Thread: Legally detaining American citizens indefinitely and without trial

It's true, why would you get offended when he criticised the country you too say is a pile of shit?

So I guess 7 senators opposed this bill? Holy fucking shit cake, this country's political system is fucked. When only 7 senators oppose a bill nullifying the 4th amendment you know it's time for a revolution.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

So I guess 7 senators opposed this bill? Holy fucking shit cake, this country's political system is fucked. When only 7 senators oppose a bill nullifying the 4th amendment you know it's time for a revolution.

They should have had a short, 7 day recess, required them to return to their districts and states so they can hear what their constituents think. Because I have a feeling more than 7% of the American people oppose this bill...

Originally Posted by tommo

It's true, why would you get offended when he criticised the country you too say is a pile of shit?

I was not offended. I made it clear that making specious comparisons was worthless because we are all living in fascist countries at this point.

Honestly I don't think either the US nor Britain are 'fascist'. They both have problems regarding the financing of failing businesses, and the US has significant political problems involving regarding lobbyists and campaign donations. But I don't see much evidence of a police state globally. In fact the riots in the UK recently were the direct result of the exact opposite; the police were reluctant to use any force at all even in the face of blatant criminality, which caused them to escalate.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

So I guess 7 senators opposed this bill? Holy fucking shit cake, this country's political system is fucked. When only 7 senators oppose a bill nullifying the 4th amendment you know it's time for a revolution.

The worst part is that's not even enough votes to avoid overturning a presidential veto.

Funny how usually they bitch and drag things out over stupid details, and yet in this case this bill got rushed though with that 1 little detail (snuck into an 800+ page bill mind you) being the nullification of the universal right to trial by jury.

Also, I saw a rerun of last night's Daily Show, and Jon Stewart was talking about this near the start of the show. It was mentioned at one point that the justice department's definition for who can be considered a terror suspect is broad enough to emcompass people who obviously have nothing to do with terrorism of any kind - not unlikely the majority of Americans. Criteria including anyone missing a finger, or anyone with more than 7 days worth of food in their house.

It really frightened me to hear how some of those senators argued for this bill. As if they were so frightened of Al-Qaeda that any measure was worthwhile.

Jon Stewart hit the nail right on the head in terms of everything that's gone on since 9-11. He played a clip of a senator (forget who) saying that we are facing "an enemy who will do anything possible to destroy our way of life." and cut in saying "so we're going to destroy it first!"

Originally Posted by Xei

Honestly I don't think either the US nor Britain are 'fascist'. They both have problems regarding the financing of failing businesses, and the US has significant political problems involving regarding lobbyists and campaign donations. But I don't see much evidence of a police state globally. In fact the riots in the UK recently were the direct result of the exact opposite; the police were reluctant to use any force at all even in the face of blatant criminality, which caused them to escalate.

The US is quite different in that way, I assume you've seen some video of the occupy wallstreet protests. I'm not sure that that makes us fascists, but it's an alarming possibility.

We're not fascist yet per se but there's no definite line, just a spectrum of abuse of power and loss of accountability in government.

One day people might start disappearing, people we know. And they'll say "we're not fascists, we have elections." But with diebold and other corrupt companies running the ballot technology and the necessity of funding in Washington, there's nothing democratic about the US. We're just oppressed by Plutocrats rather than a Dictator

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

Don't forget, fascism is also about hatred of those who are "different" (considered "wrong.") Islamophobia, homophobia, etc.

Where can I read this bill? I absolutely refuse to believe the negative hype surrounding it until I see with my own eyes what is written in it.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Where can I read this bill? I absolutely refuse to believe the negative hype surrounding it until I see with my own eyes what is written in it.

That's a pretty thick veil you got over your eyes there

Just sounds like rationalism to me.

Anybody been watching the events in Russia? Even in a corrupt election Putin couldn't muster a majority. Events have moved pretty quickly of late. Many are on the streets.

