The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for "U.S. is a Ba

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby katsung47 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:44 pm

Protect your own rights.

Quote, "Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for "U.S. is a Battlefield" and to detain U.S. Citizens without trial

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/892/peti ... s-without/
-----------------------

National Defense Authorization Act. (Liberty end)
congress.org ^ | 11/29/11 | Cathedra

Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:55:39 AM by Broker

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in SECRET by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

-----------------
The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary
David Seaman, Credit Card Outlaw | Nov. 30, 2011,

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, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.

Details: There is a scary provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (fiscal year 2012) which is typically passed by Congress each and every year to continue funding our military operations around the world.

This provision is not a mistake or error; it has vocal backing from some of the most powerful Senators in Washington, including Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin.
katsung47
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:59 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:49 pm

katsung47 wrote:Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.


topic6512.html
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby gudskepteacal » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:11 pm

Yeah katsung, I dk if our 'representatives' are actively in on it or just playing the smiling, head nodding 'yes men' that got us so far into this mess in the first place. I've read several articles and, so far, have not been able to discern whether this piece of legislation infringes on 6th amendment rights or not. The very fact they even play on the line should be concern for all Americans, but listen to the MSM and you get conspicuous silence on the whole thing. Here is another recent article that still leaves it all up in the air...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderh ... bad-thing/

As I noted on my other blog yesterday, and as E.D. Kain wrote about here, the Senate recently passed a bill that may authorize the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens arrested in the United States. (Yes, that actually happened.) A commenter suggested to me that I was wrong to be concerned about this development because of “Senate Amendment 1456.” He didn’t explain, but I don’t like to be wrong in public, so I looked it up. Here’s why it doesn’t make me feel any better.

Senate Amendment 1456, proposed by Senator Feinstein, was a last-minute amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act’s provision on military detention. As I wrote yesterday, there was at least some controversy over the question whether citizens arrested in the U.S. could be detained indefinitely without trial by the military, and it is nice that they took a few minutes to talk it over, since they were arguably about to repeal the Sixth Amendment. The controversy, to be clear, was over whether citizens can be detained forever without trial if arrested in the United States. You may recall that the Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that this is okay if citizens are arrested overseas so long as they have a chance to challenge their designation as an “enemy combatant.” Which they do. Sort of.

Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan, where we were and are still fighting an actual war that the Senate more or less declared. Based on Feinstein’s comments during the debate on her amendment (see also this), it appears that senators disagree over whether Hamdi also applies to citizens arrested here at home, which some feel is also a “battlefield.” Here she is discussing the purpose of Amendment 1456, actually the second amendment she offered to the bill:

“The sponsors of the bill believe that current law authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens arrested within the United States, without trial, until “the end of the hostilities,” which, in my view, is indefinitely.

Others of us believe that current law, including the Non-Detention Act that was enacted in 1971, does not authorize such indefinite detention of U.S. citizens arrested domestically. The sponsors believe that the Supreme Court’s Hamdi case supports their position, while others of us believe that Hamdi … was limited to the circumstance of U.S. citizens arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan …. And our concern was that section 1031 of the bill as originally drafted could be interpreted as endorsing the broader interpretation of Hamdi and other authorities.

So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side’s view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide.

Emphasis added. This “truce” added subsection (e) to Section 1031 of the act, saying that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities” relating to anyone arrested within the United States. In short, the Senate could not reach a consensus as to whether the law already does allow the indefinite military detention of a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S., and so they just agreed to disagree for now. Everybody can believe what they want, says the Feinstein Amendment. Or as Robert Chesney writes, the Senate version of the bill is “explicitly agnostic.”

Should that make you feel better? I don’t think so. Especially because of the vote on the first amendment Feinstein offered, which would have simply added the word “abroad” to make clear that arrests of citizens in the U.S. were not covered. That amendment failed, 55-45. This seems to indicate that a majority of the senators you elected to represent you think that if you are arrested for allegedly being a terrorist or “substantially supporting” terrorism, you can be detained by the military and held, without trial, until the end of the war.

Which will be approximately never, because they also see this as “a war without end,” as Senator Graham admitted during the same debate.

