have any of you seen this? land of the free indeed. outrageous!

[brettd]

has anyone else heard about this?
US Senate To Vote On Bill That Will Allow The Military To Arrest Americans On American Soil And Hold Them Indefinitely | Addicting Info

AN EGYPTIAN MILITARY<br> MODEL IN THE U.S.?<BR><I>Could U.S. military, emboldened with impunity of new law up for Senate vote, arrest any American anywhere, anytime<br> and for anything?</I> | FEATURE NEWS | Sky Valley Chronicle Washington State News

how do you feel about soldiers policing you?

[tertius]

Yup. Funnily enough, I posted about it in the 'Land of Free" thread.

Great minds, and all that.

But another thread is good. This is important.

[brettd]

lol i wondered if it got put in there. but i got so far behind in that thread i let it go

[brettd]

i just removed my second link because i have just found out that this bill has been reported on wrong and that the link from the aclu actually wants to support a bill that would remove section 132 which actually protects us citizens, so hillary and co. can rewrite it with or without the protection for citizens.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011...-u-s-citizens/

[Mark E. Hurling]

Eric K could no doubt comment on this better than I, but I'll give it a try. It seems to me that US cannot be declared a battlefield by fiat of Congress. Maybe if there had been a formal declaration of war, perhaps. But who do you declare war against? What nation? No such thing really in the GWOT other than the shadowy monetary and arms support given to the Islamists who want to destroy the Great Shaitan by the likes of the Iranians through individual contributions of Salafists in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

I know tertius that sounds odd coming from me, given my own earlier comments on the use of the military rather than the FBI et. al., but that's overseas. If it's a threat in CONUS, then it's a job for the FBI, Coast Guard, BATF, and other elements of that Frankensteinian creation of Bush called Homeland Security. I'll even stretch a little and say the CIA and NSA should have some hand in this although their brief is not supposed to encompass domestic threats. But don't fool yourself if you think they aren't hip deep in it and were before the ink was even dry on the signature of their charters. But the legal and other issues of getting the military in this are more than is wise. Maybe at the point that terrorists launch a platoon strength coordinated attack that is more than SWAT or National Guard forces can deal with when called up by the local state governor, but this is a really Bad Idea.

[wes]

I just read the part of the bill thats supposed to say that the military can arrest and detain us without trial. Title X Subtitle D Section 1032 Subsection b paragraph 1, doesn't this line state that American citizens are exempt from military arrest and detainment? Or is it saying that Americans are exempt from the requirement to be held in military custody and can theoretically be detained in ordinary jail without trial?

Either way this bill is worded in a purposefully vague manner and the writers should be shot for trying to disenfranchise Americans.

[tertius]

I just read the part of the bill thats supposed to say that the military can arrest and detain us without trial. Title X Subtitle D Section 1032 Subsection b paragraph 1, doesn't this line state that American citizens are exempt from military arrest and detainment? Or is it saying that Americans are exempt from the requirement to be held in military custody and can theoretically be detained in ordinary jail without trial?

Either way this bill is worded in a purposefully vague manner and the writers should be shot for trying to disenfranchise Americans.

No. It states that's it's not -required-. "Not required" is very, very different from "exempt", legally speaking.

As far as vague wording... you don't read legislation very often, I'm guessing.

[tertius]

i just removed my second link because i have just found out that this bill has been reported on wrong and that the link from the aclu actually wants to support a bill that would remove section 132 which actually protects us citizens, so hillary and co. can rewrite it with or without the protection for citizens.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011...-u-s-citizens/

Your link there is factually incorrect, and highly biased. The Udall Amendment restricts the applicability of the bill to people which the US has the right to exert military force over (which excludes US citizens), while the bill as it stands require that anyone thought to be a terrorist would be remanded to military custody. This would not be required for US citizens, but it wouldn't be prohibited, either. Those are a world apart.

Further, the Udall Amendment makes the Executive branch justify the incarceration of any and all individuals they are currently holding or could, in theory detain under the laws of war, and verify that they have the authority to do so under existing law.

[wes]

No. It states that's it's not -required-. "Not required" is very, very different from "exempt", legally speaking.

As far as vague wording... you don't read legislation very often, I'm guessing.

No, I mostly just assume anything that goes through congress is going to screw me over without reading it. This one seemed to be such an epic fucking that I thought it warranted reading. I read the latest farm bill, those guys should be shot too.

[Eric K]

Eric K could no doubt comment on this better than I, but I'll give it a try...

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but this is a sticky one... Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (And obviously the 5th, 6th and 9th Amendments with regard to the rights of citizens on trial.) This concept seems to have changed as people took liberty for granted and national crises tested our fortitude.

There were grumblings about it even in the wake of the Civil War when a group of citizens were tried as spies in Indiana, but the conclusion was that the suspension of habeas corpus only applied in an actual warzone, when the courts were unable to prosecute citizens (Chief Justice Chase on the Ex parte Milligan Case: "...Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."). So it would appear that supsension of habeas corpus for citizens requires the declaration of war and the absence of an alternative, functioning civilian court system.

However, there were various redresses throughout the subsequent history; WWII saw the infiltration of the nation by foreign agents who were tried as unlawful combatants, and the suspension of state sovereignty to a federal agency (as in the case with the Governor of Hawaii turning his authority, and the authority of the courts in Hawaii over to the commanding general of the army following the attack on Pearl Harbor) which, as far as I know, went uncontested.

Then, again, detention of Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen captured while engaging in combat operations against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, was upheld by the courts. And we all know the debacle that is the Guantanamo Bay prisoners...

Regardless, I think you've hit the pertinent issue: given that the "War on Terror" is just a sound bite, as one cannot destroy an idea, tactic or emotion (not to mention the absence of any official state of war), and that all of our courts are fully functional, I find the legality of this proposal suspect. But the government will get away with exactly as much as it is allowed to get away with. Checks and balances are inherent to the system, but they are not exercised by default.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.