I'd also warn you against believing that since the mechanisms for a totalitarian police-state have not been activated, it must mean that we are not living in a fascist world. The legal ground work for such a reality has been pretty well laid already even before this law, and this one is simply the final bow on the package of global legislation that has been built up over the last 30 years (with major acceleration over the last 10). These laws remain mostly dormant because the ruling class has come to realize that people are a lot more productive when they believe they are free to do as they please. Notice however that now that productivity has nose dived, certain actions are being taken; and I think you'll find that as they actively deprive you of rights that you took for granted we will all start to realize that those rights had actually been legally taken from us already.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Where can I read this bill? I absolutely refuse to believe the negative hype surrounding it until I see with my own eyes what is written in it.

S.1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress This is the bill profile on OpenCongress, the full text may be available through one of the links they provide.

They pass this bill every year, but they always add in line-items of this sort... this one is extremely serious.

Also, the OP goes into detail about the failed amendment to cut the indefinite detention clause.

it is section 1031 that this is all about.

Taken from section 1031:

(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.

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

Taken from Section 1032:

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.

(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.

I don't see what's wrong with any of this. Am I missing something?

look i have been saying this is happening for years, the shit will hit the fan eventually. you should prepare accordingly. if you dont educate yourself and arent prepared for whatever is coming you deserve the repercussions. i mean we have access to the goddamned internet, use it for something other than facebook peoople. stop buying into political parties and divide and conquer techniques. dont listen to the mainstream media. these are givens my friends, it goes a little deeper but all the info is out there. DIE SHEEPLE DIE.

I just read 1031 myself, subsection e appears to nullify these new additions in regard to US citizens, legal residents or even criminals without citizenship arrested by other law enforcement agencies not tracking terrorists. Is there something specific in the bill someone can quote that conflicts with the 4th Amendment?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I just read 1031 myself, subsection e appears to nullify these new additions in regard to US citizens, legal residents or even criminals without citizenship arrested by other law enforcement agencies not tracking terrorists. Is there something specific in the bill someone can quote that conflicts with the 4th Amendment?

This is all magical lawyer talk anyway, the government does whatever the fuck it wants. However, if there is some other clause in some other bill that allows them to instantly revoke a person's citizenship if they're "suspected" of being a terrorist, then that would close the circle. I don't know if such a clause exists, but it may.

>.> That's not what anyone was saying about the bill and by the way you're so completely wrong that in this instance I don't even feel like entitling you to your opinion. A government does not do whatever the fuck it wants, it's held to a constituency of some kind. In a democratic government, any action at odds with the will of the public is not to be condoned.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

>.> That's not what anyone was saying about the bill and by the way you're so completely wrong that in this instance I don't even feel like entitling you to your opinion. A government does not do whatever the fuck it wants, it's held to a constituency of some kind. In a democratic government, any action at odds with the will of the public is not to be condoned.

Man you got some serious reality issues...that's all I can say to you haha

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

>.> That's not what anyone was saying about the bill and by the way you're so completely wrong that in this instance I don't even feel like entitling you to your opinion. A government does not do whatever the fuck it wants, it's held to a constituency of some kind. In a democratic government, any action at odds with the will of the public is not to be condoned.

:/

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I don't see what's wrong with any of this. Am I missing something?

Note that it says "hostilities" or "aiding hostilities." That can be applied widely. Even if you ARE a citizen, engaging in hostilities allows such actions (anyone remember Anwar Al Awlaki? He committed no physically hostile acts, he just printed anti-US government magazines that a terrorist says inspired him. He was a US Citizen (as was his son), both of whom were executed without trial, because they were "hostile." Sure, he opposed the government, but many people oppose the government, and if you do so, and someone is inspired by such opposition to commit acts of terrorism, you can be executed without trial, not even detained, but executed.)

Gradualism happens, it's human nature to look for loopholes to get around any "protective" provisions. Look at the Interstate Commerce Clause, which has been utterly abused and beaten into submission by virtually every law where in some EXTREME, STRANGE fashion SOMETHING in that law MIGHT be considered interstate commerce.

Do you really expect them to NOT look for loopholes, and then abuse said loopholes? It happens every day in Washington.