It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S. 1867/NDAA: The Sponsor Speaks

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, originally sponsored S. 1867, which was incorporated into HR. 1540 and is now on its way to becoming a law. An odd combination of Obama operatives, right-wingers, and conspiracy theorists objected to language in the bill relating to detainees. Here is Senator Levin speaking on the conference report two days ago:


Those who say we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens--or anybody else.

The issue of indefinite detention arises from the capture of an enemy combatant at war. According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. Can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war.

In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''

The Court cited with approval its holding in the Quirin case, in which an earlier court held that ``citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ..... the law of war.''

But despite that view of mine, which I clearly expressed on the Senate floor a couple weeks ago, neither the Senate bill nor the conference report takes a position on this issue. Both the Senate bill and the conference report include the language of the Feinstein amendment, which we drafted together and passed 99 to 1. That amendment leaves this issue to the executive branch and the courts by providing the following:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

The more difficult issue for me--and I believe it goes to the heart of the concern of the detention policy--is the kind of war we are in with al-Qaida, and that issue is when does the detention end? In other words, when are the hostilities over? In this kind of nontraditional war, we are not likely to sign a peace treaty or receive a formal surrender or even reach an agreement on a cease-fire.

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for us to provide greater procedural rights to enemy detainees than we might in a more traditional war. We have done so in this conference report. The conference report, for instance, requires periodic reviews of detainee cases in accordance with an executive order issued earlier this year to determine whether detainees pose a continuing threat or safely can be released. Under the conference report, enemy combatants who will be held in long-term military detention are told, for the first time, they will get a military judge and a military lawyer for their status determination.

So there you have it: the bill creates no new powers of detention, it has no effect on any "persons who are captured or arrested in the United States," and it affords detainees greater procedural rights than they had before. What is objectionable in that?




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


As usual, leave it to the corrupted crocks politicians in Washington to write, pass and interpret laws whenever serve their masters purpose, anybody that trust the crap that comes out of this elites in power are nothing but fools.




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

Did you actually read anything I posted?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Well of course he's going to defend his position and make everything seem peachy.

The fact of the matter is whether or not a US CITIZEN is aligned with an enemy nation, or "terrorists" (such a vague term), they are still entitled to their Constitutional rights. One of which is a trial with a jury of their peers to decide whether or not they are actually guilty.


(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


"including any person who has committed a belligerent act"

That could be skewed a lot of different ways. My problem is not with the bill, it is with the vague language used in it.

I mean, if Occupy can be deemed 'Terrorists' in London, how long is it gonna be before it happens here and people start getting thrown in Gitmo for protesting the police state we live in?

Just my $0.02
edit on 12/17/2011 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Yes i did, and in this days and times, I will not trust any crap that comes out either in writing or speeches out of the mouth of the corrupted crap we call politicians in power.

Does that explain my position to you? or you are just a bit taken by my response to what the sponsor of the bill have to say to cover his crocked arse.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 




So there you have it: the bill creates no new powers of detention,

Because they claim they had it before then. Which Bush gave himself under the UAM in 2001.


it has no effect on any "persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,"

Yes. If Obama decide they are a terrorist/terrorist helper.


and it affords detainees greater procedural rights than they had before.

Let me laugh.

Breaking news : Carl Levin is a liar. Every lawyer/constitutional scholar will told you so. He's now just lying because of the immense backlash against this law that destroy the bill of rights.

Regardless of this bill, Obama has been assassinating US citizens without trial or proof, you think he cares what congress says?


Here's Carl Levin telling how this bill applies to American citizens...


So WHEN is he lying? When he says it's give more power to the gov or when it says it doesn't give more power to the gov?

He's like Clinton ``I did not have sex with that woman``... he's COVERING HIS BUTT.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Yes i did, and in this days and times, I will not trust any crap that comes out either in writing or speeches out of the mouth of the corrupted crap we call politicians in power.

Does that explain my position to you? or you are just a bit taken by my response to what the sponsor of the bill have to say to cover his crocked arse.



