4um: S. 1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial (Martial Law)

Title: S. 1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial (Martial Law)
Source: The End of The Lie
URL Source: http://endthelie.com/2011/11/25/s-1 ... charge-or-trial/#axzz1epTjFXQZ
Published: Nov 26, 2011
Author: Madison Ruppert
Post Date: 2011-11-26 15:47:39 by Original_Intent
Keywords: Martial, Law, unconstitutional, Police State
Views: 506
Comments: 24

S. 1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial

By Madison Ruppert

Editor of End the Lie

Will we allow horrors like this to happen to Americans in the United States?

A sinister bill has quietly been introduced, so expansive in scope and dangerous in nature that it makes the PATRIOT Act look like the Bill of Rights.

This bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, or S. 1253, has received tragically sparse coverage and I must admit that I was not aware of it until a reader emailed me about it.

If you think the PATRIOT Act is bad, just wait until you check out sections 1031, 1032, 1033, and 1036 of this horrific bill.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 1^st of this year, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, the “Honorable” Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Member of the Committee, the “Honorable” Charles Grassley which strongly decried the bill.

The title of the four page letter itself reveals the truly dangerous nature of this legislation, “Judiciary Committee Should Assert Its Jurisdiction Over Those Aspects of the Detention Authority Provisions in S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Sections 1031, 1032, and 1036), That Affect Civilians Who Are Otherwise Outside of Military Control, Including Civilians Within the United States Itself.”

If these provisions are enacted, it would give the federal government the explicit power to imprison civilians, including American citizens, indefinitely with no charges or trial.

This would include individuals apprehended both inside and outside of the United States, meaning that this could give the federal government the ability to openly detain American citizens for their entire lives without so much as a single charge.

While the federal government already murders American citizens abroad based upon the decision of an unlegislated secret death panel within the National Security Council, this would be the first time since 1950 that Congress has explicitly authorized indefinite detention of Americans without charges or a trial.

This provision includes people who had absolutely no role in the attacks of September 11^th, 2001, or any hostilities whatsoever and would mandate military detention of certain civilians.

This includes civilians arrested within the United States who would otherwise be outside of military control while also transferring all responsibilities to the Department of Defense.

Instead of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, or the United States Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Marshals Service and/or the state attorneys general handling the prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal and custodial authority, the Department of Defense would handle it all.

That means that all control would be taken out of the hands of civilians and put into the brutal grip of the American military, essentially this would mean a military takeover of our so-called justice system.

All they would have to do is classify you as a terrorist, no need for actual charges or participation in hostilities; you could be locked up indefinitely for any reason or no reason at all if the Department of Defense saw fit under this NDAA.

This is so fundamentally un-American, the ACLU can’t help but right that the provisions are “inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution and in the country’s adherence to the rule of law.”

These provisions of the NDAA are so radical that they actually remove much of the protections American citizens have had since 1878 under the Posse Comitatus Act and the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

Section 1031 of S. 1253 would be the first time in more than 60 years that our so-called representatives in Washington would allow indefinite detention of American citizens with no charges or trial without Congressional authorization.

Since 1971 the Non-Detention Act has stipulated, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress,” but S. 1253 could make this a thing of the past.

The ACLU points out that while Subsection 1031(c) of S. 1253 claims that it does not apply to lawful residents of the United States or citizens “on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution,” glaring loopholes remain.

If the government’s track record is any indicator, we can expect these loopholes to be exploited at every possible opportunity.

Just as the federal government has used the PATRIOT Act’s so-called “Sneak-and-Peek,” or delayed notice, warrants for over 1,600 drug cases and only 15 cases of terrorism in 2006-2009, we can expect the government to use S. 1253 for detaining people for completely illegitimate reasons.

These loopholes allow suspects to be imprisoned without charge or trial, especially citizens or lawful residents who are suspected of some sort of wrongdoing outside of the United States.