There were, it should be said, a number of comments during the debate suggesting that everybody agreed that no citizen was going to be deprived of a trial. But comments are comments, and none of that seems to have made it into the actual statute. So those, too, do not comfort me. It’s also not entirely clear to me why they think that. In part, it seems to be because they are supremely confident that no citizen would ever be designated, by mistake or due to some improper motive, as a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer:

“Mr. GRAHAM. No one is going to be put in jail because they disagree with Lindsay Graham or Barack Obama.

Maybe not. But even if you do trust those two guys, do you trust all the others? Will you trust all the future leaders who will likely have the same power to “designate” who is covered by these sorts of laws? Are you sure about that? And if you do get wrongly designated, how would you prove it?

Also, there is that Sixth Amendment. Seems like that should count for something.
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison
User avatar
gudskepteacal
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:16 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:47 pm

If we're still talking about Bill S. 1867, Calendar No. 230, 112th Congress 1st Session... (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s ... 867pcs.pdf)

AND! If we're talking SEC. 1031.-SEC. 1032.

22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).


As well as...

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
-page-
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.


Where is the, "Unlawful detaining of U.S. citizens with suspension of Habeas Corpus"?
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby gudskepteacal » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:11 pm

Gonna force me to use the old noggin, huh Wing? :roll: Very well then, let me get down to brass tacks with it and I'll get back by Friday at least. Off the top though, the problem I had with sect. 1031 in the first place is it refers to another subsection within the bill and not generally applied as a whole, but I could be wrong.
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison
User avatar
gudskepteacal
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:16 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:31 pm

gudskepteacal wrote:Gonna force me to use the old noggin, huh Wing? :roll: Very well then, let me get down to brass tacks with it and I'll get back by Friday at least. Off the top though, the problem I had with sect. 1031 in the first place is it refers to another subsection within the bill and not generally applied as a whole, but I could be wrong.


Haha, sorry bro. Didn't mean to strain you. ;)

From what I've read of the bill, I haven't seen much of this scary Lincoln-esque stuff that's cascading through the net though. I welcome you, or anyone, to show me otherwise though. That's what this site is for, after-all. To get to the barest of truths that we can, and then shuffle from there. :)

Edit: The rest of the bill looks, more or less, like the proposal for a Defense budget/agreement for 2012. That's just glossing over, nothing concrete by any means.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby gudskepteacal » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:21 am

After a fair amount of study, I'm still of the opinion that Senate Bill 1867 under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) does in fact empower the military to indefinately detain American citizens without trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... hout-trial

...There is confusion as to whether the NDAA applies to US citizens; but Section 1031 of the bill does indeed authorise indefinite military detention, without trial, of US citizens accused – not yet proven guilty, just accused – of terrorist acts. This was clarified in the following exchange on the floor of the Senate:

Senator Rand Paul (Republican): "Under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantánamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

Senator John McCain (Republican): "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."...

http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005047

President Obama threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) unless lawmakers remove the provision authorizing indefinite military detention of US citizens believed to have engaged in terrorist activities. The $662 billion Senate bill passed in a 93-7 vote on Dec. 1, 2011.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), who wrote the Senate’s indefinite detention provision with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said in a floor speech that he believes that the June 2004 US Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld currently allows for the detention of US citizens. "We think the law is clear in Hamdi that there is no bar to this nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant and we make clear whatever the law is, it is unaffected by this language in our bill.”

:eh: So, even though that one paragraph about it not pertaining to American citizens is in there, apparently there is language elsewhere in the bill that would contradict that paragraph and green light the detention of U.S. citizens. Note that both articles are dated the 9th, today(or yesterday, sorry so late :oops: ), so 93 senators (not to mention all the 'representatives' in the House whose version of the bill is pretty much the same) voted to eliminate due process rights for tax paying, law abiding citizens in the name of terrorism security and all that's left is for the two to be reconciled and sent to the President; who, btw, has openly said he would veto, but for his own reasons which is a whole other topic.

