Americans can now be "detained" indefinitely!?!?!?

[buttebob]

This is Subtitle D, Sec. 1031 of H.R. 1540 sixth version as passed by the House. The bill may now proceed to a conference committee of senators and representatives to work out differences in the versions of the bill each chamber approved.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.
24 (

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

Buttebob,

I have not read the whole thing yet but we need to make sure all sections when refering to "authorities" are including not only Local and FEDERAL Law enforcement but also Military. Because remember that this is now Considered a "WAR Zone/Battlefeild", and "authorities" usually were limited to Cilivian actions (that is if I remember correctly) and not Military actions/personal.

Basically the 2 biggest problems here are that they are trying to tell us:

#1. that the US is now a battlefield, which is submitting us to Military rules and possible Military Occupation.
#2. that our current president says he will veto this bill because he does not need it, he thinks he already has the authority to do this.

Our Military is not a police force. They are not trained to be that, they follow much different rules when "policing" an AO then our current LEO do and you do not want to be in a place that is policed by the Military (any military). If you say the US is a Battlefeild the Military will be here (sooner or later) and once that happens things usually do not end cleanly.

[buttebob]

I'll check it out later today. I have a Doc. appointment in an hour. This bill is the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011-2012 that funds the military so I would think that it addresses the military and not civilians, but I will check it out.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

Here is and hour and 25 minutes of debate on the bill;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JES3Yt02P80&feature=related

#1. At about the 15 minute mark Rand and John start going back and forth for a few minutes
notice the John does NOT want DUE PROCESS for holding Americans, he believes that if the person is believed to be an Enemy Combatant or helping the Enemy they can be detained until the war is over. Well the WAR on TERROR has already gone on over 10 years... And still there is no end in sight... JUST as the "WAR ON DRUGS" is still raging after 40 years (Started in '71 with Nixon).

If you think we are about to take out the last strong hold of Al Qaeda... Do you realize we just handed them another much wealther country to fund their war againest us... Libya. We kicked out a standing government (all be it a bad man) that was NOT fighting againist us. So that a Terrorist Group could control it. We knew that the "Rebels" were Al Qaeda but helped them Over throw a "Stable" government. "Why?" Should be everyone's question.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

#2. At 23minutes and 21 seconds listen very carefully what Udall says;

"...but, I did want to speak to one area of concern; just to give our viewers and my colleagues a sense of what we face: The previsions authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens who are suspected of..."

I am no expert but many of these Senators are Lawyers and if are concerned that the provision will allow such things… I am guessing that the Administration will try to use it, and how many Americans will be detained until the law is over ruled or we get an administration in power that has some common sense. I would not want anyone detained without “Due Process”. Possible Terrorist or not Remember they are trying to teach that our founding fathers were terrorist… So as such if you believe what they did was right you are a Terrorist Supporter.

So if this passes you could then be treated as a "Prisoner of War". Which in the US Armed Services could mean?

#1. Taken to a "Secret Holding Facility"
#2. Put under "distress" by Sleep Deprivation
#3. Water Boarded (look up Jesse Ventura's view on that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwFX57dNADs )
#4. And who knows what sort of other things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr...prisoner_abuse

Check this Summary Out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGGYv5JuSxM&feature=related

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

So... It now appears that Obama will sign this bill as long as they can detain YOU without trial indefinetily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA

[buttebob]

Not Yet Prepped, I watched the videos and checked the Sen. bill: S. 1867. There are 2 versions on Thomas. The 1st version does not have section (e) that I mention above. The 2nd version does. The 2nd version was passed by the Senate. The videos you posted were from Nov. 29th. The bill was passed on Dec. 1st I believe. My guess is that the Senate put Section (e) in the final bill before passing.
The same wording is in the passed House version ( H.R.1540).
If you find anything further please let me know.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

I will keep a watch out for any more info... But seeing as the "Administration" was the one getting the language that protected citizens removed I am guessing our Pres. is going pass it, only if he believes he has the ability to detain us without "due process". So either the wording will be contradicting within the bill so that it can be "abused", or that part of the bill will be ingorned all together just as so many of the other laws that are used against us.

[buttebob]

I'm going to continue researching it also. I've seen a little to much reference to detaining citizens by different media sources. Plus there are some amendments that wont be printed until after the bill was passed. Plus, the Sec. of Defense is authorized to change the status of groups and individuals as to who is an enemy combatant.

[Klayton]

I know an individual can decline their citizenship (why they would I have no idea), but that leads me to think (dangerous yes I know), if the goooberment thinks you're an enemy of the state, can THEY remove your citizenship? Thus making the above points null & void???

You have been deemed a threat. Your citizenship has been revoked by executive order 911-999. We have the authority to detain you indefinitely. MOVE ALONG!

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

Klayton,

That is the type of thing I am very worried about, law or NOT they are going that direction.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

So NDAA 2012 (final version) was passed by the Senate on 12-15-2011. This is currently waiting to be signed (or veto-ed) by our fearless leader who had promissed he would not sign it... But HE did NOT say he was going to VETO it. See the Devil is in the DETAILS, SEE he does NOT have to sign it, as long as he does NOT veto it, it becomes law by DEFAULT.

Per Article 1, Section 7 of our Constitution:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it

Now that puts this becoming LAW around the 27th (unless signed or vetoed before that)... Not sure if "Sundays excepted" is saying that ten days not counting any Sunday or 10 days as long as the 10th day is not a Sunday.

Still looking for the full text of final version of the Bill that passed the Senate but not sure it matters too much, because the current administration believes they don’t need another bill passed to say they have the power… They think that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) gives them the power already.*


*Source the white houses own papers:

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY 11/17/2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

[45B]

They better have good proof for me to do that, or it would be an order I would refuse to follow.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

They better have good proof for me to do that, or it would be an order I would refuse to follow.

But they don't... and many will not question it. Last night I saw 2 reports about 100s (if not thousands) of Citizens actually being labeled terrorist and being put on the watch list but with no actual evidence of terrorism or supporting terrorism. I am trying to track down the videos now. But with NDAA and AUMF and then reports of people being "officially" labeled terrorist without evidence it is a scary time.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

Have we heard anything new about NDAA 2012? Did the administration VETO it?

I have an un-easy feeling in my stomach for the last 2 days and at first I thought it was the Mexican I had for lunch on Tuesday... But it is still there. And as stated before if Obama did not VETO it, it is now Law (if I read the constitution properly and there is not something else I am missing).

But I have not seen word one in the media recently about this, like it just went away (or any one in the know is hiding from it).

[Klayton]

at first I thought it was the Mexican I had for lunch on Tuesday.

You ate a Mexican? Isn't cannibalism illegal in the US?

:cool: