T Nation

A Declaration of War?


#1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=couq2HkAdDU#!


#2

Media Blackout: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-medias-blackout-of-the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-shameful-2011-12

Please don't be lazy. Click the links.


#3

From the Natural News

Are you getting all this? Do you realize America is about to be overrun by our own military?

The rule of law is about to be utterly destroyed. No due process. No legal representation. Not even a right to know what you're being charged with when you are (indefinitely) detained.

This is an urgent time for a_ction to protest the overreaching military police state in America. Immediately call your representatives in Washington and urge your House members to reject this bill in the reconciliation phase with the Senate. Call the office of the President and urge Obama to veto this bill if it is passed by both houses.

Call your local newspapers and protest this outrageous and traitorous attempt to nullify the entire Bill of Rights.

Do not be fooled by the trolls and disinfo agents who claim this bill does not apply to U.S. citizens -- a fact which has already been established without question. If this is signed into law, military humvees will roll down the streets in U.S. cities, with gunpoint checkpoints, illegal arrests, secret torture operations and the outright murder of U.S. citizens right in their own home towns.

In observing all this, you might ask WHY is this happening right now? Why would the U.S. Senate deliberately nullify the Bill of Rights and seek the authorize military action on the streets of U.S. cities?

The answer, my friends, will not comfort you: A global economic collapse is coming, and once started, it will likely unleash a wave of social unrest and rioting that could burn many U.S. cities to the ground. The U.S. Senate is probably trying to rush authorization of the military to operate in American cities before the economic collapse arrives, thereby placing troops deep within the roughest U.S. cities where they stand a chance at halting the runaway riots that are sure to materialize when peoples' life savings vanish as the banks collapse.

Keep reading NaturalNews.com for updates on this situation. We will continue to cover the Eurozone economic crisis as well as this Senate bill 1867, which is not yet law. Our last-ditch hope would be for Obama to veto it. We'll issue a red alert if that action is needed...

And remember, folks, the Bill of Rights protects us all -- liberals, conservatives, libertarians, agnostics, Christians, Jews, everybody! If you lose the Bill of Rights, you lose America and all the freedoms many generations have fought for. Right now protecting the Bill of Rights is perhaps the single most important thing we can do for our collective futures.

All of us who have been screaming about the importance of the U.S. Constitution have been trying to protect YOU from exactly this kind of scenario. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government so that this kind of Senate action is never allowed.


#4

Lincoln did it and the US military serves a higher purpose.

Therefore it is a-ok and you will be thankful in the future.

Or some such.


#5

Before the hysteria is perpetuated, maybe it would serve to actually read the text:

"SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
.....
(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."


#6

Hang on...

The bullshit started with a nonsense ACLU article:

http://markamerica.com/tag/section-1032/

So...


#7

Don't be lazy. Check your sources.


#8

You should've let them run with it for a while. Some of this stuff is comedy gold.


#9

Well, when life hands you lemmings, make lemmingade.


#10

How long till end of the world again?


#11

Unfortunately this is not true. The mandatory detainment does not apply to American cititens, which just means that the US military does not have to detain them unless it has specific orders to do so.

Which, incidentally, was exactly what Orrin Hatch wanted:

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

From 7.20 on, straight from the horses mouth.

So yes, they can detain American citizens if they catch them on a "battlefield" which incidentally includes the US mainland, they just dont have to unless specifically ordered to do so.

Taqiyya much?


#12

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash opposes defense authorization bill, calling it "anti-liberty"

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, is speaking out against a defense bill being debated in the U.S. Senate this week, calling it â??one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.â??

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Defense Authorization Act will allow the U.S. military to declare national territory part of the "battlefield" in the â??War on Terror.â??

Authored by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the act would â??permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President,â?? Amash said in a Facebook posting.

â??It is destructive of our Constitution,â?? said Amash, one of five House Republicans to vote against the measure when it passed in the House on a 322-96 vote in May. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill this week.