The most unsettling aspect is that the deciding factor in determining if an individual can be detained indefinitely is not any proof of guilt, but instead entirely by officials in the Executive Branch, which, according to the ACLU would be “following some future agency regulations.”

This, just like the unlegislated death panel that resulted in the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, leaves it up to the Executive without any guidelines whatsoever.

It is quite shocking how much the federal government is attempting to push us towards a dictatorship with no legal protection whatsoever from being locked up with no hope of a fair trial or even charges.

Indeed the legislation would allow American citizens to be imprisoned “until the end of hostilities” under 2001′s Authorization for Use of Military Force, or S.J. Res. 23.

Yet this represents no concrete time frame whatsoever and Section 1031 would allow American citizens and non-citizen civilians who had no role in 9/11 or any other hostilities whatsoever to be detained who would otherwise not be detainable under the laws of war.

Section 1032 puts civilians who would otherwise not be subject to military control into military detention, thus removing the protections of the Posse Comitatus act.

Like Section 1031, this would include indefinite imprisonment of civilians apprehended inside of the United States, Section 1032 does not authorize the military to detain civilians without charge or trial, it in fact it mandates it.

The protection against the government using the military for law enforcement activities within the United States under Posse Comitatus would be eliminated under Section 1032 and the ACLU points out that, “all state and federal law enforcement would be preempted by the military.”

Previously the state and local law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice had the primary responsibility to enforce anti-terrorism laws within the United States.

The NDAA would, in the case of many civilian suspects, remove federal state and local law enforcement from the process of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution and imprisonment and hand said powers over to the military.

The ACLU “strongly urges” the Senate’s Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings on sections 1031, 1032, and 1036 and assert their jurisdiction to mark up these sections before the NDAA makes it to the Senate floor.

They say that the Judiciary Committee should assert their jurisdiction over these provisions in order to prevent civilian law enforcement against civilians who would otherwise be out of the purview of the military to fall into the hands of the military.

The ACLU’s letter does not, however, cover Section 1033 which Human Rights Watch claims would apply to the many detainees already being held for years without trial who have been cleared for release.

In a form letter with the subject, “Stop Militarization of Law Enforcement” they write that Section 1033 would, “force the administration, for example, to continue to hold a Guantanamo detainee simply because they were from a country of an accused terrorist.”

I highly recommend that you send out this form letter along with a note written by yourself to all of your supposed representatives, along with as many phone calls as you can afford to make it clear that you do not support the United States being turned into a total militarized police state.

While we are already in dire straights in terms of civil rights in this country, codifying indefinite military detention into law is one of the most dangerous developments since the introduction of the PATRIOT Act.

If you even remotely care about the principles of freedom, liberty and justice which this nation is supposed to stand for, you will do us all a favor and stand up against this wholly unacceptable legislation that could represent the end of America as we know it.

This is in effect a covert declaration of Martial Law. It is an attempt to completely nullify the Bill of Rights.

Let there be no mistake about it - the real target of this bill is the American People and specifically those who would stand against tyranny and the imposition of a total Dictatorship.(1 image)

#1. To: Original_Intent, *libertarians*, *Jack-Booted Thugs*, *Humor-Weird News* (#0)

This is patently false. Upon reading the sections cited in this article I found a prohibition on applying this to citizens.

Sometimes the ship tacks right, sometimes it tacks left but it is always sailing in the same direction. Voting lesser of two evils is asking for the ship to tack again. It doesn't change the direction. - farmfriend

I would submit that herein lies a common thread evidencing the erosion and disdain of common decency and the basic principles of a free and just society which is governed by laws and not by men and that there is cause to question and reject any such bill granting the dictation of powers not governed due process at ANY time. That when taken in conjunction with the long train of erosions of liberty that this is not a power which should be granted to any body within our government. Let there be no doubt this bill confers the power to be an arbitrary, subjective, judge and jury without recourse. At NO TIME should any such power however shaped be granted to any branch or element of government in a free society.

Oh I agree that the bill should be rejected. I just don't think hyperbole serves our purposes.

