S.1867- Indefinite detention of US citizens without due process

Makeuptalk.com forums

Help Support Makeuptalk.com forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
4,705
Reaction score
21
Liberty Alerts, JBS.org Freedom Campaign

Immediate action required!

Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.

Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial….†This “indefinite detention†section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens.  No trial needed.  Simple suspicion would suffice.


This could be quite reminiscent of Stalinist Russia where a knock on the door in the middle of the night meant that the person taken by the military was often never seen again, perhaps having been imprisoned in Siberia or executed. The Japanese American Citizens League has warned that this measure’s detention principles are similar to the ones that sent innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II.

Sadly, this bill has already been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with nary a whimper by a 322-96 vote.   The excuse given for such an egregious disregard for the Constitution by supporters of the bill including authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.)  and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is that the provision would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with “terrorists.†Other supporters insist that the language doesn’t necessarily include American citizens.

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who voted against the bill in the House, thinks differently. Amash says the act would indeed “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.†He notes that the language “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,†therefore it is misleading and outrageous.




Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is speaking out in opposition to the “indefinite detainment†provision of S. 1867. He is also offering an amendment that would simply strike out Section 1031 of the bill. As this alert is being written on November 29, the Senate is debating S. 1867 and could vote on the Paul amendment this evening or tomorrow, November 30. A related amendment by Senator Udall to revise the detainee provisions of S. 1867 has already been defeated today by a vote of 37 yeas and 61 nays.

Indefinite detention without due process leaves citizens without the legal protection of the Constitution and strikes at the heart of the essence of U.S. law. It is positively shameful that any elected representative would even consider voting for such an assault on so sacred a fundamental value as the right to due process.

Far too much power has already been either usurped or given over to the Executive Branch under the guise of national security. Contact your Senators immediately and demand that they safeguard individual freedom and liberty by upholding the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Have them support the Rand Paul amendment that would completely strike Section 1031 from S. 1867, or any other amendment that would accomplish the same purpose.

If one or more amendments are added to S. 1867, it will likely go to a conference committee and then return to both the House and the Senate for a final vote.  So, a word to your Representative on this issue is also advised. Make sure you find out how he or she voted on the NDAA before getting in touch

Source: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/11/29/stop-indefinite-detention-of-u-s-citizens-without-due-process/

...and apparently if you are missing fingers, have several guns, weather proofed ammunition and more than 7 days of food in your home, you will be suspect and can be detained. According to Rand Paul in this video below: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3PEfTJmdFU

 
"Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.

Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial….†This “indefinite detention†section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens.  No trial needed.  Simple suspicion would suffice."

....................................

Hell, the US military has been doing this for years.  Must be completely legal as no one has question the US government about this practice. In fact, it has been encouraged. Just look at Gauntanamo Bay and all the detainees that were/still are held there.

If the US can do this to non Americans (while in other countries) than what makes you think that it won't happen to Americans in your own back yard.?

 
I don't like this bill. With the current administration and nobody in it willing to define what the enemy is, terrorist could be applied to anyone the government dislikes. With that said, if the bill means scumbags like Nidad Hasan Malik/Faisal Shahzed will be treated as combatants, than good. America has let in way too much enemy trash and no nation can survive traitors.

 
Originally Posted by Dragonfly /img/forum/go_quote.gif

"Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.

Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial….†This “indefinite detention†section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens.  No trial needed.  Simple suspicion would suffice."

....................................

Hell, the US military has been doing this for years.  Must be completely legal as no one has question the US government about this practice. In fact, it has been encouraged. Just look at Gauntanamo Bay and all the detainees that were/still are held there.

If the US can do this to non Americans (while in other countries) than what makes you think that it won't happen to Americans in your own back yard.?
So you want them to release them from GITMO onto the public? Maybe the US should send the prisoners to your home so you can find out how sweet they are. They believe they're allowed by their god to rape/kill/rob you but don't let that stop your bleeding heart.

 
Originally Posted by Porcelain13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif


So you want them to release them from GITMO onto the public? Maybe the US should send the prisoners to your home so you can find out how sweet they are. They believe they're allowed by their god to rape/kill/rob you but don't let that stop your bleeding heart.

I want anyone that is innocent to be freed - just as I would want you to be freed if you were innocent.

"They believe they're allowed by their god to rape/kill/rob you but don't let that stop your bleeding heart".

Which God are you referring to - Christian, Jewish - Muslim, etc - as I don't see which God you are referring to, in the article.

I'm starting to smell a troll on this thread...

 

Latest posts

Back
Top