â??The President should not have the authority to determine whether the Constitution applies to you, no matter what the allegations,â?? Amash said. â??Please urge your Senators to oppose these outrageous provisions.â??
[b]
Although the bill says â??the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,â?? Amash said the language is â??carefully crafted to mislead the public.

â??Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,â?? he wrote.
[/b]
Although the White House has threatened to veto the bill, Levin and other backers of the provision believe the administrationâ??s concerns are overblown, according to The National Journal.

Levin argued President Barack Obama would retain the ability to determine whether suspects remain in civilian custody or be transferred to the military, as well as whether theyâ??d be charged in civilian courts or before a military commission,â?? the Journal said.

â??The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country, or who arrive as tourists or on some other short-term basis,â?? The Journal quoted Levin as saying.

"Thatâ??s a small remaining category, but an important one, because it includes the terrorist who clandestinely arrives in the United States with the objective of attacking military or other targets here.â??


#13

...so the REQUIREMENT does not extend.

Thats a bit different than "the OPTION does not extend", isn't it?


#14

Once again, let's refer together to the actual text. Then you can show me the word "option:"

"SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(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.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

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."

The authority is defined and limited, the "covered persons" is strictly defined, and citizens and legal residents are specifically excluded to military jurisdiction.

Please show me "option."


#15

Holy hair splitting batman, they used the word AURTHORIZATION instead of OPTION. Clearly, you've disproven my point.

Let me ask again, in a way that shitheads cant split hairs about:

"SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
.....
(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."

...so the REQUIREMENT does not extend.

Thats a bit different than "the AUTHORITY does not extend", isn't it? \

Oh, right, but its so clearly defined: "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."

Clearly define "substantially supported" in a way that precludes an innocent person from being detained.
Clearly define "belligerent act" in a way that precludes an innocent person from being detained.
Clearly define "associated forces"....

Clearly defined my ass.


#16

The generality of those phrases is not an accident. Those terms will be defined by courts as the facts come up and by context - these phrases are intentionally general because it would be impossible to capture all the real world examples. We don't want "clearly defined" phrases to the extent you suggest so we don't preclude actions that haven't been attempted by enemies from being covered.

You have no idea how this works, do you?


#17

You have to love the hairsplitting in PWI. Some of my favorites:

When it was suggested to thunderbolt that he talk to his gay friend about how he felt about a law. Now, in normal, intelligent conversation, people interchangably use "feel" and "think" and "believe", etc. One may say "I feel like this is good" as the same as "I think this is good" or "I believe this is good". However, thunderbolts reply was to say that peoples "feelings" on laws dont matter.

Facepalm.

When it was pointed out to Tiribulus that some very old writings showed that the writers thought the generation to follow them would "bring about the apocolypse"... Tiribulus argued that this must be untrue, because those writings would have predated the word apocolypse.

Facepalm.

When Pushharder tried to argue that a poster hadn't "quoted" Thunderbolt, when the poster had used the term "quoted" to mean "borrowed sentence structure and word choice from".

Facepalm.

Now, you, Doctor, want to build a whole argument around the fact that the bill doesnt use the word OPTION, but instead uses the term AUTHORIZE. Nevermind that AUTHORIZING means "giving the OPTION of".

Its really fucking sad.


#18

sigh. DrSkep was trying to say that, under the new bill, American citizens would not be detained by the military. I was pointing out that the section he posted did not mean Americans could not be detained, just that it would not be mandatory for the government to detain them.

You have no idea what the point of our exchange was, do you?


#19

Yup. Look at the quote in your post I responded to - you complained about the lack of clarity on certain aspects of the bill. I replied to that complaint. Your move.


#20

I wasn't "complaining about lack of clarity on certain aspects of the bill".

I was disputing DSkeps assertion that those aspects were "clearly defined".

The same way, ya know, you're now arguing that they aren't, actually, clearly defined.

You do see the difference between what you're saying (that they're not clearly defined with good reason) and what he said (that they are clearly defined), yeah? Your go.