Senate bill 1867

[uscitizen]

With so much information (and “disinformation”) floating around the internet regarding the passage of Senate Bill 1867 (the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, for fiscal year 2012), I felt it necessary to post this article. The NDAA regularly comes before Congress for changes and additions, but Senate Bill 1867 proves to be the most powerful one yet in trampling the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Let me ask you a question. Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? According to Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, “In the Senate’s dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.” Two weeks ago, during Thanksgiving week, while the typical American was comatose in front of the television, watching countless hours of football and recuperating from the gluttony that accompanies this holiday, Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) met in secret and drafted an amendment to the NDAA bill. This amendment was then passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing.


What was in this amendment?
In a nutshell, this amendment permits the President to use the U.S. military against American citizens in the USA. He would have the legal (not lawful) authority to arrest, detain, imprison, torture (or conduct “enhanced interrogation” if you prefer the government’s semantic work-around), and even kill ANYONE he wishes (including a U.S. citizen) without even charging him with a crime! And that person, under this disturbing bill, would have no recourse to a judge to require the President to either set him free or file charges against him. This would all be accomplished via military tribunal (rather than civilian court). Military tribunals are the complete antithesis of the civilian justice system, and putting American citizens through such a system would signal the death of everything the American justice system was built upon.



WeAreChangeTV.US

the senate vote was 93-7.

 

[uscitizen]

I knew this was too serious for most of those who complain of constitutional rights being erroded.
And both partys are to blame.

 

[hortysir]

How does it stand in the House?

And what happened to citing constitutional precedent prior to passage of a new bill?

 

[Avorysuds]

But US, do you plan on voting for Obama, the guy who put his name on this?

 

[Ed Spacer]

I have no problem with NDAA being used WITH PROFILING against islamofacist and terrorist affiliated groups.
had profiling been allowed,and the proper antiterrorism methods used so the proper people are dealt with,instead of catering to CAIR and the other groups,this wouldnt be a topic of discussion.

 

[Ed Spacer]

In fact,after 9/11,i know ill draw flack from it,but i supported interrment camps for any terrorism affiliated group.

 

[Immanuel]

I have no problem with NDAA being used WITH PROFILING against islamofacist and terrorist affiliated groups.
had profiling been allowed,and the proper antiterrorism methods used so the proper people are dealt with,instead of catering to CAIR and the other groups,this wouldnt be a topic of discussion.

And what will you do when they start targetting vampires?

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

But US, do you plan on voting for Obama, the guy who put his name on this?

I will likely not vote for anyone for president as none are deserving of my vote.
I was seriously going to vote for Mitt, however someone pointed out the liklihood of him nominating supremes during his term..

 

[uscitizen]

But US, do you plan on voting for Obama, the guy who put his name on this?

Umm 97 senators put their name on this first. Had thye not then Obama would not have had this ammendment to put his name on now would he?

Ignore that the republicans in the senate overwhelmingly supported this.

 

[uscitizen]

I have no problem with NDAA being used WITH PROFILING against islamofacist and terrorist affiliated groups.
had profiling been allowed,and the proper antiterrorism methods used so the proper people are dealt with,instead of catering to CAIR and the other groups,this wouldnt be a topic of discussion.

And what will you do when they start targetting vampires?

Immie

I think he should research this a bit, it has no real limitations on it's useage if the president pushes it.
He says you are a threat and you are held indefinately without trial, etc.

 

[uscitizen]

How does it stand in the House?

And what happened to citing constitutional precedent prior to passage of a new bill?

I dunno ask the senate.

 

[hortysir]

How does it stand in the House?

And what happened to citing constitutional precedent prior to passage of a new bill?

I dunno ask the senate.

That was a provision of the House, now that I think of it.
Doubt it'll pass with that caveat.

 

[Peach]

I have no problem with NDAA being used WITH PROFILING against islamofacist and terrorist affiliated groups.
had profiling been allowed,and the proper antiterrorism methods used so the proper people are dealt with,instead of catering to CAIR and the other groups,this wouldnt be a topic of discussion.

And what will you do when they start targetting vampires?

Immie

I think he should research this a bit, it has no real limitations on it's useage if the president pushes it.
He says you are a threat and you are held indefinately without trial, etc.

What was legal foundation for the Gitmo "detainees"? The Patriot Act.

 

[Immanuel]

I have no problem with NDAA being used WITH PROFILING against islamofacist and terrorist affiliated groups.
had profiling been allowed,and the proper antiterrorism methods used so the proper people are dealt with,instead of catering to CAIR and the other groups,this wouldnt be a topic of discussion.

And what will you do when they start targetting vampires?

Immie

I think he should research this a bit, it has no real limitations on it's useage if the president pushes it.
He says you are a threat and you are held indefinately without trial, etc.

And what goes around, comes around. Today Obama has the power. Possibly tomorrow it will be Romney, not that that is going to make much difference, but it could have been Rick Santorum and do the libs want him having this kind of power?

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

How does it stand in the House?

And what happened to citing constitutional precedent prior to passage of a new bill?

I dunno ask the senate.

That was a provision of the House, now that I think of it.
Doubt it'll pass with that caveat.

already passed.

 

[Peach]

And what will you do when they start targetting vampires?

Immie

I think he should research this a bit, it has no real limitations on it's useage if the president pushes it.
He says you are a threat and you are held indefinately without trial, etc.

And what goes around, comes around. Today Obama has the power. Possibly tomorrow it will be Romney, not that that is going to make much difference, but it could have been Rick Santorum and do the libs want him having this kind of power?

Immie

Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senatepassed S. 1867.

 

[Immanuel]

I think he should research this a bit, it has no real limitations on it's useage if the president pushes it.
He says you are a threat and you are held indefinately without trial, etc.

And what goes around, comes around. Today Obama has the power. Possibly tomorrow it will be Romney, not that that is going to make much difference, but it could have been Rick Santorum and do the libs want him having this kind of power?

Immie

Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senatepassed S. 1867.

And what happened when they reconciled the two bills?

Immie

 

[Peach]

And what goes around, comes around. Today Obama has the power. Possibly tomorrow it will be Romney, not that that is going to make much difference, but it could have been Rick Santorum and do the libs want him having this kind of power?

Immie

Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senate passed S. 1867.

And what happened when they reconciled the two bills?

Immie

See above.

 

[Avorysuds]

But US, do you plan on voting for Obama, the guy who put his name on this?

Umm 97 senators put their name on this first. Had thye not then Obama would not have had this ammendment to put his name on now would he?

Ignore that the republicans in the senate overwhelmingly supported this.

I'm glad to hear you don't support Obama atm, that can of course change.

I don't follow your comment about Republicans who voted for the NDAA... At 93/7 Dems "overwhelmingly" supported it too... You didn't point that out... I’m a conservative, not a progressive liberal, I can’t support the Democratic party nor the Republican party as neither represents the constitution as your OP clearly points out, and this of course is not the first or last time for both sides to ignore the constitution.

I don’t believe Rand Paul voted for it and he is prolly the closest to someone I support in the Senate that is Republican.

Ron Paul didn't vote as he was on the campian trail, however he did openly talk agaisnt it during one of the debates while Mitt supported it.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senate passed S. 1867.

And what happened when they reconciled the two bills?

Immie

See above.

That says nothing about what was in the reconciled bill that went to the President's desk.

Immie