Detention without trial for innocent Americans.
Today, Thursday, December 1, 2011, exactly six days shy of the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a majority of oath-breaking U.S. Senators will, barring the successful intervention of patriots, launch a major attack on the Constitution.
The U.S. Senate will vote on, and is expected to pass S.1867, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” Embedded in it, though no longer hidden, is the effective repeal of the Bill of Rights.
It has long been predicted that confronted by invasion or severe shortages or civil unrest, the general public, even Americans, will cry out for order so desperately they will beg for a dictator to save them.
This Bill depends on public fear of terrorism even without the crisis. (Or perhaps we weren’t supposed to find out about it yet.)
What, exactly does the proposed law do?
The following video is a comprehensive answer to that question, well worth the time to watch it. It will make you the expert in your community on the nature of this disastrous legislation that, effectively, declares war on the American public.
Reagan Wing FAQs
Who is subject to this law? Anybody. Innocent American Citizens. . You don’t have to be convicted of anything. You don’t have to be tried. Only accused. You don’t have to be a foreigner or on foreign soil. This is explicitly an act that makes American citizens subject to its jurisdiction.
What, in the law, prevents the Administration from accusing and detaining its political enemies? NOTHING.
When does it apply? Whenever you’re targeted by the U.S. Military following orders, under the Commander in Chief (currently Barack Obama)
What happens if you become subject to this law? You can be placed in military custody, not placed under arrest. If you are seized, you’re read no rights. You may be held, interrogated, and transported as they please for any amount of time. That means you can be taken out of the country. You’re in military custody just as any member of Al Qaeda. You can be taken to Guantanomo Bay or a military base in Egypt or Afghanistan. If you die in custody, no investigation is required.
You can be held in secret. No notice will be given to your family or anyone of your whereabouts. You could simply disappear from the Street like a target of the KGB in Soviet Russia.
What are the criteria for being a terrorist suspect? Whatever the president decides.
You can be subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Now, there’s been a lot of controversy over what “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually are. Some people say its torture. Other people say, “No, no, it’s just enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Well, the question then becomes, “How enhanced are they?”
They’re enhanced enough so that the previous administration explained to us that they convinced hardened terrorists, men willing to die for their cause, to cough up the important details of their operations.
But if you are an innocent person they’ve grabbed, what will you cough up?
Probably just blood.
Who does this proposed law apply to? Simply someone the government doesn’t like and makes a “suspect.”
Who actually will be suspected or accused of being a terror suspect and taken into custody? Well, fortunately we know the answer to that question. Numerous documents (created with the help of the hate group The Southern Poverty Law Center) have leaked out of government identifying for us in advance the suspected enemy belligerents.
- Are you a critic of the federal government?
- Do you favor local and state authority?
- Do you listen to, read, or publish, alternative or underground media that offers a radically different view?
- Are you opposed to abortion?
- Do you support animal rights?
- Are you opposed to illegal immigration?
- Have you participated in a “Tea Party?”
- Are you an environmentalist?
- Do you use cyber technology to achieve a political end?
- Do you oppose gun regulation?
- Do you own a gun? Are you a veteran?
- Are you a patriot?
- Do you dislike the IRS, BATF, or the Federal Reserve?
- Do you oppose war? Do you support third parties?
- Do you support the Constitution?
- Do you support Ron Paul? or Chuck Baldwin?
- Do you believe in or oppose the New World Order or the North American Union?
- Have you ever used a Gadsden flag?
… then you’re a suspected terrorist and could end up in custody.
What are the regulations and guidelines for your interrogation? Whatever the president decides.
How long, if you were an innocent person in military custody, can the government hold on to you in detention and submit you to enhanced interrogation techniques? Indefinitely. There is no limit.
During detention, when do you have a right to an attorney?
Never.
When do you get to contact your family?
Never.
When will they be notified of your status? Or where you are in the world?
Never.
When do you have a right to be either indicted or released?
Never.
When do you have a right to a fair trial?
Never.
When will you get back your rights to freedom of speech, of the press, to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion, of association, of assembly?
Never!
Not as long as there’s a War on Terror.
And assuming that you’re innocent, have committed no crime, what is your recourse under the Law?
You have none.
Who would propose legislation like this?
Is it some radical communist congressman from some unknown district? No, it’s the man at the mic in this photo:
That’s right. John McCain, long-time senator from Arizona. Recent presidential candidate, Guru to Washington state Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates Mike McGavick and Rob McKenna.
Who has voted for it, so far?
