Thread: Senators Abandon Habeas Corpus Allows U.S. Military to Detai

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment (Video Statement)

Video: Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... UyuFbN4gOo

I'm still waiting for the right of the Reich enabling detention camps to pull gold teeth upon termination ... it happened before and will happen again

Update: Unconstitutional Bill declares US a battlefield for the military

by Conservative Action Alerts
November 30, 2011
3 comments

Habeas Corpus: the right to trial — in other words, the right to fair treatment by government. This constitutionally-protected right is in danger of being nullified through a new Department of Defense bill.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 – S 1867 —http://petitions.conservativeactiona...nd-provides-g/ crafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) would declare the entire United States of America as a military battlefield, where individuals ”American citizens and non-citizens alike” are subject to arrest and indefinite detention by the President without the right to step into a courtroom.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano said recently on his show Freedom Watch, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... cKw_MOKAyE While you were shopping and dining over Thanksgiving, and maybe watching some football games, Big Government Republicans and Democrats were busy shredding the last vestiges of the Constitution … they’re talking about inserting the Army into domestic law enforcement.

Related: Obamas Dictatorship is almost complete http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42867

How Did We Become A Battlefield?

By Jim Kirwan
11-30-11

'We' Let the Constitution be destroyed! Thus reported the Washington Post already in 2002.

The war on terror has no doubt had unintended consequences on American freedom. But recent talk has escalated the already prevalent fears of a police state, and the story is indeed compelling.

When the best of the liberal leftists and the best of the conspiracy theorists agree, you know it's at least going to be interesting. Today Alex Jones updated his promotion of the ACLU's monitoring of Senate Bill 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. The ACLU reported already last Wednesday,

The bill itself specifically says that "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." This is the very language Amash says is misleading: "Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary."

After reading the text of the bill, I believe Amash is essentially correct. The two sections of the 680-page bill which have drawn all the attention are 1031 and 1032. Section 1031 gives "authorization" for detention, and 1032 gives the "requirement for military custody." The special exemption for U.S.citizens is under section 1032, and specifically says it refers to "this section." This means it does notapply to the previous section in which lies an abuse just as egregious-the "authorization" to detain all "covered persons" in "disposition" which includes,

Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.-Sec. 1031(c)(1)

There is no exemption for U.S. citizens in this section.

This threat to our liberties-while it could be defended as only pertaining explicitly to 9-11 type terrorists, is definitely an expansion of the Federal police and military power into the civilian life of theU.S. It is dangerous, and should be opposed on principle.

Further, the bill was crafted secretly without hearing or debate by a liberal Democrat, Carl Levin, along with John McCain, and purports to be simply a Defense spending bill. Deep in its behemoth 680 pages lies this attack on civil liberties.

Sen. Lindsey Graham bragged it will "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield." Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) seconded, "America is part of the battlefield."

But if America is declared a battle zone, then the rules of war apply in this land. This means de facto that some form of martial law applies. This means, as WaPo said at the beginning of this article, that there's an alternate system-and perhaps it can apply to any of us. This has been going on already since 2001:" (1)

"I am sometimes baffled by how quickly many people quickly assume that because they were not personally named in some piece of legislation, that somehow the provisions of that legislation do not and could not apply to them. Having spent a great deal of time over the years dissecting changes to code & title and the ever popular "redefinition of terms" used to change the entire common understanding of what a word or phrase means within these tortured constructs called legislation, I know better.

My recent article on S.1867 elicited comments to the effect that a few commenter's had read the bill and that I was simply being inflammatory and emotional. Yes..of course.that must be it.

Lest anyone forget:

The insidious Patriot Act followed by
The Security Enhancement Act of 2003,
the infamous Military Commissions Act 2006,
followed by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act 2007 and,
which called for the suspension of habeas corpus (4th Amendment due process)
all of which gave the president the power to arbitrarily determine on his own, that any one of us was a "domestic terrorist" and going even further to
allow the president to strip us of our citizenship at his discretion with no oversight.
Each of these unconstitutional bills was a piece of the puzzle being constructed incrementally as the Constitution and our rights were being trashed.

