise, "we're laying out a welcome mat, to say, that if you make it to America, you won't be held in military custody," Ayotte said.

 
Senators reach compromise on detainee language in DOD bill
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01/senators-reach-compromise-on-de...

 Senate debate on the detainee matter was at times volatile and emotional.

After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists - civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system - Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Ranking Republicans John McCain of Arizona reached a long-sought compromise to codify the process.

However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military. That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military.

Levin and McCain denied their bill would allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

"This country is special because we have certain values, and due process of law is one of those values," Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-California, argued on the Senate floor. "I object to holding American citizens without trial. I do not believe that makes us more safe."

"You have people on the left who hate saying 'the war on terror,' responded Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. "They would never ever use the military and always insist the law enforcement be used because they don't buy into the idea that we're at war. They want to criminalize the war."

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

"It supports present law," Feinstein added.

 

 HUFFINGTON POST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/ndaa-military-detainment_b_1...
Coleen Rowley
Former FBI Special Agent

 Obama Should Veto Empire Over Republic

Posted: 12/ 3/11 11:50 AM ET

The political, military industrial, corporate class in Washington DC continues to re-make our constitutional republic into a powerful, unaccountable military empire. Yesterday the U.S. Senate voted 93 to 7 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 which allows the military to operate domestically within the borders of the United States and to possibly (or most probably) detain U.S. citizens without trial. Forget that the ACLU called it "an historic threat to American citizens", this bill is so dangerous not only to our rights but to our country's security that it was criticized by the Directors of the FBI, the CIA, the National Intelligence Director and the U.S. Defense Secretary! For the first time in our history, if this Act is not vetoed, American citizens may not be guaranteed their Article III right to trial.

 
US Senate passes its version of NDAA bill, which would allow military to detain anyone on US soil

OPENGLOBE

http://theopenglobe.org/wiki/US_Senate_passes_its_version_of_NDAA_bill,_...

 Friday, December 2, 2011

The US Senate on Thursday passed its version of a bill that, among other provisions, would enable the US military to indefinitely detain anyone who is deemed to be engaging in terrorist activities.

93 Senators voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with only seven opposing and none abstaining. (A list of who voted for the bill is available at OpenCongress.)

The NDAA authorises $662 billion in funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and military personnel. The act's Subtitle D, which discusses "counter-terrorism", would also allow the military to detain anyone, including US citizens, on home soil, without having to guarantee a trial.

The House will also vote on the bill, and then must reconcile its version with the Senate's, before the legislation could be sent to the President's desk. A roll call was held over the bill in late May in the House, where 322 Representatives supported, 96 opposed, and 13 abstained.

The Senate later adopted, in a 99-1 vote, a compromise amendment, stating that the NDAA is not intended to change the current legal authority of the government to imprison individuals detained in the "war on terror".

Daphne Eviatar, an associate for the Human Rights First group, told Democracy Now that "[Obama] has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs."

Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, son of presidential candidate Ron Paul, voiced concerns over the bill on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "Under the provisions, wouldn't it be possible, then, that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

John McCain, who had helped write out the relevant provision in the bill, responded: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."

Senator Lindsay Graham, a supporter of NDAA, explained that it "basically say[s] in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and anyone can be detained, "American citizen or not".

 

AJC Applauds Senate Bill to Sanction Iran's Central Bank

 NEW YORK, Dec. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- AJC applauded the Senate for passing unanimously the Menendez-Kirk Amendment, which would prohibit the U.S. from doing any business with Iran's Central Bank.

The Senate measure will sanction financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran. In doing so, it will have a direct impact on Iranian oil exports since countries transmit their payments through the Central Bank. The amendment, introduced by Senators Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) and Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), was adopted unanimously as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S.1867).

 
Press Release May 27, 2010
CONTACT: Judy Mayka 202-621-3948 judy@defenddemocracy.org

FDD Applauds Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act Barring Pentagon Contracts with Companies Doing Business with Iran

 Washington, D.C. (May 27, 2010) - The Foundation for Defense of Democracies today applauded the U.S. House of Representatives for taking up an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding contracts to any entity that engages in commercial activity in the Iranian energy sector. Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Representative Ron Klein (D-FL) led the effort to include the language.

National Defense Authorization Act: Senate Clears Way For Passage Of $662 Billion Bill

HUFFINGTON POST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/national-defense-authorization-...

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats and Republicans are pushing for harsher sanctions against Iran's Central Bank as fears of Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweigh concerns that any step would drive up oil prices and hit Americans at the gas pump.

The Senate on Wednesday weighed whether to add the sanctions measure to a massive, $662 billion defense bill that moved closer to passage. A vote on the sanctions was likely Thursday.

On Wednesday, lawmakers voted 88-12 to limit debate on the legislation, and looked to wrap up the bill by week's end.

The legislation would authorize funds for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. The bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and $43 billion less than what Congress provided to the Pentagon this year.

Tougher sanctions against Iran have widespread support in Congress, reflecting concerns not only for U.S. national security but ally Israel's as well. Last week, the Obama 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 Mark Kirk, R-Ill., offered an amendment to the defense bill 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.

2)  AUTHORS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL ASSERT THAT THE BILL DOES APPLY TO AMERICANS AND PERSONS DETAINED ON US SOIL

 

Senate discussion between Ayotte and Graham:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428
07:19:44
   

AND I WOULD ADD THAT SENATOR LIEBERMAN WOULD HAVE GONE FURTHER THAN YOU, AND NOBODY I RESPECT MORE THAN SENATOR LIEBERMAN, BUT TRYING TO FIND A BALANCED WAY.