Yesterday, the following Senators voted for “cloture” which will bring it up for a vote without further amendment. They should have voted “no.” But they could claim they simply wanted to dispose of the issue with a final vote. Please call and convince them to vote “NO” on final passage.
| Sessions, Jefferson [R] | AL | McCaskill, Claire [D] | MO | |||
| Shelby, Richard [R] | AL | Baucus, Max [D] | MT | |||
| Begich, Mark [D] | AK | Tester, Jon [D] | MT | |||
| Murkowski, Lisa [R] | AK | Johanns, Mike [R] | NE | |||
| Kyl, Jon [R] | AZ | Nelson, Ben [D] | NE | |||
| McCain, John [R] | AZ | Heller, Dean [R] | NV | |||
| Boozman, John [R] | AR | Reid, Harry [D] | NV | |||
| Pryor, Mark [D] | AR | Ayotte, Kelly [R] | NH | |||
| Boxer, Barbara [D] | CA | Shaheen, Jeanne [D] | NH | |||
| Feinstein, Dianne [D] | CA | Lautenberg, Frank [D] | NJ | |||
| Bennet, Michael [D] | CO | Menendez, Robert [D] | NJ | |||
| Udall, Mark [D] | CO | Bingaman, Jeff [D] | NM | |||
| Blumenthal, Richard [D] | CT | Udall, Tom [D] | NM | |||
| Lieberman, Joseph [I] | CT | Gillibrand, Kirsten [D] | NY | |||
| Carper, Thomas [D] | DE | Schumer, Charles [D] | NY | |||
| Coons, Chris [D] | DE | Hagan, Kay [D] | NC | |||
| Nelson, Bill [D] | FL | Conrad, Kent [D] | ND | |||
| Chambliss, Saxby [R] | GA | Hoeven, John [R] | ND | |||
| Isakson, John [R] | GA | Brown, Sherrod [D] | OH | |||
| Akaka, Daniel [D] | HI | Portman, Robert [R] | OH | |||
| Inouye, Daniel [D] | HI | Inhofe, James [R] | OK | |||
| Durbin, Richard [D] | IL | Casey, Robert [D] | PA | |||
| Kirk, Mark [R] | IL | Toomey, Patrick [R] | PA | |||
| Coats, Daniel [R] | IN | Reed, John [D] | RI | |||
| Lugar, Richard [R] | IN | Whitehouse, Sheldon [D] | RI | |||
| Harkin, Thomas [D] | IA | Graham, Lindsey [R] | SC | |||
| Moran, Jerry [R] | KS | Johnson, Tim [D] | SD | |||
| Roberts, Pat [R] | KS | Thune, John [R] | SD | |||
| McConnell, Mitch [R] | KY | Alexander, Lamar [R] | TN | |||
| Vitter, David [R] | LA | Corker, Bob [R] | TN | |||
| Landrieu, Mary [D] | LA | Hutchison, Kay [R] | TX | |||
| Collins, Susan [R] | ME | Hatch, Orrin [R] | UT | |||
| Snowe, Olympia [R] | ME | Leahy, Patrick [D] | VT | |||
| Cardin, Benjamin [D] | MD | Sanders, Bernard [I] | VT | |||
| Mikulski, Barbara [D] | MD | Warner, Mark [D] | VA | |||
| Brown, Scott [R] | MA | Webb, Jim [D] | VA | |||
| Kerry, John [D] | MA | Cantwell, Maria [D] | WA | |||
| Levin, Carl [D] | MI | Murray, Patty [D] | WA | |||
| Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D] | MI | Manchin, Joe [D] | WV | |||
| Franken, Al [D] | MN | Rockefeller, John [D] | WV | |||
| Klobuchar, Amy [D] | MN | Johnson, Ron [R] | WI | |||
| Cochran, Thad [R] | MS | Kohl, Herbert [D] | WI | |||
| Wicker, Roger [R] | MS | Barrasso, John [R] | WY | |||
| Blunt, Roy [R] | MO | Enzi, Michael [R] | WY | |||
Now, it’s clear that in proposing this legislation, Mr McCain has proposed, and in voting for cloture, these Senators have advanced something blatantly unconstitutional. Proposing OR advancing clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional legislation, is a violation of the oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution.
And because this bill violates their oath of office, and attacks the Constitution, the reaction from Americans needs to be clear, unequivocal, and strong.
And here’s the action I’m asking for you to take.
-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In a way I am glad that the feds think pushing the concept of Jury Nullification is a crime. Sure they busted some guy for doing this near a federal courthouse, but it’s only a matter of time before they go after you for doing it anywhere
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/99621.html
Seeing the constitutional grounds of the powers of the jury, all we have to do is really start pushing jury nullification and when they come for us, we will be on the right side of history just like the guys at Concord.
I just called Senator Levin’s office in Lansing, Mi. the staffer refered me to Senator Levin’s internet site and here is his statement. It makes sense now , to me what do you think? http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/levin-floor-statement-on-detainee-provisions-of-ndaa/?section=alltypes
[Section] 1032 is the so-called mandatory provision, which, by the way, does not apply to American citizens. I better say that over again. Senator Graham said it, but let me say it over again. The most controversial provision, probably the only one in this bill, is Section 1032. Section 1032 says that the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. I guess that’s the second thing that I would like for colleagues to take away from what I say, is that section — and Senator Graham said the same thing — Section 1032, the mandatory section that has the waiver in it, does not by its own words apply to citizens of the United States. It has a waiver provision in it to make this flexible, and the way in which 1032 operates is that it says that if it’s determined, if it’s determined that a person is a member of al Qaeda, then that person will be held in military detention, they are at war with us, folks. Al Qaeda is at war with us. They brought that war to our shores. This isn’t just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said — and I’m going to read these words again – “there is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.” They brought this war to us, and if it’s determined that even an American citizen is a member of al Qaeda, then you can apply the law of war, according to the Supreme Court. That’s not according to the armed services committee, our bill or any one of us. That’s the Supreme Court speaking.
Who determines it? What we say to give the administration the flexibility that they want, the administration makes that determination, the procedures to make that determination. Who writes those procedures? We don’t write them. By explicitly, the executive branch writes those procedures. Can those procedures interfere with an ongoing interrogation or investigation? No. By our own language, it says that they shall not interfere with interrogation or intelligence gathering. That’s all in here. The only way this could interfere with an operation of the executive branch is if they decided to interfere themselves in their own operation. They are given explicitly the authority to write the procedures. I think we ought to debate about what is in the bill, and what is in the bill is very different from what our colleagues who support the Udall amendment have described. Yes, we are at war and yes we should codify how we handle detention, and this is an effort to do that, and as the administration says itself, we are not changing anything here in terms of section 1031, we are simply codifying existing law. The issue really relates to 1032.
And that’s what we ought to debate. Should somebody when it’s been determined by procedures adopted by the executive branch, been determined to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? And the answer is yes. But should flexibility be in here so the administration can provide a waiver even in that case? Yes.
And finally, about civilian trials, I happen to agree with my friend from Illinois, and he is a dear friend of mine. Civilian trials work. There is nothing in this provision that says civilian trials won’t be used, even if it’s determined that somebody is a member of al Qaeda. Not only doesn’t it prevent civilian trials from being used, we explicitly provide that civilian trials are available in all cases. It’s written right in here. I — I happen to like civilian trials a lot. I participated in a lot of them, and they are very appropriate, and we have a very good record. In the case that you mentioned, the senator from Illinois mentioned, excuse me, that case was a Michigan case. I know a lot about that case. It was the right way to go. I prefer civilian trials in many, many cases. This bill doesn’t say that we’re going to be using military commissions in lieu of civilian trials. That is a decision which we leave where it belongs, in the executive branch, but we do one thing in this bill in Section 1031, which needs to be said. We are at war with al Qaeda and people determined to be part of al Qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us. But even with that statement, we give the administration a waiver. That’s how much flexibility we give to the executive branch.
The above post ascribed to “Jan” includes the talking points memo of Carl Levin and of the supporters of this bill.
Andrew C. McCarthy, renowned anti-terrorist attorney, former Giuliani employee and columnist (at National Review), has published a scurrilous article abusing Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano that is wrapped around that argument.
The argument, though ridiculous, works. Jan, for instance, says, “It makes sense now , to me…”
Here’s HOW it works:
The Bill (S.1867) gives the Executive Branch the latitude to hold innocent Americans, indefinitely, without trial, abolishing ALL their rights in defiance of the Constitution.
BUT
there is a provision that MANDATES that some enemy combatants MUST be detained without trial.The Levin/McCarthy argument points to the MANDATORY provisions and says that Americans on U.S. soil are exempted from them. But the Levin/McCarthy argument IGNORES that they are not excluded from the Executive Branch’s OPTION to detain them.
Just as Rand and the Judge have pointed out, the bill gives the Executive Branch, directly under control of the President, the power to detain INNOCENT AMERICANS, without trial, indefinitely, like the KGB, AT THEIR DISCRETION.
This is unmitigated evil.
Insane lying devil does not begin to describe the deception of the senator.
“If you are going to shoot SHOOT don’t talk ” Tuco
Jeep’s doing the one and preparing for the other.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” ~ Thomas Payne
If I am the most offensive person in the room it is not necessarily because I am the most honest.
From Isocrates’ Areopagiticos:-
*** “But in fact, they thought, virtue is not advanced by written laws but by the habits of every-day life; for the majority of men tend to assimilate the manners and morals amid which they have been reared. Furthermore, they held, that where there is a multitude of specific laws, it is a sign that the state is badly governed; for it is in the attempt to build up dikes against the spread of crime that men in such a state feel constrained to multiply the laws.
Those who are rightly governed, on the other hand, do not fill their porticoes with written statutes, but only to cherish justice in their souls; for it is not by legislation, but by morals, that states are well directed, since men who are badly reared will venture to transgress even laws which are drawn up with minute exactness, whereas those who are well brought up will be willing to respect even a simple code”.
“He that shall collect all the moral rules of the philosophers and compare then with those contained in the New Testament will find them to come short of the morality delivered by our Saviour and taught by His disciples: a college made up of ignorant but inspired fisherman
“Human Laws are measures in respect of Men whose Actions they must direct, albeit such measures they are as have also their higher Rules to be measured by, which Rules are two, the Law of God, and the Law of Nature; so that Laws Human must be made according to the general Laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive Law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.” – ‘The Second Treatise on Civil Government’ John Locke
Every GOP hack who broke the laws to make sure McCain was the nominee in 2008 should know that once we have the country back in whatever form, we will be digging up the law books and finding out if they committed any crimes against humanity. If McCain gets his way, and therefore people are denied life, liberty, and property, then the GOP hacks are just as complicit in the crime as any Hitler propagandist and chrony.
Be on notice, hacks. We will be coming for you.
Don’t worry though. We are the good guys. If you did not break any laws, you have nothing to worry about – and you will get a trial, representation, etc.
That’s the difference: YOU supported someone who wants people to be hauled off to vanish in a torture pit.. All we ever wanted is a respect for liberty. Your rights will be respected.
If any life survives
Is somebody out of rum?
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
Perhaps. But The revere chain-nose plier, it is claimed, will satisfy even the most discriminating jeweler.
http://www.riogrande.com/Product/Revere-Chain-Nose-Pliers/112706?pos=35
And one item, produced by Paul Revere’s silver shop, that certainly would be prized today, if found in one’s possession, is a silver chain for a pet squirrel. It would certainly be foolish to lightly part with such an item.
“When we contemplate the fall of empires and the extinction of the nations of the Ancient World, we see but little to excite our regret than the mouldering ruins of pompous palaces, magnificent museums, lofty pyramids and walls and towers of the most costly workmanship; but when the empire of America shall fall, the subject for contemplative sorrow will be infinitely greater than crumbling brass and marble can inspire. It will not then be said, here stood a temple of vast antiquity; here rose a babel of invisible height; or there a palace of sumptuous extravagance; but here, Ah, painful thought! the noblest work of human wisdom, the grandest scene of human glory, the fair cause of Freedom rose and fell. Read this, and then ask if I forget America. – Thomas Paine [To: George Washington - 30 July 1796 - On Paine's Service to America]“
Luke 14-26 “If anyone is coming to Me and is not hating his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and still more his soul besides, he can not be My disciple.
27 And anyone who is not bearing his cross and coming after Me, can not be My disciple.
28 “For which of you, wanting to build a tower, is not first seated to calculate the expense, to see if he has the wherewithal?-
29 lest at some time, he laying a foundation and not being strong enough to finish up, all those beholding should begin to scoff at him,
30 saying that ‘This man begins building and is not strong enough to finish up!’
31 “Or what king, going to engage another king in battle, will not, being seated, first plan to see if he is able to meet, with ten thousand, him who is coming against him with twenty thousand?
32 Otherwise, surely, at his being still at a distance, he, dispatching an embassy, is asking the terms of peace.
33 Thus, then, everyone of you who is not taking leave of all of his possessions, can not be My disciple.
34 “Ideal, then, is salt. Yet if even the salt should be made insipid, with what shall it be seasoned?
35 Neither is it fit for the land nor for manure. Outside are they casting it. Who has ears to hear, let him hear!”