Impeach Every Senator Who Votes for "U.S. is a Battlefield" Bill that Violates Basic Rights

Impeach Every Senator Who Votes for "U.S. is a Battlefield" Bill that Violates Basic Rights

Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for "U.S. is a Battlefield" and to detain U.S. Citizens without trial

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/892/...attlefield-and-to-detain-us-citizens-without/
-----------------------
National Defense Authorization Act. (Liberty end)
congress.org ^ | 11/29/11 | Cathedra

Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:55:39 AM by Broker

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in SECRET by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

-----------------
The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary
David Seaman, Credit Card Outlaw | Nov. 30, 2011,

Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all -- this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons -- without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you "indefinite detention" for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.

Details: There is a scary provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (fiscal year 2012) which is typically passed by Congress each and every year to continue funding our military operations around the world.

This provision is not a mistake or error; it has vocal backing from some of the most powerful Senators in Washington, including Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin.

 

bump

 

Hmmm... imprisoned for life: Food. Shelter. Bubba keeping ya warm. So, what are the down-sides to this again?

 

First they massacred Branch Davidian in Waco Siege,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Davidian.

Then they created OKC bombing, tried to get a Patriot act,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't want to offend the Feds.

Then they created 911 attack to get the Patriot Act and war,
and I didn't speak out because I am not a muslim.

Now they come for US citizens with military Authorization Act,
and I didn't speak out because I am not a terrorist.

Then when they prison you as a terrorist,

and there is no law to protect you because you have given up all your civil rights already.

 

Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens

, SF Conservative Examiner
December 18, 2011

Enemies of the People & U.S. Constitution; Congressional Traitors Approved Provisions for Indefinite Arrests, and Detentions of U.S. Citizens, with no Due Processes, Mainly Those Who Criticize Government:

S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, attacks on our liberties was passed to the dismay of Libertarians all over.

http://www.examiner.com/conservativ...definite-arrests-and-detention-of-us-citizens

 

After some researching I don't see anything in the bill that says American citizens have to worry about this affecting them. Of course, I did find a (deleted)-load of Republican sites stating otherwise... but, as usual, they are full of BS. The law deals with non-U.S. citizens who aid al-qaeda or the Taliban.

 

Better than getting a job (for some, at least) I suppose.

 

I hope you're right although even if you are it's bad enough But the President seems to think that the law does not not necessarily exempt American citizens but leaves it up to the executive to decide on a case-by-case how we are to be treated.

Which is fine, but how might future presidents interpret this law?

 

I don't credit anything that Obama said when signing the bill. He, like any other politician, speaks out of both sides of his face in terms of anything that gives him power. And, even if we were to believe him, he will be gone after this year's election--so how do we know what his successor will do when given that kind of power?

 

Exactly. It's nuts to give a President or Congress or anyone discretionary power to determine how something like this can be applied. What ever happened to rule of law?

 

If you want to avoid work by going to jail go for it. I hope you enjoy yourself. Do you simply ignore reality or are you ignorant of it?

 

Completely missed this one, didn't you?

 

Try to cheat people?

ACLUs statement regarding that section ^^

“Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

http://www.unforumzed.com/showthread.php?2685-Kiss-Your-Rights-Goodbye-America./page3

 

He was dissing me KD, being the typical **** he is. I said it wouldn't be so bad in prison, ****-head of course, being a ****, implied my part-time job was not sufficient to his taxes... he prefers I work harder so his taxes are not used in any way that might help me. His taxes don't help me in any way of course, but his whining continues. He's just another rich-man whining about his taxes. Nothing more.

 

The average American has nothing to worry about, unless [1] they aided al-Qaeda on 9-11-01 or harbored those responsible for the attack, or [2] anyone who was "a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against" the U.S. and it's allies.

I'm not cheating anyone, I'm cutting through the bs.

 

Believe that if you will. I tend to believe the ACLU's lawyers went over this law with a fine-toothed comb before their statement was issued. I have no reason to disbelieve the ACLU on this matter.

 

You have a gun right? You said you'd have it at the ready for anyone foolish enough to invade your home, so when they come to arrest you, foolishly, use it ...if you feel it's necessary. I seriously doubt they will come for you coin, with or without the threat of a gun being pointed at them.

 

A typical cheating tactic. When Assad use same tone on those "average Syrians" who need not afraid of his tanks if they are not foreign influenced rebels.

 

A typical response. Very well, I'll leave it at this: I personally have no fear of this law. I can understand others feeling different about it, but if agents of the government came to arrest me as a direct result of this law they may as well bring a bodybag to carry me... 'cause I don't give a *poof*...I won't be going peacefully, I don't suffer from any illusion that I would win the fight, and death happens.

 

What a fallacy. Iraqi lost hundred of thousands civilians when they met with a villain with a fake "WMD" accusation. The law is set to protect people from a rougue government which abuse the power. Do you want people to abandon the Constitution to your "personally have no fear of this law"(anti Constitution).