Senators Who Voted "Yay" to Detain Americans

reply to post by FreedomKnight

The 16 who voted for the harsh detainee rules were Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). National defense hawk and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) also voted in favor of the tougher language.

So the People who Voted into Office from these states,

Pennsylvania; North Dakota; North Carolina; Hawaii; Wisconsin; Louisiana; Michigan; West Virginia; Montana; New Jersey; Nebraska; Arkansas; Road Island; New Hampshire; Michigan; Connecticut;

Are enemies of the Union of The United States of America. And they shall be punished like the south more than a hundred years ago.

Is there a war coming?

Or is this the republic that is supposed to be.

Here is the voting record of this bill, most of the links in this thread were to repeal this bill.

Republicans voted for this bill 227 yes votes with 6 no votes and 6 not voting.

Democrats 95 yes votes and 90 no votes and 7 not voting.

The lesser of two evils is the status quo in this country.

GovTrack:

Sure shows whose side the republicans are on.

reply to post by FreedomKnight


Excellent Work Freedom Knight.

Time to vote out the insider trading Clowns that are supposed to be representing us.

They would not be passing legislature such as this if they were not becoming fearful.

The Cat is out of the Bag, and it is surrounded by The Hounds of Truth.

The game is afoot. S&F to You

Maybe the Senators who voted for the bill should start a new party or rather resurrect the old Tory Party....they sure dont have the best interest of these united states at heart.

Sorry, I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Second

www.salem-news.com...

U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America

Salem-News.com
This is a very serious time in U.S. history, special thanks to Nature News.


Politicians currently in office are actively trying to disassemble the very structure of the United States.

(LOS ANGELES) - As utterly unfortunate for "freedoms" that generations of Americans, and their allies, have fought and died for, we only have to look at countless bills passed by the senate and the house which have never been read by those who voted for the bills! Therefore, it should come as no surprise that this draconian legislation sits on the presidents desk awaiting the first veto of the Obama administration. That power to veto the legislation is the last straw before the second American revolution.

Those who would put bulls-eyes on our backs will become targets themselves. Even if the bill is vetoed, the education of new generations will bring utter fear into the hearts of all and supress the dreams of our forefathers who would see this attempt as the destruction of the American dream by war mongering politicians and greedy banksters.

Better we close our borders rather than create this utopia of nation destroyers. If American citizens are not safe, no one is. The dreams of free men have turned into nightmares for the world. -
intro by John McCarthy, Salem-News.com correspondent in Los Angeles.

In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

It's being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesn't apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill it essentially says it can apply to Americans "if we want it to."



Even WIRED magazine was outraged at this bill, reporting:
...the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

www.wired.com...

The passage of this law is nothing less than an outright declaration of WAR against the American People by the military-connected power elite. If this is signed into law, it will shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights and unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations, indefinite detainment without ever being charged with a crime, the torture of Americans and even the "legitimate assassination" of U.S. citizens on right here on American soil!

If you have not yet woken up to the reality of the police state we've been warning you about, I hope you realize we are fast running out of time. Once this becomes law, you have no rights whatsoever in America -- no due process, no First Amendment speech rights, no right to remain silent, nothing.

Read my red alert warning on this urgent development at:

www.naturalnews.com...>

... and watch this urgent interview with Alex Jones of InfoWars.com at:
www.infowars.com...

The mainstream media is engaged in a shameful and conspiratorial news blackout of this entire issue:

www.businessinsider.com...

... and even the ACLU is outraged about this potential law:

www.aclu.org...

Are you getting all this? Do you realize America is about to be overrun by our own military?

The rule of law is about to be utterly destroyed. No due process. No legal representation. Not even a right to know what you're being charged with when you are (indefinitely) detained.

This is an urgent time for action to protest the overreaching military police state in America. Immediately call your representatives in Washington and urge your House members to reject this bill in the reconciliation phase with the Senate. Call the office of the President and urge Obama to veto this bill if it is passed by both houses.

Call your local newspapers and protest this outrageous and traitorous attempt to nullify the entire Bill of Rights.

Do not be fooled by the trolls and disinfo agents who claim this bill does not apply to U.S. citizens -- a fact which has already been established without question. If this is signed into law, military humvees will roll down the streets in U.S. cities, with gunpoint checkpoints, illegal arrests, secret torture operations and the outright murder of U.S. citizens right in their own home towns.

In observing all this, you might ask WHY is this happening right now? Why would the U.S. Senate deliberately nullify the Bill of Rights and seek the authorize military action on the streets of U.S. cities?

