National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

[nate45]

The National Defense Authorization Act would...

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad


If this doesn't seem a gross violation of our Civil Rights and on its face un-Constitutional I don't know what does.

Things are going to far, nothing in the name of 'security' can be worth this erosion of our liberties.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What's your point?

Is this a law, or is this a PROPOSED law that hasn't been enacted yet? If the latter -- where is it in the legislative process?

 

[ammo.crafter]

step aside!

How did you hear about this secret vote?

 

[rshanneck2002]

Weird

Weird to say the least ., they already have laws on the books to basically declare martial law at the drop of a hat and the guard has been used before in riots. this all being said i have a flaming die hard lib cousin that was having fits all over facebook yesterday about how the Republicans were to blame for this bill until i reminded her that Harry Reid controlled what was allowed on the floor for a vote. I then told her it was funny that this bill even pops up in the senate when they allow daily thousands of illegals to cross our borders and someone wants to pass a bill arresting natural born citizens and deny them due process? something is way outta whack here. What has really bothered me lately is how much is being done behind closed doors from Obama care through the super commitee and now this., it wasnt allowed this way 10 yrs ago or later,it was held in open forum on each side of the house floors in open debate between our respective representatives., this scares me. Over the yrs they have attacked common sense principals and sure dumb down the daily average person. People lose rights daily and they dont seem to care or at least a great deal of them dont. Change i can believe in? I sure dont think so? Skunks always hide in woodpiles and behind closed doors!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just to clarify, the National Defense Authorization Act is basically the DoD budget (H.R. 1450/S. 1867) and it is a huge, huge, bill (unsuprisingly). S. 1867 is the portion being discussed in the above post. This is the Senate version of H.R. 1450.

Buried in the thousands of lines of text of S.1867 is the provision that the ACLU is complaining about. Sen. Mark Udall of Utah has offered an amendment (the Udall Amendment) that would strip this provision from the bill.

I'd say anytime you have a team consisting of Utah's Republican Senator and the ACLU, you've probably got real cause for concern.

 

[nate45]

If the latter -- where is it in the legislative process?

They are voting on it this week. Maybe today.

How did you hear about this secret vote?

I'm not the one calling it a 'secret' vote. That's a link to Business Insider where I first read the story and thats their headline.

Weird to say the least .,

Well, the bill was co-authored by Sens. Levin (D) and McCain (R) so it has bi-partisan support. Lets don't make this too political though considering the forum rules. I say too, what I should say is partisan.

I'd say anytime you have a team consisting of Utah's Republican Senator and the ACLU, you've probably got real cause for concern.

Well, he's a Democrat from Colorado. However, it doesn't matter to me what party he's in, this is our Constitutional Rights at stake.

In the old L&P form I railed against the Patriot Act and was told my concerns weren't justified and only 'terrorists' had to worry. Well, Goggle Patriot Act abuses, there have been thousands of instances where the FBI has misused the Patriot Act.

Defense bill gives military too much responsibility for detainees by Sen. Mark Udall (D)

the provisions would require the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects — in some cases indefinitely — even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorist’s citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city.

These provisions are ripe for abuse. I don't think you need a tin-foil hat to see it either.

US citizens declared 'terrorist' and then held incommunicado by the military. Habeas Corpus be damned huh? If its in the name of fighting 'terror'.

 

[carguychris]

they already have laws on the books to basically declare martial law at the drop of a hat and the guard has been used before in riots.

This is generally done under the direction of the state governor or, in some cases, local authorities. (The legality of the latter has been questioned most times it has happened, perhaps most notably in the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.)

Use of regular US Army and/or Army Reserve troops under federal control, as opposed to Guardsmen under state or local control, is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Although it is legal for federal troops to operate against American citizens inside US borders under certain circumstances, this has rarely been attempted in the post-Reconstruction era due to the controversy it generally provokes.

 

[Don H]

Utah's Republican Senator

Utah has 2 Republican Senators and neither is named Udall.

 

[pnac]

Here's a link to Freedom Watch video about the "Indefinite Detention Provision":
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/11/fox-news-mccainlevin-bill-calling-us.html

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Utah has 2 Republican Senators and neither is named Udall."

Udall is from Colorado.

Utah, Colorado... does it really make a difference which is which when they're both big areas of nuttin?

 

[nate45]

Here's a link to Freedom Watch video about the "Indefinite Detention Provision":
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspo...alling-us.html

Good video pnac, Judge Napolitano is one of the few people in the MSM who covers these types of things.

Having seen the DHS list of potential 'terror' suspects. It makes me even more leery of this new bill.

Here is a link to an 18 year veteran LEO's take on Homeland Security domestic terrorism training.

Beware of Homeland Security Training for Local Law Enforcement, by An Insider

 

[Wyoredman]

Mike,

Utah and Colorado both have over 1 million residents, if you want a whole lot of nuttin', look no further that good ole WYO!

 

[secret_agent_man]

“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision. One designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

--Federal Judge Alex Kosinski

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...o-gun-rights-protect-against-tyranny/(page)/2

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sloppy reading on my part. Thanks to those who corrected my error. I still agree with the ACLU on this one though, Sen. Udall's state and party notwithstanding.

 

[Alaska444]

Bush and Senator Warner pulled off a similar thing with the Military Commission Act (Later overturned by SCOTUS) and the John Warner Defense bill signed on the same day back in 2006 which undid Posse Comitatus Act (Later overturned by SCOTUS as well).

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

. . .Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Military Commissions Act Does Affect US Citizens
Recent application of terror legislation proves American citizens not exempt from intent of bill

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | October 22 2006

Neo-Con government mouthpieces and others are claiming that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which heralded the official end of the "great experiment" of the American democratic republic, does not affect U.S. citizens, only illegal aliens and foreign terrorists. Recent history of how terror legislation was used to target American citizens clearly indicates the legislation will be used domestically.

A coordinated effort to downplay the implications of the fact that the bill affects American citizens, in the face of extensive coverage on the part of Keith Olbermann, is underway in an attempt to offset the possible repeal of this draconian legislation.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/221006doesaffect.htm

 

[C0untZer0]

Utah and Wyoming have 1 million residents?

 

[pnac]

The Senate rejected an amendment on Tuesday that would have removed a provision from the pending Defense spending bill to toughen U.S. policy towards suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield or on the home front.

The amendment, defeated 37-61, would have struck a section of the spending bill that authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain people suspected of terrorism and instead would have implemented a timeline to allow further hearings and opportunities for the military to make recommendations on how detainee policy ought to change.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...endment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language

 

[egor20]

The National Defense Authorization Act would...

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

As far as S. 1867 goes, page 362 reads...

"APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

17 (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.

21 (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.

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

 

[(*_*)]

As far as S. 1867 goes, page 362 reads...

"APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

17 (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.

21 (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.

Your looking at the nov 15 version, look at the nov 17th version:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-11-17/pdf/CREC-2011-11-17-pt1-PgS7716.pdf#page=14

"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."

 

[egor20]

(*_*)

WoW missed that THX.

I wonder how this would effect the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?