Monday, November 28, 2011

Senate Bill 1867 Would Permit Military to Arrest US Citizens - IF IT PASSES

S.1867: The hunting of America expands

S.1867 includes these provisions highlighted by the ACLU:
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside theUnited States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.


Marti Oakley
PPJ Gazette
November 28, 2011
Many of us have wondered if directed to; would our own military turn on us? It appears that this is the plan and has been all along, yet the question remains……would they actually do it if ordered to?
S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill. Senators Carl Levin (D) MI and John McCain (R) AZ, are bringing this bill to the Senate floor on Monday after having held secret committee meetings while never holding even one hearing on this bill which authorizes military action against US citizens, right here in the United States.
While the bill appears on the surface to be about authorizing defense funding for the illegal wars, the ongoing unwarranted surveillance of the US population and the continuing violations of the 4th Amendment as applied to US citizens, many of the provisions of the bill do not pertain to unidentifiable terrorists or any other villain carefully crafted to terrorize the country. The fact is, as a result of the false flag attacks on 9/11, we have massive numbers of police state “laws” on the books which created “terrorists” or redefined “terrorist activity” to include everything from political dissent and free speech, even including targeting of US citizens for mentioning or referencing the Constitution or supporting third party, non-approved candidates for public office.
When this bill passes with these police state provisions included (I believe it will) you can expect your senator who voted “yes” on the bill to maintain that they only did so because otherwise the funding for the wars would have ceased (we could only hope) and they have to continue to fight the terrorists, terrorism, or what ever lame excuse pops into their heads to explain why they voted to pass what is clearly a police state bill.
The bill itself was drafted in secret and I believe it would be to our benefit to know who actually drafted that bill.
Who were the “stakeholders” who actually wrote the bill introduced by these two traitorous senators. We know they didn’t write it, they never do. All bills are written by stakeholders who blow through the doors of congress carry bags of cash to buy the support of politicians who make their living selling off our rights along with anything else that isn’t nailed down.
Here is the text of 1031:
(a) 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.
And section 1032, subsection (b)(1):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
subsection (b)(2):
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
EDIT: Willravel pointed out below that the top comment of the first page post regarding the bill tore apart the sensationalism. Pasted here:

The article shows a pretty shoddy understanding of the American political process, but that aside it seems unlikely that this will pass. Even without the internet getting a hold of this amendment, you still are faced with the fact that the government hasn't really been able to pass any funding related measure. Also, it isn't really as bad as the article says it is. For instance, this provision doesn't authorize the government to detain us citizens indefinitely as the article claims...
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." (sec 1032, b, 1).
This sentiment is further affirmed by case law (meaning even if this section were to pass, it wouldn't be legal and would be struck down by the courts) such as Hamdi v Rumsfeld which affirmed detainees rights to due process. Hamdi in particular addresses the exact issue of legislation like this by affirming that "although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker." (Hamvi v Rumsfeld, majority opinion).
Your article also fails to note that the executive branch (who is the one responsible for enforcing legislation anyway) has stood against this rendering it not only highly unlikely to pass, but on the rare account that it would pass, they more then likely would not follow these particular provisions. All in all, step away from the sensationalist journalism, but feel free to contact your local representatives about this.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to comment or make suggestions