The answer, my friends, will not comfort you: A global economic collapse is coming, and once started, it will likely unleash a wave of social unrest and rioting that could burn many U.S. cities to the ground. The U.S. Senate is probably trying to rush authorization of the military to operate in American cities before the economic collapse arrives, thereby placing troops deep within the roughest U.S. cities where they stand a chance at halting the runaway riots that are sure to materialize when peoples' life savings vanish as the banks collapse.

Keep reading NaturalNews.com for updates on this situation. We will continue to cover the Eurozone economic crisis as well as this Senate bill 1867, which is not yet law. Our last-ditch hope would be for Obama to veto it. We'll issue a red alert if that action is needed...

And remember, folks, the Bill of Rights protects us all -- liberals, conservatives, libertarians, agnostics, Christians, Jews, everybody! If you lose the Bill of Rights, you lose America and all the freedoms many generations have fought for. Right now protecting the Bill of Rights is perhaps the single most important thing we can do for our collective futures.

All of us who have been screaming about the importance of the U.S. Constitution have been trying to protect YOU from exactly this kind of scenario. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government so that this kind of Senate action is never allowed.

Yet another thread that has third-party opinion trying to fan flames where there are none.

First, Section 1031(e) specifically states: (Emphasis mine)

Authorities- 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.

How is that not clear?

Then, in Section 1032 -- the Feinstein Amendment that passed at the last minute (99-1 with only Sen Kyl voting "Nay") states:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- 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.

-----------

So for the sensationalist -- what exactly are you up in arms about? Even the much herald of Freedom -- Senator Paul -- voted for the Amendment that cleared up and narrowed the application of Subsection D of S. 1867

reply to post by ownbestenemy


He voted for the amendment, not the bill.

There is no reason for the bill. There is no terrorist threat inside the US. 9/11 was a fluke, likely with participation, or at least by our own government, or at least failure to act by our government. Otherwise, there has been no acts of terrorism inside the US. The shoe bomber and smoke bomber didn't do anything. The Olympic Bomber was a criminal, not a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh may have been a domestic terrorist, but nothing in the Patriot Act, and nothing in this bill could have prevented any of those things.

The only reason for this bill is to erode some more freedoms. It doesn't make us any safer, so why do it?

This adding of this provision to the bill and the amendment that was shot down was added in to do nothing more than to protect the politicians.

They are addicted to the power. As long as the system as a whole remains the same they can do whatever it is they want. Doesn't matter who the people in office are.

I wouldn't fear this bill for the reasons most of you all are though. I'd fear this bill because this gives the power to the government to come in and raid an up and coming business that could possibly have a new piece of technology that would completely change the world.

Not everyone can be bought. So they need a way to suppress the next technology that will make them all obsolete. Could you imagine what the world would be like if you could power you home, car, and all electronics and not ever have to worry about paying an electrical bill?

reply to post by getreadyalready


I understand that but what in the bill erodes your freedoms? You still retain the right to a civil trial even if the Government (who I have no doubt would if they wanted to) trumped up charges against you as a "terrorist" threat.

Also, conspiracy aside in regards to Al Qaeda, 9/11, etc..., Section 1031 is quite narrow in its application and use.

The rest of the bill is authorization to fund the military and is required Constitutionally; as per Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13; to maintain the armies/navy we retain today -- right or wrong, the bill needed to be passed.

I am sure we can agree though on the scope of the whole bill and also the re authorization of the "Presidential War Powers" is not entirely needed, but that isn't what this thread is about.

No where in that bill is there authorization for the "[Military] to Detain Americans" unless they are directly connected with those who perpetrated the terrorist acts of 9/11. -- Again, conspiracy aside.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Personally, any bill or any language in a bill that specifically refers to "terror" or "terrorists," or "terrorism" is a mistake. There is no such thing as terrorism. There are crimes, and there are acts of war. There are already laws to deal with each of those things. There is no need for a separate set of laws to deal with some combination of the two.

If a civilian attacks civilians it is a crime. If a civilian attacks a military it is an act of war. If a military attacks anything, it is an act of war.

Timothy McVeigh was prosecuted and executed as a criminal.

The US already has more than an ample amount of police protection, FBI, US Marshalls, DEA, ATF, State and Local Police, Game Wardens, and dozens of other law enforcement entities. There is no need whatsoever to authorize military missions inside the USA.

Furthermore, there is no reason to raise the military budget and spending, since we are supposedly bringing troops home and ending the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a major recession, why did the military spending increase?