Add people here or anywhere else who simply regurgitate the crap they hear and are told to with no actual opinion of they're own to that list. This is probably the most meaningless, brain dead authored thread I've come across, good job op.
edit on 17-12-2011 by ludshed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I, for one have a serious problem with that, and you should as well.

Here is the problem, this bill authorizes the Executive Branch to make the determination if a person is an enemy of the State, i.e. enemy combatant.

This goes against EVERYTHING our Founders stood for.

In the United States, We the People, have the inalienable RIGHT to Due Process. If a citizen has committed a crime, which treason is a crime, we already have procedures in place to deal with the problem.

This flies in the face as who WE are as a Nation.

Under this bill the Executive Branch can, without any proof, without any evidence, without any Judicial Oversight, detain anyone who it believes is an enemy combatant, indefinitely.

This is NOT American form of Justice.

Our Founders understood that the greatest threat to Freedom is the Government, and with knowledge created a system of checks and balances to fight Tyranny.

Three Branches of Government, each with its own responsibilities, each watchful of the other.

This bill sidelines the Judicial Branch and give that power to the Executive.

That is anti-American.

That is treasonous.

edit on 17-12-2011 by brokedown because: spelling correction



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
This right here says it all.


The issue of indefinite detention arises from the capture of an enemy combatant at war. According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. Can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war. In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''


So you are wrong a citizen can be held. What happen to good old treason charges.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
The fact of the matter is whether or not a US CITIZEN is aligned with an enemy nation, or "terrorists" (such a vague term), they are still entitled to their Constitutional rights. One of which is a trial with a jury of their peers to decide whether or not they are actually guilty.

In criminal cases and lawsuits over $20, yes. But what does that have to do with the National Defense Authorization Act?


"including any person who has committed a belligerent act"

That could be skewed a lot of different ways. My problem is not with the bill, it is with the vague language used in it.

You are quote mining. Here is the entire quote: "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." "Any person who has committed a belligerent act" is limited by "in aid of such enemy forces."


I mean, if Occupy can be deemed 'Terrorists' in London, how long is it gonna be before it happens here and people start getting thrown in Gitmo for protesting the police state we live in?

This bill does not establish or affirm any authority to do so. It expands the procedural rights of Gitmo detainees and establishes a new Congressional oversight mechanism to ensure the detention power is not being abused. You can't even make a slippery slope argument from this bill.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by brokedown
I, for one have a serious problem with that, and you should as well.

This goes against EVERYTHING our Founders stood for.

In the United States, We the People, have the inalienable RIGHT to Due Process. If a citizen has committed a crime, which treason is a crime, we already have procedures in place to deal with the problem.

This flies in the face as who WE are as a Nation.



I will have to agree with you on that one, We the peopleare the US government as by the constitution that is why we have three branches of government, and the power within them are equal.

But now it seems that We the people are not longer in power of our own government but special interest and briberies coming from those that manipulates the system behind the Wall Street, as per 60 minute special on how much money Flows into congress from them.

This should be an awakening to any American that believes in the constitution of this country, no only corruption and money has take away our government but now they are fighting the peoples right in this country for the purpose to serve the puppet masters.

Is not politician in this nation that will work for the people as long as is corruption money behind them.

We the people are not longer in charge of our nations destiny and neither our for the people elected politicians

We have now traitors passing laws in this nation.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I'm sorry but other Senators, Congresspersons, lawyers and many others disagree with Senator Levin. Of course he claims that his and Senator McCain's bill doesn't betray America...they sponsored it.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by brokedown
I, for one have a serious problem with that, and you should as well.

Here is the problem, this bill authorizes the Executive Branch to make the determination if a person is an enemy of the State, i.e. enemy combatant.

No it doesn't. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution of 2001 authorized the executive branch to do that. HR 1540 section 1021(d) is very clear, "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."


In the United States, We the People, have the inalienable RIGHT to Due Process.

And, if detained as a combatant, that due process is the right to challenge one's status as a combatant. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.