These anti-American laws were not the only affront to the Constitution, our rights and the advancement of the police state. Now why, you might be asking, would anyone want to give the president of the United States the arbitrary authority to strip any US citizen of their citizenship with no evidence other than his/her belief that one of us is a terrorist, or supports terrorism, without the evidence supporting that contention, or being officially charged with a crime?

Most recently, Obama has approved a new program which allows him to authorize the targeted killing of people in foreign countries that the administration decides is a threat (to them) and includes targeting of US citizens right here at home and abroad. This program, which is nothing more than sanctified murder, is a violation of international laws which prohibit the killing of individuals outside of armed combat zones.

The program will allow the CIA or the military the unchecked authority to murder at will, US citizens and others, around the globe without any evidence of crime, threat or violent activity towards the United States, other than they said so.

The intent through all of these assaults on the Constitution and our protected rights has been to find the means to redefine any one of us as a non-military enemy combatant to facilitate the police state. Once redefined, once the definitive description of who and what we are has been altered to suit the government agenda, it is open season on any one of us." (2)

These two articles outline just part of the problem that this pending legislation (it won't be voted on for awhile yet); presents for all of us. What is clear is that this SECRET piece of legislation was clearly TREASON. The Congress cannot write legislation that criminalizes free speech or that ends (without debate) their congressional duty to represent the public in this government. We already have a government that has stripped away so many things that it seems impossible to enumerate them all. (3)

But we might want to begin to think about some of what this could mean for the government, and for us: Given that the government now believes that they are living in a State that is suddenly filled with Terrorists, instead of loyal citizens. There is no precedent for this government to assume the entire nation is potentially criminal, until each of us has proven that we are innocent, each and every time a government thug wants to talk to anyone here: This is unprecedented, and there is absolutely no reason for this behavior.

Also we were in business with the US government. That arrangement has gone from paying the government a token percentage of what each of us earns to a whopping 85%^ of everything we make: And on top of that we must ask government before we are "allowed" to do anything. At the very least we must STOP paying taxes, because the entity that is charging us those taxes is no longer legal. We no longer have a Constitution; ergo we no longer have the Republic, in which this compact was created. This government is a privately held corporation and not a government: Officially it's called United States Incorporated so there is no reason to pay them taxes, since none of us gave them permission to "privatize" us Â* so in reality they cannot and do not own us!

They (USI) went to war illegally and unilaterally; then they sought to find a way to by-pass the legal system so that they could detain people without trials, primarily because they have NO EVIDENCE! This government created the operation on 911 that gave them hypothetical reasons for war, without proof for any of their allegations. Now they want the effects of their WAR-Crime to spill over onto their critics of these global wars for Colonial power, for resources, and for pure unadulterated-greed. Since that could not be done by using the existing court system they have set out to create a whole new and illegal system by SECRETLY writing new regulations and making new rulings without bothering about the actual international rules of war; which include torture and indefinite detention.

On top of all of this they have invented out of a file drawer in CIA headquarters something called Al Qaeda; which has never existed except as a CIA operational group, prior to 911. Now in concert with Zionist television programming and films, as well as government psy-ops releases they would have the whole world believe that Al Qaeda actually exists: That is just another lie to keep the public under their collective feather-beds.

But in practical terms what does it mean if we no longer have a functioning congress, legally binding courts, or even the supposed bedrock of the Republic-the Constitution? That means that we don't have a country anymore. And since the government is no more-why would anyone chose to pay them taxes? For that matter what does this do to all those corporations which this so-called government has supposedly backed since the founding of the country?