The bill is a mistake in every way.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Agreed; especially since the definition of "terrorism" is very loose and not narrow. Again though, the whole of the bill isn't bad -- but the portions dealing with authorization to use continued force in Iraq and Afghanistan (fortunately they kept that scope somewhat narrow and didn't include other countries or an ambiguous term to widen the authorization) is not good.

The Senate still has a huge hurdle though when this bill hits the House Committee to reconcile the language. Hopefully the House has the fortitude to see that much in the bill is unnecessary and not needed.

------

Edit To Add:

I am not sure it authorizes military missions within the United States -- rather authorizes the transfer of custody of "covered persons" as per Section 1031/1032 to the military. I will have to continue reading the massive bill(s) from both Houses to confirm or not confirm that.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Sure, as long as they take out the right stuff. I'm afraid they will take out the language that softens the bill, instead of the other way around!

ETA: for your edit. I'm not opposed to the transfer of foreign detainees to military prisons. As I understand it from all the other internet sites, this makes military action inside the US a possibility. I would strongly oppose that! But, you know how those sites get. It could be exaggeration.

Didn't these clown have to swear an oath to uphold the constitution? It looks like they just voted to repeal the 4th amendment by covet means. This line being crossed the gloves are about to come off.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Didn't these clown have to swear an oath to uphold the constitution? It looks like they just voted to repeal the 4th amendment by covet means. This line being crossed the gloves are about to come off.

What part of S 1867 do you think is going to be used to covertly "repeal" the 4th Amendment? I would be interested in what you think.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Source:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

This has been in the news for a while now. I read the legislation as passed and I did not find the language that provides the express authority that Senator Lindsey Graham claims in that statement unless he was misquoted I am not sure on that.

The trend since the so called patriot act has been to erode the 4th amendment.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Source:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

This has been in the news for a while now. I read the legislation as passed and I did not find the language that provides the express authority that Senator Lindsey Graham claims in that statement unless he was misquoted I am not sure on that.

But that is relying upon an article written 2 days before the final passage of the final Senate bill -- in which the language and introduction of the Feinstein Amendment has been included -- in which explicitly and directly explains that citizens of the United States are not subject to military detention or indefinite detention.

That is why you won't find anything remotely close to what Sen. Graham is saying. People keep relying on Mr. Anders' comments -- that are outdated and incorrect to the final Senate bill.

Paring out changes in existing code by referring to another previous bill for instance is outright confusion and obfuscation on purpose. Congresspersons are not immune to the human weakness of laziness. If you cram a big bill with 500-800 or more pages and have these references to other previous legislation changing meanings of various aspects of how the code is to be interpreted seems rampant to me.

This bit of code was rife with such obfuscations in rewording previous code. It makes back checking it all very cumbersome to say the least.

edit on 3-12-2011 by wayouttheredude because: weird code showed up on the post

The practice of cross-referencing from code/bills/legislation is nothing new. While it does create a bit of confusion and the perception of nefarious actions -- in which the average American will not delve into -- does cause problems in the legislative process.

If people understand how to research a bill -- understanding that all bills must include "definitions" (in which many are cross-referenced) -- we can find a better understanding of what a bill entails.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

If people understand how to research a bill -- understanding that all bills must include "definitions" (in which many are cross-referenced) -- we can find a better understanding of what a bill entails.

What would help the process the most is some type of legislation transparency wiki that had hash codes embedded into every new piece of legislation. Embed identifiers of authorship for every part of a piece of legislation. I would like to trace every bit of authorship of every bit of code with fingerprints of every staffer and every lobbyist and foreign interest in every piece of legislation that can be referenced by the public.

The reason is that such vast pieces of legislation are passed in such a short time often in times of crisis where the capacity of the government was far too strained to come up with this legislation on the spot as a reaction to the most recent fabricated crisis.

So much of this was done without any open debate further fueling concern.

Originally posted by wiredamerican
reply to post by FreedomKnight

 

The 16 who voted for the harsh detainee rules were Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). National defense hawk and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) also voted in favor of the tougher language.

So the People who Voted into Office from these states,

Pennsylvania; North Dakota; North Carolina; Hawaii; Wisconsin; Louisiana; Michigan; West Virginia; Montana; New Jersey; Nebraska; Arkansas; Road Island; New Hampshire; Michigan; Connecticut;

Are enemies of the Union of The United States of America. And they shall be punished like the south more than a hundred years ago.

Is there a war coming?

Or is this the republic that is supposed to be.

Actually, although the actions against the south were a great blow against slavery, more power than ever before and ever afterwards has been taken from the states and consolidated in Washington.