Legally detaining American citizens indefinitely and without trial

**ThePreserver** · 11-30-2011 10:19 PM

Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

So this year's Defense Department Authorization Bill (which passes every year, basically updates the duties of the DoD) has included a change that will allow American citizens to be detained without trial indefinitely, because it would declare American soil part of the "battlefield." The Udall Amendment was drafted to repeal that particular line of legislation, but the Udall Amendment failed.

So, if anyone, for example Occupy protestors, are declared "hostile" (that is the word used, engaging in hostilities) they can be imprisoned without trial.

Chances are good that this will pass... although a couple White House officials are threatening a veto.

Thoughts?

**Original Poster** · 11-30-2011 10:48 PM

If the United States is the battlefield then I know my enemy.

**Seroquel** · 12-01-2011 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If the United States is the battlefield then I know my enemy.

You're already on like 10 lists.

**Original Poster** · 12-01-2011 12:12 AM

I have a list, too.

**Darkmatters** · 12-01-2011 12:14 AM

^ Oooh!! .. So, am I Naughty or Nice?

**Original Poster** · 12-01-2011 12:15 AM

Hold on I need to check it twice.

**Darkmatters** · 12-01-2011 12:28 AM

Lol I'm gonna go in and agree with you on the "All points of view are truth" thread so I don't get a lump of burning coal..

**Original Poster** · 12-01-2011 12:44 AM

Someone's getting an Xbox

**Darkmatters** · 12-01-2011 01:04 AM

:yumdumdoodledum:

(leaving thread now so it can get back on topic.. )

**ThePreserver** · 12-01-2011 01:17 AM

I think we're too far gone from that already. In record time, too!

But seriously. No one seems to care about this, and those that care don't care enough to write their senators or representative... if enough people just took 3 minutes to even send a form email saying that they will not re-elect them, they might pay attention. (Wishful thinking, maybe. But it's better than letting them detain you legally.)

**tommo** · 12-02-2011 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I think we're too far gone from that already. In record time, too!

But seriously. No one seems to care about this, and those that care don't care enough to write their senators or representative... if enough people just took 3 minutes to even send a form email saying that they will not re-elect them, they might pay attention. (Wishful thinking, maybe. But it's better than letting them detain you legally.)

Petition websites are actually pretty good for this sort of thing.
We have a website in Aus called GetUp which isn't petitions specifically, but more sending letters and organising protests, TV ads, campaigns etc. But I think a petition site could be used for the same purpose.

**Alric** · 12-01-2011 06:16 AM

The law is illegal, even if passed. If that ever came up in the supreme court it should, and probably would be thrown out. We should all treat it as an unlawful act. If the government uses that law to hold someone they are basically kidnapping people. Do you want to live in a country that kidnaps people?

**DuB** · 12-01-2011 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

The law is illegal, even if passed.

**ThePreserver** · 12-01-2011 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

The law is illegal, even if passed. If that ever came up in the supreme court it should, and probably would be thrown out. We should all treat it as an unlawful act. If the government uses that law to hold someone they are basically kidnapping people. Do you want to live in a country that kidnaps people?

The PATRIOT Act is illegal according to the Constitution, and the Federal Reserve, according to the Constitution, cannot exist.
In order for anyone to care, however, you need to ENFORCE it

Soooo many laws we pass are "illegal" but they get through anyways. I'm hoping the White House vetoes it or the Supreme Court deals with it properly... although the Supreme Court makes some pretty stupid decisions... (Citizens United v. FEC)

**Alric** · 12-01-2011 11:42 PM

If the congress passes a law they are not allowed to do then it isn't a legally binding law DuB. Congress does not have the authority to pass a law to kidnap people. It directly goes against the constitution. Which is why if it finds its way to the supreme court it will be thrown out and deemed illegal. That isn't to say it is easy to overturn illegal laws, but the law is still illegal under our government system.

**ThePreserver** · 12-01-2011 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

If the congress passes a law they are not allowed to do then it isn't a legally binding law DuB. Congress does not have the authority to pass a law to kidnap people. It directly goes against the constitution. Which is why if it finds its way to the supreme court it will be thrown out and deemed illegal. That isn't to say it is easy to overturn illegal laws, but the law is still illegal under our government system.

So military intervention in Libya is not legally-binding since it went outside of "laws they are allowed to pass." Then why are we there, again? Same thing with Yemen...

My point is, Congress doesn't give a shit about what they can and can't pass... if they DID care they wouldn't try and pass it in the first place.

**cmind** · 12-02-2011 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

If the congress passes a law they are not allowed to do then it isn't a legally binding law DuB.

That way of thinking died in 1865 along with the second rebellion.

**ooflendoodle** · 12-01-2011 11:52 PM

I'll rate the banter between posts 2 and 9 at a 7.5.

**Alric** · 12-01-2011 11:53 PM

Of course they do not care. Everyone else should care though, and they should know that it isn't a real law. And you should treat them doing it as if they are willfully breaking the law, because that is what they are actually doing.

**Supernova** · 12-02-2011 03:49 AM

Really? The confederacy? Really???

**cmind** · 12-02-2011 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Supernova

Really? The confederacy? Really???

Oh, was Confederacy a bad word? Canada is a confederacy. Does that mean we're all slave owners?

**Supernova** · 12-03-2011 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by cmind

Oh, was Confederacy a bad word? Canada is a confederacy. Does that mean we're all slave owners?

It has fuck all to do with what you call it. Perhaps I'm not up on my Civil War history, but I don't see what that example has to do with the matter at hand.

And if you're referring to the emancipation proclamation, that's irrelevant because congress had nothing to do with it; it was an executive order issued by Lincoln himself and nothing else.

**cmind** · 12-02-2011 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Supernova

Really? The confederacy? Really???

Oh, was Confederacy a bad word? Canada is a confederacy. Does that mean we're all slave owners?

**cmind** · 12-03-2011 04:48 AM

Well, I guess this comment:

Originally Posted by Supernova

Really? The confederacy? Really???

is just beyond my understanding.

**Supernova** · 12-03-2011 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by cmind

Well, I guess this comment:

is just beyond my understanding.

Ok, emotions are difficult to convey in his format, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase: "You're bringing up the confederacy right now? For what purpose?"