On the bright side would be that without a government all corporate charters would be null and void and probably 80 % + of the corporations would be gone over night.
Without a functioning government who then owns all that land that the USG says belongs to them? The government (USI) is limited to ten-square-miles INSIDE Washington D.C.? Beyond that ten mile by ten mile square, this "government has no power at all, except whatever people choose to give it? We have paid for all of it, from police equipment to the roads and bridges to the parks and open range; that all belongs to us, not to them. The so-called cops are just rented uniforms that no longer come with either badges or names, so they too are corporate-slaves with no power of their own. If you think that's extreme then just remember that this government only "rules" by the consent of the governed and that hasn't happened since Gee W. Bush stole the Tarnished House on 12-12-2000!

Like it or not the USA has become just another cheap and backward Empire that has an ego the size of the Colossus of Rhodes (The 8th wonder of the World which has of course disappeared into the mists of history).

Moreover what will happen when someone finally tells our troops on the frontlines that "there is no longer a USConstitution! No more freedoms (of any kind) exist in America and there is no reason to fight to protect a so-called country that doesn't exist"?

Here's what Obama himself has said about this topic! "My administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to insure that they are in-line with the rule of law. We must have clear defensible and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. Our goal is justifiy a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanemo detaines that come out to be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals, to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward my administration will work with congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistant with or values and our Constitution. (The Threat that Obama says makes indefinite -detention necessary)

Right now in distant training camps in other cities there are people plotting to take Americna lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and in all probablilty ten years from now." Watch the entire tape, because it is literal dynamite! (4)



I wonder if we can get them home before BLACK CHRISTMAS, 2011?

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

1) "Battlefield" USA: Senate Bill Turns Military on US Citizenshttp://americanvisionnews.com/4 ... efield-usa

2) S. 1867 Just another brick in the police state wallhttp://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/5000/

3) ENDING the USA http://www.rense.com/general95/ending.htm

4) Rachael Maddow on Obama's Indefinite Detention Ideas 5-21-09 - 7min 42 sec Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8J_lcHw ... r_embedded



http://www.rense.com/general95/battle.htm

[b][color=darkred][size=150]“Battlefieldâ€

S.1867: Just another brick in the police state wall

November 29, 2011 by ppjg
Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved
several links on this post

I am sometimes baffled by how quickly many people quickly assume that because they were not personally named in some piece of legislation, that somehow the provisions of that legislation do not and could not apply to them. Having spent a great deal of time over the years dissecting legislative language, backtracking changes to code & title and the ever popular “redefinition of termsâ€

No Wonder America's Founders Distrusted Standing Armies

By Chuck Baldwin
December 1, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

It is well documented that many of America's Founding Fathers had a very real and deep-seated distrust of standing armies--and for good reason. They had just fought a costly and bloody war for independence, which had been largely predicated upon the propensities for the abuse and misuse of individual liberties by a pervasive and powerful standing army (belonging to Great Britain) amongst them. Listen to Thomas Jefferson: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." Note that Jefferson identified both banking institutions and standing armies as being "dangerous to our liberties." James Madison said, "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen." Elbridge Gerry (Vice President under James Madison) called standing armies "the bane of liberty."

For the most part, the sentiments of our founders ring hollow to modern Americans who, ever since World War II, have glorified, idolized, and practically even worshipped the standing US military. But of course, with only isolated instances (which were almost always completely covered up by the mainstream news media) of the abuse of military power being committed against US citizens, the American people, as a whole, have no point of reference directing them to the sagacity of America's founders on the subject. Indeed, who could even imagine that US military forces would ever be used against the US citizenry? After all, the media did a masterful job of covering up the most flagrant example of US military forces being used against US citizens when US military forces assisted federal law enforcement agencies in slaughtering the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993. So, most Americans simply shut their eyes against that "painful truth" and chose to ignore the fact that it even happened.

Yes, there have been isolated instances of military personnel abusing their authority against American citizens (i.e., Waco in 1993, Kent State University in 1970), but overall the founders' deep-seated distrust of standing armies has been replaced with deep-seated trust. But were our founders right to be distrusting of standing armies? And are we wrong to be so trusting of standing armies? Consider the following report by Dr. Andrew Bosworth.

"There is a shocking piece of legislation working its way through Congress. A Defense Authorization bill for 2012 allows for military detentions of American citizens on American soil. These can be indefinite detentions, with no trial."

Bosworth quotes an ACLU (an organization whose efforts regarding the so-called "separation of church and state" issues I strongly oppose, but whose efforts regarding issues that can only be identified as an emerging police state I strongly support) statement as saying, "The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people--including Americans living in the United States itself--indefinitely and without charge.

"The Defense Authorization bill--a "must-pass" piece of legislation--is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President--and all future presidents--the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States."

Especially egregious are sections 1031 and 1032. They:

(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.

Bosworth also notes that, "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."

Bosworth goes on to say, "Even mainstream, apolitical Americans would be concerned about such a provision that, on its face, is unconstitutional. Ordinary Americans are already waking up to the specter of tyranny, and the NDAA for 2012 would accelerate that process."

Near the conclusion of Bosworth's report, he states, "As many Americans know, for over a decade there have been dozens of pieces of legislation and executive orders that have chipped away at the US Constitution, specifically at its Bill of Rights.

"The 'war on terror' was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens."

See Bosworth's report here. http://tinyurl.com/7n9ddxf

I well remember when my friend LT CDR Ernest "Guy" Cunningham conducted his "Combat Arms Survey" to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC's Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, back on May 10, 1994. A couple of questions in this survey were especially revealing (and startling). John McManus picks up the story at this point: "One of the questions asked the Marines if they would be willing to be assigned to a 'national emergency police force' within the U.S. under U.S. command. The survey showed that 6.0 percent strongly disagreed, 6.3 percent disagreed, 42.3 percent agreed, 43.0 percent strongly agreed, and 2.3 percent had no opinion."

Commenting on these results, Cunningham said, "Do you realize that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?" Remember, these were active duty Marines back in 1994.

Responses to another question were even more startling. Cunningham's question: "Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." The result: "42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion." This equates to approximately 61% of Marines saying they would defy orders to turn their weapons on US citizens in order to disarm them; 26% saying they would not disobey such orders; and 12% refusing to say one way or the other, which means you could probably add them to the 26% who would not disobey orders to turn their weapons on American citizens.

See McManus' report here. http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

Not too long ago, I asked a retired US Army Major General what he thought the results would be today if CDR Cunningham gave that same survey to US Marines? He said he thought that the number of those refusing such orders would be much higher and the number of those complying with such orders would be much lower. Given the Levin/McCain bill currently working its way through the US Congress, I sure hope he's right! And I also hope that we modern Americans were not wrong to discard our founders' distrust of standing armies.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2011 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin677.htm

US Senate - Terror Detainee Policy

Nov 29, 2011 - 1 Hour 26 minutes

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JES3Yt02 ... re=related

0:24 Rand Paul 13:57 John McCain 16:22 Rand Paul Question 17:22 Mark Udall 33:12 Lindsey Graham 43:40 Mark Udall 44:42 Dick Durbin 52:00 Carl Levin 103:00 Mark Udall 103:42 Jim Webb 110:47 Kelly Ayotte 113:27 Joe Lieberman 121:07 Mark Udall

Do Not Be Deceived: S. 1867 is the Most Dangerous Bill Since the PATRIOT Act



The Intel Hub
By Madison Ruppert – Editor of End the Lie
November 30, 2011
5 Comments
many links on this post

Recently I reported on the highly controversial bill S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012 which was introduced back in June.

This bill was replaced by the one introduced on the 15th of November, S. 1867. Today Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator John McCain of Arizona faced off on the floor of the Senate over a proposed amendment to S. 1867.

The minimal coverage this bill is getting in the corporate-controlled establishment media, especially when it comes to the massive danger it poses to everything America was built upon, is nothing short of deplorable.

This amendment would, according to Senator Paul, put “every single American citizen at risk.â€