UPDATE: The bill has been passed by the Senate.
Yesterday, November 30 2011, I read about the bill currently in the Senate, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, S1867. This bill came to my attention because of Section 1031 within it, which states
"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.".
A covered person according to the bill is anyone who had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks or has anything to do with forces engaged in the hostilities against the United States.
In the next paragraph, paragraph C of Section 1031 the what happens to those detained by the military is defined.
There are four options that can be taken once the military has detained you. Number 1: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
Stop.
The military can now arrest anyone who is believed to be associated with terrorism in any manner. And by anyone we mean, Canadian citizen, British citizen, French, South African, Australian, whomever. And let's not forget Americans. If this bill becomes law, the American military can arrest an American citizen for terrorism and hold them until a war against an enemy that is not clearly defined is won. Given that terrorism itself cannot be defeated until every as long as a single extremist of any group or ideology is alive and free, this effectively is a life sentence handed down without ever a trial to prove your innocence. In other words, this is the end of due process in any case in which the president feels you are a terrorist.
This bill, if it becomes law, sets precedence for ignoring due process. It continues the trend of destroying civil liberties in the name of national security.
Setting aside for the time the civil liberties nightmare contained within Section 1031, let's look at Section 1032, the national security nightmare.
Section 1032 is entitled "REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY."
In this section, the military would be required to have custody any person who is determined to be "(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."
First off, I want to note that this section specifically exempts U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens from this requirement. Notice that this does not mean that a U.S. citizen is exempt from being indefinitely detained by the military as defined in Section 1031, but simply that the military is not required to detain a U.S. citizen. I make special note of this because it seems many people are interpreting this exemption as protecting U.S. citizens from indefinite detention by the military.
However, the issue with this section is it could actually hurt counter terrorism efforts within the United States. By requiring that the military have custody of all terrorist suspects, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies within the U.S. suddenly have to totally change the way in which they capture, detain, interrogate and pursue terrorist suspects. All this in a country that hasn't had a successful terrorist attack in a little over ten years - indicating either that these agencies are doing a very good job or else the threat is minimal. Assuming the worst case scenario, in which there is a regular stream of feasible plots for terrorists to attack the U.S. orchestrated by capable terrorists, then we have to assume that these agencies have been successful. In which case, suddenly deciding to hand over these responsibilities to those inexperience and ill-equipped for domestic threats puts us at a huge risk.
A number of counter-terrorism officials from the past two administrations as well as the current administration, the Defense Secretary, the CIA Director, the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI director, and assortment of retired generals and admirals all think that this is a bad idea.
So, with the massive civil liberties issues, and people that Congress usually listens to telling them its bad for national security, why would our Congress even consider passing these portions of the bill?
I really don't know.
But here's what I have noticed:
There is hope yet however, as the bill has not been signed into law. The White House has issued a statement that "Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior advisers to recommend a veto." in reference to this bill.
In other words now is the time to read at least Sections 1031 and 1032 and decide whether you support the bill or not, and act by sending messages of your support or dissent of the bill to your Congressmen and President Obama. Don't do the American people the disservice of standing idly by and letting our civil liberties disappear without taking a stand.
You can find the text of S1867 at the Library of Congress site at the following link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
By doing an inline search for "Subtitle D--Detainee Matters" and clicking on its link you can view Sections 1031 and 1032. Don't take my word or anyone else's for what's in them, take twenty minutes or so to go over them thoroughly (although only a few lines of text, the language in the bill is tricky and will require time to understand it completely).
You can find the statement from the White House stating the intent to veto the bill at the following link (its a pdf file):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/sa...
Demand Progress provides a form for a petition to send to President Obama requesting he vetos the bill. You can find that at http://act.demandprogress.org/act/ndaa/%3Freferring_akid%3Da3475642.3076...
You can also voice your opinions on Open Congress
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/
This article has quotes from national security experts I mentioned in the article:
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/2256
I am currently in exams week, so I apologize for the lack of quality in the article. The issue is an urgent one, so I felt that getting this post out quickly was a better option then waiting nearly week for the end of finals. I will be updating and improving it as I have time.
Sources
Wired - "Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial"
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/
Huffington Post - "Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-de...
Fox News - "Should the Military Be Allowed to Detain Americans Indefinitely?"
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/29/should-military-be-allowed-...
New York Times - "President Obama: Veto the Defense Authorization Act"
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/president-obama-veto...
ACLU - "Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window"
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock...
Death and Taxes Magazine - "White House Stands Up to Senate’s Vote for Indefinite Military Detention"
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/164430/white-house-stands-up-to-senates-...
National Security Network - "THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONSENSUS ON NDAA"
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/2256
Business Insider - "The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-medias-blackout-of-the-national-defen..."
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Comments
2012 National Defense Authorization Act
Americans Lose Constitution & Country To New Fascist Legislation
Almost every week there are published news accounts of Police Corruption, e.g. Police taking bribes, aiding & smuggling illegal drugs, robbing drug-dealers and committing perjury. ALERT! Perjury by police and their informants may now pose the greatest threat to Americans’ Freedom due to Congress in December 2011 passing (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012. Under (NDAA) Government does not need probable cause or corroborating evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges, no right to an attorney, trial or Habeas Corpus; Police that falsify reports and give perjured testimony can now cause innocent Americans to be swept off the street and indefinitely incarcerated for being a suspected terrorist or supporting Terrorism: Note no violent act is required to be charged with involvement in terrorism under(NDAA).
If that is not scary enough, Congress is now considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the “Enemy Expatriation Act” sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that would let Government Strip Your Citizenship Without a Conviction. Once an American’s Citizenship is stripped they have no rights whatsoever. To read article, search title: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction.
To read the full text of the bill, go here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166
Currently there are several Multi-State Recall Petitions of Congressman that voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012.
Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so expansive and vague an American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants. The East German Stasi Police used this tactic to create an army of neighborhood and other informants.
The passed (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than (Hitler's FASCIST 1933 Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that Protected German Citizens' Civil Liberties? For example—Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated fines and time limits) that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators John McCain and Carl Levin’s passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a mere “Belligerent."
Under the passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans (Retroactively) be subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) supporting or aiding terrorists, (2) a terrorist act; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act.
History Repeats: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by their Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention.
Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) supported or aided terrorists, provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT! Consider: In mid-January 2012 Homeland Security announced the National Operations Center (NOC) received permission from Washington to monitor journalists and retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms. Could this Homeland Security spying, tracking Americans result in Citizens abstaining from visiting and posting comments on websites? It is not clear why Homeland Security wants to track users of social media and online networking platforms. You may read, search title: Homeland Security Monitors Journalists 1-7-12 at:
http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/
It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.
Is the Defense Authorization Act of 2012) More Threatening to Americans than Hitler's (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) That Suspended Provisions In the Reich Constitution That Protected German Citizens' Civil liberties?
1933
GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS:
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reich marks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice