Whether you're all aware or not yet, Congress is in the process of passing a bill which would give the president the power to use the military on American soil to detain people including American citizens without needing charge, court order, or reason, and imprison them as long as the president wants without trial or conviction.

The proposal is a small part of the current NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]. This particular part of it, was written by Sen. Levin (D-Mich) & Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) in secret behind closed doors and is being supposed by a plethora of politicians on both sides including Sen. Graham (R-S.C.) who, in expressing his support for the provision, publicly said "that the homeland is part of the battlefield" [and therefore the bill of rights doesn't need apply].

What's more is that no one from the president to the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, or the Chiefs seem to want this power to begin with. No one went to Levin & McCain saying "hey, we could use this!" On the contrary Clapper, Brennan, Mueller, Monaco, Panetta,and Petraeus have all come public to say that it would even be counterproductive & harmful to national security & Obama is threatening to veto. Yet the house has already passed their version of the provision, and the senate is set to vote on it before this time next week after 15 Democrats and 44 Republicans [plus Liberman] rejected an amendment yesterday that would have exempted American citizens on US soil from the measure.

What no one knows is, WHY!? Why give the executive branch a power that they don't even want & haven't asked for??

I am not very well versed in politics, but i have to say the idea of that bill scares the hell out of me.

Why? So Obama has to veto it and they can say "OMFG LOOOOOK! Obama veto'd arresting TERRORISTS when they're IN YOUR BACK YARD RIGHT NOW (hypothetically)!" when it's election year (ie: in a month).

Yes I know, bi-partisan effort blah blah.

Arq I think you've hit it exactly.

I heard this story on NPR and was horrified at how these people want to subvert due process (even for bad guys). A few weeks ago, former president Bill Clinton was interviewed on NPR and was asked how he felt about what the Republican party did in their attempts to ruin him. To paraphrase, he answered, "Those guys are good" meaning that the Republicans will stop at nothing to turn as many people against Democrats.

I wouldn't put it past the GOP to come with this kind of thing in order to do exactly as you said, Arq.

Yet the provision in question here was thought up by a democrat (Sen. Levin), who then secretly wrote it behind closed doors with Sen. McCain.

When a democrat authored an amendment to exempt American citizens from this provision while on American soil, 14 democrats, plus one independent [Liberman] joined with over 40 Republicans to shoot it down.

14 for crying out loud

When it comes to the issue of war, I see no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

And, yes, this bill is disturbing, to say the very least. I don't think it's an overreaction at all to even say that this bill is frightening, when you consider what little evidence the government requires in order to decide that someone is a "terrorist" -- especially when we've got police in this nation saying that passive resistance is "an act of violence." Once you're accused and locked up, the government will be able to "disappear" you forever.

-- Nephele

The fact they're even considering letting this bill pass in any capacity disturbs me. It disturbs me GREATLY.

When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, didn't they do so to prevent this kind of thing? Did they not see the abuse that government can take on people? Did not kings/queens/etc. simply jail whomever they wished at their whim?

Although no congress can bind a future congress, I'm starting to think that there simply aren't enough intelligent people left in this country to hold offices or to vote for those people. If elected officials continue in this way, are we heading for something violent here? Not necessarily an overthrow of the constitution, but something that would bring things back to how they were envisioned.

I think this fear of "something violent" is why the authorities are so disturbed by the Occupy Wallstreet movement, and so quick to pepper-spray people doing no more than merely sitting on the ground in resistance.

The Tea Party was/is a joke -- made up mostly of aging conservatives complaining about their taxes, and easily manipulated by the Republican party. But the Occupiers seem to pose a threat to the corporatacracy that is becoming America. (Just my opinion.)

-- Nephele

That's the less scary possibility.

There is one, far worse one, to consider.





It has been common knowledge for years that DC has been our nation's epicenter for insider trading. This should be expected given two realities everyone in this country already knows; 1 that our politicians are on a friendly first-name relationship with industry insiders acting as special interest lobbyists; 2 that the regulators our politicians work with are all hired out of these big multinationals using a revolving door where people from high level insider positions in industry are fast tracked into top level positions in the government regulatory bodies that regulate said industries [i.e. the big pharm insiders who have gone into the FDA, the people we have hired out of big oil to work in our energy department, etc] & vice versa.

So what you get are a group of politicians being kept in office using campaign war chests funded in no small part though direct & indirect big business contributions; these politicians then spend their time surrounded by no one but big business insiders who keep them out of touch from the needs of the masses; and to top it all off all the chatter they get from these big business people gives them the potential to make huge sweeping fortunes from insider trading. The OWS principles don't just threaten how easily they can be re-elected. They threaten how many millions of dollars they'll be sitting on 10, 20, 30 years after they get out of office.

The thing is, for the Occupy movement to make significant change it's going to require either acts of economic market sabotage by insiders OR armed uprising to do so. There is not going to be a significant change brought about by sitting quiety and hoping the government will suddenly stop being corrupt.

Either one would count as terrorist activity under the US government's definition thereof.

It might be a panic reaction. The opposition of the currently ruling casino-capitalism is looking for new forms of expression outside the traditional poloitical structures and the official institutions. The fact is, a few become richer and richer and more and more people become poor. One third of the Americans belongs to the poor meanwhile. What do you think will happen, if the republican party will realize it's saving - programmes? Not just for social expenditures but for the public sector as well. Fired police officers might not be appropriate to stop the hungry masses when the public budgets will be cut down. That's serious, the deployment of the army against parts of the own citizens is a break down of the civil society, which is fundamental for democracy.

The story continues:

According to Sen. Levin the NDAA originally excluded American citizens on American soil from indefinite detention but [supposedly] President Obama's admin demanded that exemption be taken out; which is what Levin & McCain did in committee to change the bill into it's current form.

Video of Levin saying all this HIMSELF is avail here.

So recap given new information:
-Pres Obama & friends want to be able to detain Americans on American soil without cause, for as long as they wish.
-A group of mostly democrats thought this was a bad idea and tried to take it out of the bill with an amendment
-A group of mostly republican senators shot down that amendment

???

We'll see next week when it goes before Pres Obama for either a veto or to be signed into law.

was reading more about this today, although not a good bill, it seems to have been calmed down a bit. it looks as though it's the other way around according to the article linked below. The threat of veto was there with the detentions of Americans, however with that and some other points removed it will be allowed to stand.

clicky clicky

I don't see how?

Quoted from your link:



The part of the bill that was removed in July would have given the president the authority to use the military on American soil as if American soil were the battlefield. In other words, instead of sending the nearest civilian pd SWAT to deliver a search warrant on your house; if they suspected you of terrorism they COULD have simply landed a missile on your house in the middle of the night while you're sleeping. They COULD have had an armed drone flying around your home waiting for you to go outside to get your mail & then assassinate you without charges.

Sect 1031, a different part of the bill which still exists to this day, gives the president the power to detain someone in military custody [think gitmo] without trial or charges, for as long as the president wants. They think you're a terrorist? They don't even have to prove it. Just detain you & off you go.

Sect 1032, which was what the Obama Admin was threatening a veto over, included language which confused when the military "could" be used for certain types of detention tasks, and when it "had" to be used for them. Which left it unclear as to who was to do what when in various scenarios. If 3 Americans and an Iranian were thought to be on American soil plotting a terrorist attack, who was to detain which ones? Where would they be sent & for how long? if the bill does not get so specific, it allows the president to decide for himself.

As of today, the indefinite detention of Americans on American soil still stands in the bill. ACLU link. And this time there is no veto threat.