Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Congress voting to imprisonment without trial

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 4:28 p.m. EST by florentin (9)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What do you guys think of the new law that will allow the american government to imprison US citizens indefinately without trial? If you haven't heard of it, it's called the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Obama Administration requested that the indefinite detention apply also to US citizens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8&feature=player_embedded

44 Comments

44 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DeOppressoLiber (2) 3 years ago

I am hopeful that Americans that have taken an oath of office will resist giving up their constitutional rights - and that many members of our Armed Forces will not inforce unlawful orders on citizens of the United States.

[-] 1 points by florentin (9) 3 years ago

Great comment. There is a group called the Oath Keepers that is made up of military and police which have agreed not to follow any unconsitutional order. Unfortunately the United States feels less and less like the America we grew up in, but it's great to know there are people out there willing to stick up for what's right to protect our freedoms.

[-] 2 points by dontneedaweatherman (2) 3 years ago

The ammendment that is consistently cited as the most controversial is 1274 sponsored by Sessions. It is not in the final bill passed by the senate. HOWEVER, there are some glaring issues with the final bill.

Sections 1031, 1032 and 1034. 1034 being the most alarming as it defines the individuals able to be held under the President's authority for the Authorization for Use of Military Force very loosely as "belligerents, including persons described in paragraph 3 until the termination of hostilities."

Each subsection under the preceding sections states that the requirements to detain a person in military custody under THIS SECTION does not extend to citizens of the United States. Notice such a restriction is not present in Section 1034.

Does it say explicitly anywhere in this bill that United States Citizens are able to be held indefinitely? No. But that is not how law works, that is why litigation exists. When the language of law-making is vague, lawyers argue about it. When the language of law-making is vague when it comes to the DOD or the DOHS, we lose freedoms and the power to fight for them.

The language in this section is incredibly vague. For instance, it does NOT say "the authority to detain only those individuals outlined in paragraph 3" (even that would leave much to the imagination). It says "belligerents." Meaning that if the President signs this bill into law, under Section 1034 any individual can be labeled a belligerent, however that term is interpreted, and held indefinitely. That is a standalone section setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 3 years ago

Look up DHS and the Missouri Militia Movement's profile of a domestic terrorist which could describe millions upon millions of Americans. I mean could this profile get any more broader?

This vagueness is not acceptable. This leaves the door open for abuse. I keep running into people who tell me that I a misinterpreting these sections of the bill, but I know what I am reading. All it takes is one wrong word to do the damage.

Anyway,thanks for what you wrote here.

[-] 1 points by florentin (9) 3 years ago

It was the Obama Administration that requested that the indefinite detention apply also to US citizens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

The law is outrageous and unconstitutional (not that that will stop it). Hopefully it will be a fascist overreach.

To clear up the confusion caused by the fascist apologists here, goto "McCain says American Citizens Can Be Sent to Guantanamo" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29857.htm; or "Do not be deceived: S. 1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act" http://www.blacklistednews.com/Do_not_be_deceived%3A_S._1867_is_the_most_dangerous_bill_since_the_PATRIOT_Act/16816/0/38/38/Y/M.html.

Too many slippery liars are allowed to post here.

[-] 1 points by ohreally (3) 3 years ago

Section 1031 is an "affirmation" of current legislation. Note Section 1031(d):

"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."

Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed on September 18, 2001. SB 1867 section 1031 does not grant the President any additional power.

Also section 1032(b-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.

[-] 1 points by florentin (9) 3 years ago

The protection of American citizen has been removed by the request of Obama. He wants to be able to detain Americans indefinately. Please keep informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

i'm am afraid i have to admit looking foolish this time. i took faith in the information made available by what i considered to be a reliable source, the ACLU. indeed with further reading, you are correct.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

The Constitution is pretty clear on the matter. Precisely, it states in Article 1 Section 9 "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

So its already in the constitution that they can suspend habeus corpus and why.

Open a dang book and READ.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 3 years ago

Appalled is the first word that comes to my mind. I have a thread up on the latest about this bill if you want to check it out.

Everyone in America needs to wake up and don't let their rights go into the dung heap by one swift stroke of the pen. I hope and pray that this bill is vetoed. According to history,none of these military budget bills every got vetoed in 50 years. Oh, well time to break that tradition. Obama do the right thing!!!