What is a calorie? Calories are the little bastards that get into your wardrobe at night and sew your clothes tighter... MY CLOSET IS INFESTED WITH THE LITTLE SHITS.

According to McCain and Lieberman, any civilian can be defined as an "Enemy Belligerent".

Enemy Belligerent as defined in the Manual for Courts Martial , Article 99(C1b) 2002 Edition.

(b) Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

I guess that is why senators, former FBI heads, generals and others have come out against it saying it will undermine more than 200 years of constitutional law and will give the military the right to arrest, never charge and hold U.S. citizens for extended/indefinite periods. Remember Jose Padilla? He is a U.S. citizen.

ok on further investigation, S 1253 went no where however two bills with the same title did pass and are in conference committee.

The House version doesn't have the worrisome provisions that I can see and the Senate bill contains this:

As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."

There was an amendment by Senator Udall of Colorado to include citizens. This may be the one Rand Paul got defeated. It was defeated though.

As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."

Like the Patriot Act, this bill is “the culmination years of direct attacks on the Constitutional rights of Americans that just happens to be occurring under the joke of the administration that is the Obama administration.

More at EndtheLie.com - http://EndtheLie.com/2011/10/06/the-shocking-truth-of-america%e2%80%99s-secret-unaccountable-unlegislated-death-panels/#ixzz1gM4vYzkS

Martial Law Creep has been planned and executed upon the American people for many generations through many coups that we slept through. By our silence, ignorance, and complacency, we gave our sanction of the victims.

These years, (aside from the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,which ended the Republic) were the most devastating to our Freedoms and Rights.

It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?

I wouldn't be too hard on people. Most have been dumbed down through the Skool Systum, or disinformed by the likes of the major media Presstitutes, sophisticated PsyOPs and Propaganda, and radio Propagandists and misleaders such as Sean Vannity, Rush Limbag, Mike, rah rah war but my twins aren't joining, Gallagher, etc., ....

What is needed is a movement to cut through the fog of lies, free of other misinformed agendas, that is aimed simply at educating and informing. We still have time to depose the rotted edifice of the Psychs and Banksters, but we have to be dedicated, persistent, and organized.

That sounds like "trying" to do something rather than "doing" something. When do we organize, dedicate, and persist? How do we organize, dedicate, and persist? Where? What?

It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?

Pick a group that you think is doing something positive and then support it with money or time or both.

Senator Udall's amendment was 1107 -- to look more carefully at the NDAA. I suspect it wasn't the amendment that was defeated by Sen. Paul's efforts and hope that it wasn't. Sen. Udall [Democrat-Colorado] opposed Section 1031's inclusion of citizens and raised concerns that it would effectively repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, turning our military into a police force and jailers. This is a 25-min. YouTube video of his opposition in the Senate to Section 1031 and his support of the Posse Comitatus Act: Mark Udall Speaks Against Unwise Detention Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

The amendment defeated by Sen. Paul's efforts was S.AMDT.1274, sponsored by Alabama junior Senator, Jeff Sessions, and co-sponsored by Oklahoma senior Senator, Jim Inhofe - both Republicans.

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

White House removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031 of NDAA

Despite reports that Obama is planning to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Carl Levin has revealed it was the administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. The bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.

An amendment introduced by Democratic Senator Feinstein, described as “cleverly worded nonsense” by Congressman Justin Amash, does not protect Americans from being subject to the provision.

“The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading,” writes John Wood of Change.org, which is running a petition to oppose the signing of the bill. “Don’t be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), “Nothing in this section shall be construed…”, the only word that matters is “construed” because the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031.”

The Obama administration never had a problem with Section 1031 of the bill and indeed acted to ensure it applied to American citizens. Doubts over whether or not Obama would veto the bill only arose out of issues with Section 1032, which pertains to the military being required to take custody of individuals.

“Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment,” writes Wood. [cont.]

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

Am posting this from a comment by Howard T. Lewis III at that article site because of the Iraqi prison bondage photo in the first post of this thread:

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC