The coming police state

[toddtar]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/congress-vote-next-week-explicitly-creating-police-state?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

[Native_NM]

Here are the sections (SS1031 and 1032) and wording that has you worried:

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.

Here is who is covered:

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under 16 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.

But if you read through the entire entire section and Bill:

(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.


And furthermore, it is nothing new:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in tended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.



What else you got?

[glenn kangiser]

So if it is nothing, NNM, why would they want to make a useless law about it?  Seems it must be something.

[Native_NM]

I didn't say it was "nothing".  If you are Taliban or Al Qaeda, it is something.  I was responding to the link which asserts that SS1031/1032 turns the country into a defacto "police state".

[Native_NM]

Seriously, there should be a law against posting links before reading the underlying data.  I see it all the time - cut-and-paste politics.  Whether its "the coming police state", "can't drink raw milk", "GE pays no taxes", "FEMA camps", "UNICEF President gets $1 million and a Rolls-Royce", or any of the other thousands of similar emails, I'd bet 99.9% of the people don't bother to look at the data for themselves.  If they read it on the internet, it must be true.   


If somebody wants to post a link, get specific about the underlying data, and offer their own opinion or analysis, then at least there is some attempt at rational discussion.  Posting a link and walking away is not productive.  Just my $0.44 cents (or whatever the inflation-adjusted 2 cents is these days).

[peternap]

.  If they read it on the internet, it must be true.   

Are you saying it isn't?

[glenn kangiser]

I will not censor discussion of a topic that is of concern to a member, NNM. 

I realize that you feel it is your duty to support all new infringements on our freedom as being good for us but I think we can still go ahead and talk about it no matter how you feel about it.

Here is an example of the corrupt police state even going after high school students.

We should support Emma and her right to express her views.

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.msg148338#msg148338 

[Native_NM]

I support the girl's right to free speech.  Clearly the KS governor was wrong.

I've written my reps on numerous occasions stating my opposition to the Patriot Act.

That aside, the legislation referenced in the OP does not introduce any new infringement on your freedom or mine (unless you are a non-US citizen and a member of the Taliban); it does not affect US citizens or their constitutional rights.    The OP wrongly asserts that the Bill erodes the rights of citizens and equates to a new police state.  That is clearly false.  It is scare tactics. 

There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike what is happening in Washington.  This is not one of them.

[Texas Tornado]

Remember this? It happened under existing law. Nobody has yet been charged with any wrongdoing. And we need a law to make this kind of thing even easier? http://apnews.myway.com/​article/20111127/​D9R98C700.html



My Way News - SWAT team's shooting of Marine causes outrage
apnews.myway.com

[peternap]

I've read it now and honestly can't see anything wrong with it except for two things.

First, why do we need it?

Second, I've grown to distrust any of the 9/11 bills. The road to Hell is paved with 9/11 bills.

I suppose it all depends on your vision of the near future. If you follow John's "Muddle Through" philosophy, all is good.

I'm sticking with my melt down plan and we seem a little closer every day.

I also think we're on the outer edge of an extremely violent era. This bill could easily be amended,

[Tickhill]

Well it lost credibility with me when, "The ACLU's Washington legislative office explains:".

There are organizations that need to have its base live in fear, that is how they keep their relevence and their funding!
Some people believe every word that the Enquirer writes too.

I was in the Army in the 70's and I fully believe in the freedom of speech but I also believe that with that freedom, there is a responsibility to dig out the information and vet it as best as possible. Think for yourself.

No one knows any better than me what the sport coat, sun glass wearing, Glock packing Federales can and will do, based upon unsubstantiated, anonymous information;  but why do people need someone else to tell them the sky is falling when they can see it for themselves?

This quote has stuck with me for years, by William Pitt the younger:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."   

I'm just glad we are going to have NBA basketball, I was starting to feel disenfranchised!

[archimedes]

Seriously, there should be a law against posting links before reading the underlying data.  I see it all the time - cut-and-paste politics.  Whether its "the coming police state", "can't drink raw milk", "GE pays no taxes", "FEMA camps", "UNICEF President gets $1 million and a Rolls-Royce", or any of the other thousands of similar emails, I'd bet 99.9% of the people don't bother to look at the data for themselves.  If they read it on the internet, it must be true.   


If somebody wants to post a link, get specific about the underlying data, and offer their own opinion or analysis, then at least there is some attempt at rational discussion.  Posting a link and walking away is not productive.  Just my $0.44 cents (or whatever the inflation-adjusted 2 cents is these days).

Cheers to that.   

[Squirl]

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in tended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

The construction clause is intended not to revoke or expand the original Sept, 18 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).  This is required under the War Powers Act of 1973.  It clarifies it that the intent of the original act can be used against American citizens.  This has been the application of it by the past two administrations, but it has not been expressly permitted by congress.  The drafter of this section would take the position that this was always part of the law and intent of congress, but is now being clarified. It would cover all actions from September 18, 2001 to when this passes.  Knowing what happened this year, this is not surprising. 

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html

[toddtar]

SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the end of section 1031, add the following:

    (f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122kdJty:e129150:

[Windpower]

Lindsay Graham in his own words

American citizens can be held by the military as enemy combatants including arrests made in the US


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

[Native_NM]

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12076

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/11/29/beltway-blog-udalls-attempts-at-compromise-on-defense-bill-defeated/48226/

Info on the Udall amendment. 

[Native_NM]

SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the end of section 1031, add the following:

    (f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r1122kdJty:e129150:

Your link is dead.  I just downloaded the entire Bill, and this is not at the end of Section 1031.  Paragraph (e) is the last paragraph.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

I don't see that it made it to the final Bill.  At least as of tonight.

http://www.dailypaul.com/189650/udall-amendment-fails-rand-paul-1-of-only-2-republican-yeas

[Native_NM]

http://www.markudall.com/content/page/full_text_of_the_udall_detainee_amendment#

[muldoon]

.

[Sassy]

.

I almost posted about this before Tod did...  glad I didn't as it gave me more time to research about it.  Otherwise, I might have been intimidated by some...   

Here's another article on this  http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US
APBy MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

The courts in habeas cases, such as those involving whether a detainee should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, make the determination of who can be considered an enemy combatant.

Seems like everything is pointing to any US citizen can be suspect...  and I have a question:  Since when, in the last 100 yrs (probably more) has our Congress or even the president followed the rules?      Give an inch & they take a mile!   

[Native_NM]

So for all my friends left of center, how does it feel now that Obama has essentially expanded on Bush's policies?  Who do we run as a candidate that will listen to the mainstream, middle-Americans?    It was not Republicans trying to sneak that in, but leftist Udall.   Obama can grandstand and threaten to veto, but it was Democrats that drafted much of the language. 

[Windpower]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/eEMDX2iuHyI[/embed]

[Windpower]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/wle2CrwLYGc[/embed]

[Windpower]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/iD1T61oTrR8[/embed]

[Native_NM]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/eEMDX2iuHyI[/embed]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/rand-paul-single-handedly-stops-bill.html