07:19:52
   

SO IN SUMMARY HERE, 1032, THE MILITARY CUSTODY PROVISION, WHICH HAS WAIVERS AND A LOT OF FLEXIBLE, DOESN'T APPLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

07:20:00
   

1031, THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO DETAIN, DOES APPLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS AND IT DESIGNATES THE WORLD AS THE BATTLEFIELD, INCLUDING THE HOMELAND.

07:20:10
   

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE?

07:20:13
   

PADILLA CASE.

07:20:15
   

THAT IS A FEDERAL COURT CASE INVOLVING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAPTURED IN THE UNITED STATES THAT WAS HELD FOR CIVIL YEARS AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT?

07:20:22
   

CIRCUIT.

07:20:22
   

HIS CASE WENT TO THE FOURTH THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD BY OUR MILITARY AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT EVEN IF THEY'RE CAUGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE ONCE YOU JOIN THE ENEMY FORCES, THEN YOU PRESENT A MILITARY THREAT AND YOUR CITIZENSHIP IS NOT A SORT OF A GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD.

07:20:48
   

THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE HELD AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.

07:20:51
   

THAT WENT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND THAT, AS I SPEAK, IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

 

Exchange between Senator Paul and Senator MCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVWh1Nxa17w

 

 

 

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2011

Rubio Defends National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2012

 

http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/rubio-defends-national-defens...

 
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued a letter where he attempts to explain why he supported the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 after the controversial act came under attack by his Libertarian, Democratic and Republican constituents.

 Senator Rubio's letter follows in its entirety:

Several people have asked about my votes on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  In particular, some people are wrongly suggesting that this legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain any American citizen, and that the US Armed Forces would be able to perform law enforcement functions on American soil because of the authority conferred under Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act.  While I do have other serious concerns with this legislation, those particular assertions could not be further from the truth.  I want to take this time to explain what the law actually does, what my position is on these issues, and why I joined with Senators Demint, Coburn and Lee to vote for those specific sections, but against cloture on the final bill.

 Section 1031 of this act merely affirms the authority that the president already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current Authorization for Use of Military Force; in fact, this same section of the bill specifically states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is intended to expand the president’s power.  In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates.  There is no language that could possibly be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act and allowing the US military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities.

 In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.”  This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates.  Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.  There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store.  What this section of the bill does is help provide for our national security by giving clarity to the military in regard to its authority to detain people who have committed substantially harmful acts against the United States.  This is extremely important given that there are Al-Qaeda cells currently operating within our borders.  I would not leave the risk of a terrorist attack that could claim the life of a member of my family up to chance, and I will not leave that risk for your family either.

 
3)  NDAA HAS ALREADY BEEN USED AS VEHICLE FOR SIGNIFICANT LAW AND POLICY CHANGES

2006:

 The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 was used as a vehicle to ram through signficiant changes to Presidential Powers regarding Martial Law

 Expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law

 http://www.bordc.org/threats/hr5122.php

 2008:

 signing the law, the Bush administration continues its use of the signing statement to object to parts of laws it views as conflicting with what it alleges are the constitutional powers of the unitary executive, especially as they relate to national defense and the war in Iraq.[1] The following Sections of the law referenced in the signing statement are listed, along with the possible impact of being mentioned in the signing statement:[2]

▪   Section 841: May reduce oversight of contractual abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.

▪   Section 1079: Could limit how much intelligence information Congress can demand from intelligence officials.

▪   Section 1222: May limit Congressional oversight in the permanent establishment of U.S. military bases or the use of government funds to control oil resources in Iraq.

 3)  PRIOR CASES

 Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld:

 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

 JOSE PADILLA:

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb") attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)

 4)  NDAA 2012 IS AN EXTENSION OF AND ADDITION TO A LONG PROCESS OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ERECTION OF POLICE STATE

 Patriot Act of 2001

 US Constitution (Bill of Rights)
   
US Patriot Act

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
   

Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
   

Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
   

Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
   

Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...
   

Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ...
   

Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

 

 

The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas

The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas:

▪   Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)

▪   Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)

▪   Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).

▪   "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties

One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.

Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

•                       The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.

•                       The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

•                       Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

•                       Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.

•                       A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

•                       Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.

•                       Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

•                       Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.

•                       Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

Military Commissions Act of 2006

MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT

 In the final hours before adjourning in 2006, Congress passed and the president signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). In doing so, they cast aside the Constitution and the principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. They also gave the president absolute power to designate enemy combatants, and to set his own definitions for torture.

 Habeas corpus isn't a fancy legal term. It's the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. No president should ever be given the power to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the rule of law. They rejected dungeons and chose due process.

 We all know the difference between fairness and persecution. If we do not act immediately to fix the Military Commissions Act and restore our constitutional rights, basic protections like habeas corpus could be lost forever, and our country would become unrecognizable.

What's wrong with the Military Commissions Act:

▪                                  UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION AND 
THE RULE OF LAW

▪                                  MAKES THE PRESIDENT BOTH JUDGE AND JURY

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/military-commissions-act-2006

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

 

There are many more laws and policy changes that have been made incrementally to cumulatively erode and destroy Constitutional rights that have led to the present situation.

 5)  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS VIOLATED BY NDAA 2012

 IV. Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V. Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

 
VI Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 VII. Right to a trial by jury 

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Habeas corpus /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/, Latin for "you [shall] have the body," is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

United States law affords persons the right to petition the federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus petitions are generally filed as pro se cases, and the government (state or federal) is usually ordered by the court to respond. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition their own state court systems for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.

 The privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest. If one believes the arrest is without legal merit and subsequently refuses to come willingly, he still may be guilty of resisting arrest, which can sometimes be a crime in and of itself (even if the initial arrest itself was illegal) depending on the state.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States