[Kevin]

A friend of mine whos originally from El Paso, Texas and now lives in Holland, posted about Obama having signed for Martial Law?
Did I miss something?

 

[dante]

I'd guess that he's referring to *this*?

Definitely not Martial Law, and it's impact on US citizens is even a matter of debate...

 

[IH8Rice]

and it's impact on US citizens is even a matter of debate...

unless youre an american terrorist

 

[Kevin]

I think he might have been influenced by the allmighty propaganda machine that is the intraweb...

 

[dante]

unless youre an american terrorist

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Care to explain how this will apply to "american terrorists" if the language specifically states that it will not change existing law with regards to American Citizens or people captured/arrested in the US?

 

[?????]

Care to explain how this will apply to "american terrorists" if the language specifically states that it will not change existing law with regards to American Citizens or people captured/arrested in the US?

When they take that overseas vacation we can go and get'em!

 

[syadasti]

When they take that overseas vacation we can go and get'em!

That's the idea if war criminals like Bush or Cheney visit first world countries. Unfortunately Bush has only visited Africa so far.

 

[?????]

That's the idea if war criminals like Bush or Cheney visit first world countries. Unfortunately Bush has only visited Africa so far.

I'd be fine if they took Cheney. That guy is corrupt through and through.

 

[JohnE]

Take 'em both...war profiteering bastages.

 

[dante]

Take 'em both...war profiteering bastages.

Oh please oh please oh please!!!!

 

[JetTeach]

That's the idea if war criminals like Bush or Cheney visit first world countries. Unfortunately Bush has only visited Africa so far.

 

[Silver]

That's the idea if war criminals like Bush or Cheney visit first world countries. Unfortunately Bush has only visited Africa so far.

Not true. He went to Alberta. Although, that's a first-world part of Canada that yearns to be third-world.

 

[Pesqueeb]

 

[?????]

 

[dante]

All the scary music and pretty graphics still don't explain how this bill authorizes something when it *specifically* states that it doesn't.....

 

[dante]

By the way, for anyone who wants to read actual news reports on this:

CNN

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

AJC

Compromise language developed in part by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was ultimately approved, which read as follows:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

The compromise won almost unanimous support, as Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) said he would fight to protect that language in upcoming House-Senate negotiations; it was unclear whether the language would be accepted by the White House, which has threatened to veto the entire defense bill.

MinnPost

The bill exempts US citizens from the mandatory detention provision, but it does not exempt them from a broader authorization allowing the military to capture and hold anyone outside the US who is deemed to have supported Al Qaeda or associated forces.

The counterterrorism rider was softened during negotiations by adding a guarantee that it would not "affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens."

Existing law on that subject is unclear. The US Supreme Court in 2004 upheld the indefinite detention of a US citizen captured on a foreign battlefield, but the high court has not ruled decisively on the legality of military detention without charge of a citizen captured within US borders or apprehended overseas beyond a battlefield.

etc.

 

[?????]

So what happens when you travel outside of the USA?

And what is the purpose of this law? I mean, why even have it?

 

[dante]

So what happens when you travel outside of the USA?

And what is the purpose of this law? I mean, why even have it?

Because the Republicans are paranoid about terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Look at the rest of the section, it includes forbidding using any funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the US for trial... Republicans were also PISSED that the underwear bomber went through civilian courts as opposed to military ones (even though Richard Reid did the same, but that was ok since it was under Bush), and tried to push through a law that would prevent it from happening again.

However, since the original bill was overly broad, the compromise was that any US citizen or legal resident in the US was exempt from the bill... But if the underwear bomber is captured now, he'd be tried in military as opposed to civilian courts.

As far as the overseas language, it's to allow suspects captured to be detained under military courts, *even if* they are US citizens. That's no different than it was when Lindh was captured, and he could have been tried in either military or civilian courts.

By the way, did you actually *read* any of the links I posted earlier?

 

[the desmondo]

Quoted from another blog reader; http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

With this bill it is I think clear that the 2000 elections were a legal coup.

They’re already broadening the scope of this legislation. “For the DoD to instruct its employees that lawful protest activities should be treated as “low-level terrorism” is deeply disturbing in and of itself. It is an even more egregious insult to constitutional values, however, when viewed in the context of along-term pattern of domestic security initiatives that have attempted to equate lawful dissent with terrorism. Examples of this shameful pattern can be seen in the Pentagon’s monitoring of at least 186 anti-military protests”

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf

To see more of the framework into which this latest legislation fits, you might look at John Yoo and his legal opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Legal_opinions

One of his main “innovations” was to change the legal meaning of “unlawful enemy combatant” to avoid our obligations under the Geneva Convention. This is significant because, under the constitution, a treaty such as the Geneva Convention has the full weight of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_order

The constitutional problem with the Defense Authorization Act is primarily it’s violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights_into_due_process

though, combined with efforts to chip away at habaes corpus and possee comitatus, obviously presents certain “Kafkaesqe” difficulties. Habaes corpus, of course, is a legal precedent some 900 years old, and it is not encouraging that elected officials would try to restrict it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#MCA_as_an_unconstitutional_suspension_of_habeas_corpus

Due process has been eroded elsewhere too, such as where President Obama has recently authorized the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/30/anwar-awlaki-extrajudicial-murder

Beyond the erosions of fourth amendment protections in the wake of the PATRIOT ACT, is the contention by Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden that there exists a classified interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT permitting the government to effectively expand the scope of the legislation, perhaps a legal opinion modeled after John Yoo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/us/politics/justice-dept-is-accused-of-misleading-public-on-patriot-act.html?_r=1

Finally, there is a parallel development of the militarization of police and the incorporation of local law enforcement into the national intelligence infrastructure. Local law enforcement is coupled with federal intelligence agencies through “intelligence fusion centers”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center

and the sharing of military hardware with local law enforcement:

http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12

This is all coupled with the creation of NORTHCOM under the 2006 Military Commissions Act (possee comitatus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command#Related_legal_changes

which is active, and was even mobilized during the BP oil spill, among other incidents and war games

http://www.northcom.mil/news/2010/050510.html

What all this means is that Congress is methodically codifying a parallel system of government and administration.

Under Bill Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive 67 (superceded by Bush’s Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51) plans were put in place for a parallel executive function. Contemporary implementations of this planning began under Reagan through the “Restricted Interagency Group” and the “Rex 84″ tests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

and continue today under “Continuity of Operations” activated in the wake of the 911 attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._government_response_to_the_September_11_attacks#Invocation_of_the_continuity_of_government

The Military Commissions Act creates a parallel judicial system, allowing the government to choose based on arbitrary circumstances how individuals will be handled, what rules of evidence apply, and how court proceedings are to be conducted. This contradicts the principle of “rule of law.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

That’s the quick rundown on what these people are doing.