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

thank arizona's ignorant voters for sending mccain back to dc

[-] 1 points by audidriver28 (16) 3 years ago

This shows that the Occupy movement is not working.... Time to step it up and follow Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and all the other countries that did not take this shit from there government. and CHANGED it.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

You need to read the actual law rather than depend on what you hear people saying about it. Per http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112bVtRu4:e462417:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY

(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.

Of course none of that language regarding citizens was even required because Congress can't pass a law overriding your rights under the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the constitution.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

That is the original text. This was reported by several news outlets to be part of an amendment to the main text. There was also a heated debate over it and Obama threatened to veto it.

You are correct however it would be better if we could find that amendment.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

The link I provided was from the Library of Congress site at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h1540: They do provide all the discussion and debate, if you're interested.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

That is the House version of the bill. The news was talking about the final version that was passed in the Senate.

That is why you do not see the amendments from Udall and Feinstein which were the amendments created to block the offensive amendment referenced in the news article.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Ah, OK. I need to figure out how to better use the Library of Congress site. Thanks !

[-] 1 points by florentin (9) 3 years ago

Is this from the Senate or the House version?

Americans will not go to military prison camps, they will go to the FEMA concentration camps already set up throughout the USA.

Do you really think the congress and the President care about the consitution? Look at what has happened in the last 10 years! So wait, your implying the government currently follows the consitution, so what about assassinating americans in yemen without a trail? Does the constitution allow for that?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

The link I provided was from the Library of Congress site at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h1540: They do provide all the discussion and debate, if you're interested.

If the Congress and President don't care about the constitution or law, then why do they even need to pass this law and why do you care whether they do or not?

The al-Awlaki case is a rare and special case. He held dual citizenship in the US and Yemen and had been out of country for 7 years publicly promoting and coordinating attacks against US citizens.

I remain torn over what we did. We could have declared the killing classified, but we announced it. We could have handed control of the drone to a UK officer, but we didn't. I find both of these facts interesting. On one hand, I suppose it speaks well for our leadership that they didn't use subterfuge to avoid the controversy. On the other had, a part of me wishes they had. In either case, the guy was an enemy combatant and deserved what he got.

[-] 1 points by WeMustStandTogether (106) from Newark, NJ 3 years ago

I dont believe congress serves us. Just the latest violation example. Peace.

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 3 years ago

.What would they say if Citizens Arrest Committee came and rounded up the Lot..

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

Funny, I read that whole act and didn't get that out of it. Helps to read the actual wording not what other people 'say' is in it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

[-] 2 points by florentin (9) 3 years ago

Ever heard of the ACL?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United 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.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

You need to read the actual law rather than depend on what you hear people saying about it. Per http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112bVtRu4:e462417:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY

(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.

Of course none of that language regarding citizens was even required because Congress can't pass a law overriding your rights under the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the constitution.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

BINGO - everyone else has been telling me that it did apply to everyone inside the boundaries of the USA.

Rico - you win. Thanks for your time in pointing out the truth that should have been the first thing considered in this discussion.

How easily we OPEN our mouths.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

Rico is posting the House version of the bill. The news was talking about the final version that was passed in the Senate. For a bill to become a law after it passes in the house it goes to the Senate where they can amend it. We are talking about an offensive amendment created and passed in the Senate

That is why you do not see the amendments from Udall and Feinstein in Rico's link to the House version. These were the amendments created to try block the offensive amendment referenced in the news article. They did not succeed in blocking.

You need to OPEN your EYES!

The presedent ordered the assasination of an American citizen without a trial earlier this year because he was a terror suspect.

[-] 0 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

I tried to tell them that a week ago.... no one wants to hear that.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

The Constitution is pretty clear on the matter. Precisely, it states in Article 1 Section 9 "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

So its already in the constitution that they can suspend habeus corpus and why.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3551) 3 years ago

Do we have a rebellion or invasion in the U.S. now? Who has the constitution-bestowed authority to define that? Right now, it is much closer to the truth that the U.S. has rebellions and invasions still festering overseas. I do not really see any rebellion or invasion here at home in the U.S. but if the "elites" can consider a "lone-wolf terrorist" as a "rebellion or invasion", I can see that we had really had perpetual "rebellion or invasion" in the U.S. Why is there the sudden fuss about suspending habeas corpus? I think that the "elites" are really scared, not because of the "lone-wolf terrorist" but because they are scared of their people: the hardworking taxpayers who see government money wasted on tax privileges for the rich, the people jobless from outsourcing of jobs, the anti-wall-street bonus people, the anti-corporate-greed people,... Worse yet, the "elites" realize that the Rubicon moment may be near with hackers having probed the U.S. infrastructure and veterans returning home from oversea suppressions of "rebellions and invasions". Isn't it ironic that a very technologically advanced and militarily superior country can have its vulnerabilities in exactly the same areas? Losing the hearts and minds of the people makes the "elites" very vulnerable.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

Okay, first of all did you read the bill? I did. If you can find in that bill where it says that U.S. citizen's can be held then you let me know where it is in that bill.

Even in the article the first paragraph reads:

"The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat."

Nothing there about US citizens. The only place that is mentioned is a quote from Rand Paul....

Maybe you should read the bill instead of relying on Huff Post trying to sensationalize something by captioning it with a misleading headline.

[-] 1 points by WeMustStandTogether (106) from Newark, NJ 3 years ago

They've renditioned canadians to syria ffs, and u know what awaited them there don't u? Torture. Ur deserving of everything yourselves that is done in your name and u do fa about stopping.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

WTH are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by WeMustStandTogether (106) from Newark, NJ 3 years ago

Maher Arar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Maher Arar was born in moved to at the age of mandatory military service. who was abducted by a extraordinary en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Extraordinary rendition by the United States - Wikipedia, the free ... The use indicted terrorists Arar, a and detained at Kennedy International Airport on … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Extraordinary... ANNALS OF JUSTICE: OUTSOURCING TORTURE : The New Yorker Feb 14 of America's “extraordinary rendition tells born interviews Michael former www.newyorker.com/../ 050214 Canadian Rendition Probe Expands to US, Syria by William Fisher ... Jun 22 did interview a lot of But the primary focus has Syrian original.antiwar.com/fisher/2010 06 ... CIA-rendition flights: charge dismissed by US courts, but Canadian ... … by Arar, who was rendered by the to Syria for several months. … www.ecchr.eu/arar-case/articles/ cia... As Poland's Legacy of CIA Torture Erupts, Europe's Human Rights ... May 31 about the Polish soil … Maher Arar, was in NY , NY & allow US control of all ports of entry, and people, … blog.soros.org/ polands-l... Maher Arar News - The New York Times 8 hours ago … Maher Arar is a Canadian American officials sent him to Syria case has been Faults Politics for Canadian to Syria topics.nytimes.com > Canadian Panel Exonerates CIA Rendition Survivor - The NewStandard Sep 20 Exonerates Survivor … German sues newstandardnews.net/../3684 FRONTLINE/World Extraordinary Rendition: Mapping the Black ... A secret German intelligence report revealed in 2006 CIA rendition www.pbs.org/../map/ Return of the Renditioned - By Katherine Hawkins | Foreign Policy Sep 7, 2011 rights groups have accused the of .... case of a that of Maher Arar, a citizen www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/ 2011 Next page » Search options »

[-] -2 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Too many of the great ideas and questions being asked are based on gossip. Why show your ignorance and waste everyone's time.

And you didn't even have the courtest to post an http: to even show that you knew where you could find the wording of that PROPOSED law much less having read and thought through it.

[-] 2 points by florentin (9) 3 years ago

Do you watch the news? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLjNXaykcr4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv9c-ZKHg_A

Barack Obama has already ordered the assassination of American citizens in Yemen. So why are you all in such denial that the US government would detain Americans without due process? If the US Government assassinates Americans without a trial, why does it surprise you that they would detain them? They are detaining foreigners already without a trial, have you heard of Guantanamo Bay or do I need to send you a link proving it's existence?

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Mainly because the proposed law does not appear to me to apply to American Citizens within the United States.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Just one question? Were they also citizens of Yemen?? If they are, there are at least two countries that should NOT kill them.

Perhaps they should, in that case, have to decide whether they are citizens of the USA or Yemen, just as Obama decided that he was black instead of white.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

Form the debate on the Senate Floor.

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody"


"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.

"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

This is still people saying what is in it and discussing their positive or negative interpretations. I will go with cast my lot with "ramos" and read it for myself, listen to the discussions and then decide.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

This was reported by several news outlets to be part of an amendment to the main text. There was also a heated debate over it and Obama threatened to veto it.

The amendments do not seem to be updated on line yet since I do not see one from Udall or Feinstein who put up amendments to block.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

I will watch for those amendments and their progress too.