Under this bill the Executive Branch can, without any proof, without any evidence, without any Judicial Oversight, detain anyone who it believes is an enemy combatant, indefinitely.

Wrong. Judicial oversight exists through habeas and the right to challenge one's status as a combatant. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, again.

Do you have anything else?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Yes i did, and in this days and times, I will not trust any crap that comes out either in writing or speeches out of the mouth of the corrupted crap we call politicians in power.

Does that explain my position to you? or you are just a bit taken by my response to what the sponsor of the bill have to say to cover his crocked arse.

So you read it, you just decided not to engage it. In that case, why bother responding at all?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


All of this has been hashed and rehashed so what is your point. Apparently if the military was at the door you would be the first to tell everyone this isn't happening. Denial is one of the most dangerous reactions one can have. It protects no one.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 




In criminal cases and lawsuits over $20, yes. But what does that have to do with the National Defense Authorization Act?

It has to do that now, they don't get any of that if they are branded a terrorist or helping terrorists, which can be done without any proof or trial.



You are quote mining. Here is the entire quote: "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." "Any person who has committed a belligerent act" is limited by "in aid of such enemy forces."

You forgot to point out that between "Any person who has committed a belligerent act" and "in aid of such enemy forces.", there's the word OR, which is very important. So it doesn't LIMIT anything, in fact, it expands the definition, not limits it.


I mean, if Occupy can be deemed 'Terrorists' in London, how long is it gonna be before it happens here and people start getting thrown in Gitmo for protesting the police state we live in?


This bill does not establish or affirm any authority to do so.

They don't need anything from that bill to do so, they already have that. We are talking about the COMBINATION of powers here.

Branding protesters terrorists + NDAA = arresting of protesters as terrorists and hold them forever in jail without trial.


It expands the procedural rights of Gitmo detainees

And wrong. When was the last time republicans voted to give people (especially ``terrorists``) more rights? Never, that's when.


and establishes a new Congressional oversight mechanism to ensure the detention power is not being abused.

Right. Congress not abusing their power and regulating power? Give me a break. Where was congress on Obama and Bush's blatant abuse of power in HUNDREDS of cases? Where was congress on Fast and Furious? Where was congress on torture? Where was congress on illegal wars? Etc... Nowhere to be found, that's where.

Congress being the ``safeguard`` of abuse of power by the White House should scare you to death, because they haven't been doing it in the last 20+ years at least.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


When you have been around for a while like I have been in this nation you get to witness how our once great nation has been taken over by corruption and big interest.

We the people have lost our hold on our government, what is happening now we will be paying for later, our inability to control what our government does will be our nations downfall.

I have been a voter since 1978 now I have lost all my faith on our political system, call me a cynic call me anything you want, but we all have opinions base on our views of situations it have taken me a few decades to come to the position and the conclusions I take now about our government.



edit on 17-12-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
This Nation has survived countless acts of Treason over the last 235 years.

Each and every citizen charged with treason had their day in open court.

Why all of a sudden does our Legislative Branch desire to turn its back on our Constitution and empower the Executive with dictatorial power, removing Judicial oversight ?

I would say that during WWII this Nation faced the strongest enemy ever and our Congress did not commit treason then.

Why Now ?

What Changed ?

Why does the Executive need this power ?

The only answer can be is that it will be employed against the Citizens of this Nation.

Americans NEVER trust the Government to do the right thing,

Americans NEVER trust the Government to remain within it constraints,

Americans NEVER TRUST the Government.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 


Thanks for that post,

It is something governments fear more than an attack on their own shores by foreign forces is an attack of their citizens within their on borders.

Specially when the government in power knows that they are wrong doing their people.

But if history is prove right, no laws will stop a population when they have enough from their governments.

Laws only gives the powers running the government a sense of been in charge, but at the end the people are always the ones with the last word. This is never pretty to watch.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
George Takei (Sulu, Star Trek) who spent his childhood in a Japanese internment camp is shocked at the detention portion of this bill.

Never Again



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join