For anybody out there thinking all this is much adoo about nothing because our precious govt. would never abuse this bit of Constitutional contrary legislation, I would ask them if they're aware of how many times the Patriot Act has been used for the purpose which it was enacted; the answer would surely surprise. Keep in mind all that's needed for someone to be rounded up and disappeared is suspicion itself so if you already fall into one of the FBI's 'watch groups'(Christians, Tea Party members, anybody who stocks more than a weeks worth of food in their house, Oath Keepers, Apocalypse watchers, just anybody who doesn't fit in with their version of a good, brainwashed, obeying worksumer then get ready for a ride because I'll be seein ya at Guantanamo. :wave:
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison
User avatar
gudskepteacal
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:16 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:03 pm

gudskepteacal wrote:...There is confusion as to whether the NDAA applies to US citizens; but Section 1031 of the bill does indeed authorise indefinite military detention, without trial, of US citizens accused – not yet proven guilty, just accused – of terrorist acts. This was clarified in the following exchange on the floor of the Senate...


I still disagree, respectfully, due to the title of SEC. 1031. specifically mentioning "covered persons" in the title and the opening text.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), who wrote the Senate’s indefinite detention provision with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said in a floor speech that he believes that the June 2004 US Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld currently allows for the detention of US citizens. "We think the law is clear in Hamdi that there is no bar to this nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant and we make clear whatever the law is, it is unaffected by this language in our bill.”


Not to agree with McCain, but he is correct. There is nothing in that case that barred the military to hold a U.S. citizen as a military combatant. What it DOES state, however, is the guaranteed right to Habeas Corpus as a U.S. citzen, and the ability to challenge their accusation before an impartial judge.

So, even though that one paragraph about it not pertaining to American citizens is in there, apparently there is language elsewhere in the bill that would contradict that paragraph and green light the detention of U.S. citizens.


There is more than just the paragraph. There is also the continued wording of "covered persons" and the re-stating of the reader to look at Subsection b., unless I'm missing another section within the bill that further elaborates on detaining.

For anybody out there thinking all this is much adoo about nothing because our precious govt. would never abuse this bit of Constitutional contrary legislation, I would ask them if they're aware of how many times the Patriot Act has been used for the purpose which it was enacted; the answer would surely surprise.


We could look as far back as Jackson and Lincoln to know that the government has rarely been interested solely in making us happy, but that's off topic.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby gudskepteacal » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:03 pm

As a follow-up, here is a link to an article by an attorney who has bested the FDA several times in court. I realize that doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but his words will, no doubt, carry more weight than mine in this matter. The paragraph posted comes later in the article but I thought it was very powerful and beautifully illustrated why the 'indefinite detention' part of S.Bill 1867 is all wrong.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan222.htm

"At a time when our limited federal government has been transformed into an unlimited bureaucratic oligarchy (an unlimited government that runs rough shod over strictures on power, the non-delegation doctrine, the separation of powers, and the rights of Americans), it should come as no surprise that two senior United States Senators who have contributed to that transformation over the years, Carl Levin and John McCain, would think it appropriate to deny summarily the rights of all Americans to notice of criminal charges against them, a speedy trial, a trial by jury, and to counsel of their choosing if accused of support for or involvement with terrorists. I am quite certain that neither Levin nor McCain thought when they authored Section 1031 of Senate Bill 1867 that they were aligning themselves with the historic enemies of the Founding Fathers’ republic, with those who harbor ambivalence or disdain for the sacred rights indispensable to individual liberty that are designedly protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and with those who find the pretext of war sufficient to justify the denial of rights outside the theater of war."

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Benjamin Franklin
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison
User avatar
gudskepteacal
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:16 am

Postby katsung47 » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:55 pm

Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens

, SF Conservative Examiner
December 18, 2011

Enemies of the People & U.S. Constitution; Congressional Traitors Approved Provisions for Indefinite Arrests, and Detentions of U.S. Citizens, with no Due Processes, Mainly Those Who Criticize Government:

S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, attacks on our liberties was passed to the dismay of Libertarians all over.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... s-citizens
katsung47
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:59 am

Next

Return to General Discussion Topics

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests