Senators Coons, Don’t Vote for This
Senate set to pass bill that redefines America as a “battlefield,” authorizes indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial
The US Senate’s Defense Authorization Bill redefines America as a “battlefield” and authorizes US troops to conduct military arrests of civilians on US soil, and to indefinitely detain citizens without charge or trial. The ACLU wants you to write to your senator and demand that this insanity not pass.
Call Senator Coons at (302) 573-6345
The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?
Jeez, maybe we even better call Carper, just to make sure that he doesn’t have any bloggers on his list of would-be detainees…
Isn’t there something Unconstitutional about the US Military baing involved in the detention of non miltiaty US citizens on US Soil
“Unconstitutional?” How quaint.
Here is the pertinent section from the bill. Please read (b)(1)
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United 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.
Im not sure if the ACLU thinks that the AQ designation trumps the citizenship exclusion or what.
You know, in my last post, which was during the spring, I brought up the issue of the United States assassinating a U.S. citizen in Yemen. Yes, he was most likely connected with Al-Qaeda, but the point was that the US gov’t never attempted to arrest him or bring him to trial or bring any of the evidence to light. It was so much easier to use a drone to just kill him. And all that happened (or at least, from what I remember) on this blog was Aoine calling me a “Libertarian puppy” to the approval of auntie dem.
Now look what’s happening. I know the slippery slope is classified as a logical fallacy, but dang, look at what this country is going to. It all starts with something small and if you don’t make a big stink of it, it just keeps on growing.
ummm I dont believe I elevated you to the level of “puppy”,,, ever,
not my style, use of grammar nor use of syntax. If I was going to insult you I would probably go a lot deeper than “puppy”
you might want to check your facts before accusing me of anything –
links are our friends please provide one to validate your claim, spring was a long time ago
I would also do what Dave suggests and re-read the applicable section of SB 1867 ss 1031 and 1032
they relate to detention – not assassination
I believe those two items are pretty different….therefore if you cannot discern what is currently in front of you in black and white I doubt your ability to properly recall a comment made 6 monts ago from memory
Well, they didn’t think it through too clearly… ( of course it was written by the Republican Party).. If America is designated a battlefield area, then we, it’s citizens, have recourse to shoot back when they come for us, without violating any laws…..
Amazingly, DelDem in 2008, was ahead of his time…..
🙁 Damn funny if not so true……
interesting this happens just as americans finally are standing up and speaking out against the super powerful. occupy gitmo anyone? Maybe since it is an election season, Obama will have the motivation to fight this.
Update: At least Coons voted for the Udall amendment to remove the detainee provisions. The amendment failed 37-61. But with Delaware Democrats, you never know when they are taking a free Yes vote on good legislation that they know is doomed anyway. The Senate vote was close, but remember there is a veto threat on the whole bill, so either way it’s a free vote.
In other news, both Coons and Carper voted AGAINST Rand “Stopped Clock” Paul’s bill to repeal the Iraq AUMF (it failed 30-67). Where’s your bipartisanship now, Senator Coons?
It is actually a good question regarding when or if the nation has a right to kill a U.S. citizen who is actively engaged in war against the nation. An extreme example as a reference argument. A U.S. citizen has become a soldier for another entity and is in trench firing at U.S. soldiers in a trench directly opposite the enemy trench. Let’s say that the U.S. soldiers are aware of this citizen being in the opposite trench. Certainly they have the right to defend themselves but aside from a defensive action, if their military objective is to take the opposing trench, must this U.S. citizen be given any consideration? They can shoot the guy next to him but can’t shoot him? Further, let’s imagine that they captured him and others. Are they all POWs? Does the U.S. citizen hold some special status?
In my opinion, the U.S. citizen would be treated no differently than any other enemy combatant. They simply are the enemy, at least during the battle because we cannot segregate one enemy from the other in the heat of battle. Afterwards (as a POW) there may be some rational for legal treating the U.S. citizen in a different manner, but certainly not during combat operations.
WTF, government forces kill US citizens all the time who aren’t at war with the nation. And the killers mostly get off scot-free. So yes, it is a de facto right according to precedent we have deliberately established.
US citizens fighting on the side of a declared enemy is what treason laws are for.