Quantcast

Goodbye Habeas Corpus

The Senate has voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act , which contains a provision that would allow the military to abduct American citizens, on US soil, without charges or trial, indefinitely. Ex CIA analyst Ray McGovern discusses it here. Both Minnesota senators voted yea. This is a big deal!

39 Comments

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Yeah, and this douchy amendment got put in.

zra

about 8 years ago

Habeas Corpus was suspended by the Bush administration in Oct of 2006.

Danny G

about 8 years ago

Is the title of this thread supposed to be a parody of the title of Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"?  If so, it's not a very good one.

Govt Spook (Eviljeffy)

about 8 years ago

OK let's see here, Caroline, on the list. Ezra, yep he is on the list. Danny, we will have to look to see who he donates campaign funds too. Dave, yep, he is definitely on the list. OK, going to need processing papers and "proper evidence" for four more "renditions" out of Duluth.

Jadiaz

about 8 years ago

C-Freak, what's wrong with that amendment? All it does is prevent Chaplains from being forced to perform same sex marriages if it goes against their religious views. It does not say that those who have no problem with same sex marriages can't perform them if they so choose. 
It protects both parties interests.

Lojasmo

about 8 years ago

Why no description of the amendment?  Until I read it, I call shens.  The president has threatened to veto also, too.

Baci

about 8 years ago

Please ... please, put me on the list ...I'm a SOCIALIST!

Dave

about 8 years ago

The provision mainly refers to Al Qaeda. Just like  warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act, that were eventually used against U.S. activists with no connection to terrorism. This is from the link to Ray McGovern (no dummy) above:

the elasticity of words like "associated forces" and "supported" have left some civil libertarians worried that the U.S. military could be deployed domestically against people opposing future American wars against alleged "terrorists" or "terrorist states.

We have laws against terrorism and courts to try suspects in. This is meant to subvert the rule of law in favor of some creepy police-state shit. I do hope Obama vetoes it.

Dave

about 8 years ago

And the ACLU doesn't waste its time on frivolous stuff. It is taking this very seriously. My opinion doesn't matter.

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Jadaiz, it's fear mongering and scare tactics that the anti-gay folks love to use. Nobody is going to force anybody to marry them. It's part of their agenda, to force us to be unequal. Lojazmo, the link is in my post.

Jadiaz

about 8 years ago

In the military a higher up can force an underling to do anything as long as it is a legal order. With that said, you have chaplain A. who is a devout catholic priest who is against same-sex marriage due to his faith and happens to only be a captain. Along comes Colonel B. who feels that same-sex parteners have the right to get married, and orders Chaplain A. to do so. 

Chaplain A. has two courses of action: 1. Stand firm in his religious beliefs, refuse the order, face court martial and see the end of his career at the very least. 2. Obey the order to save his career, but go against everything he believes in and face a crisis of faith.

The amendment protects Chaplain A. from such a fate as it makes it illegal to order him to go against his religious belief. 

It is not fear mongering. It is a legitimately needed law to protect a Chaplain's right to not be forced to violate his religious beliefs. Sorry C-Freak, but those are the facts from someone who has served and knows military command. Chaplains aren't civilians who can simply deny marrying anyone for any reason. They are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who could be ordered to violate their faith without protection like this. 

It isn't an agenda to force you to be unequal, it doesn't say you can't marry. It says chaplains can't be forced to marry you. As well they shouldn't if it violates everything they believe in.

Patty

about 8 years ago

I can't help but wonder how Jadiaz's argument would sound if we replaced the words same sex, with different races?  There was a time, not so long ago, when religion was used as an argument against people of different races being allowed to marry.

On the other hand, if Chaplain A's religion forbids same sex marriage, but same sex marriage is allowed in the military, maybe the Chaplain would be better off in a nice church somewhere.  How is this different than someone opposed to war, on moral or religious grounds, entering the military, when they know they're likely to asked to go to war?

Jim

about 8 years ago

Why doesn't civil union work for you Freak? Why do you have to force your alternate lifestyle on the general population? I really wish Bachmann would move to Duluth just so she could represent people like you.

Judas

about 8 years ago

What's the worst that could happen? It's just a law that authorizes indefinite military detention of anyone the president identifies as an enemy of the state.

Speaking of which, preppers are terrorists, now: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/08/10/7769/

I recently read some scarier stuff about how having more than a week worth of food on hand is also suspicious activity but I can't find the source... I keep a three month food supply so I wasn't terribly impressed to read that. With the whole "imprisonment without a trial thing," I'm wondering if my usual vocalness on frugal survival/homesteading could potentially incriminate me.

EvilJeffy

about 8 years ago

People are complaining about different portions of this mess.  Section 527 applies to military Chaplains having the right to object via conscience to marriages, but that is not the part that people are complaining about.  The part that people are complaining about is the indefinite detention of US citizens.  The conscience stuff can be left in, people have the rights to their own beliefs, but the government should not have the right to indefinitely hold a US citizen without charging them for a crime.

Judas

about 8 years ago

Found it: http://offgridsurvival.com/randpaulwarnsofmilitarylockingupamericancitizens/

In the comments there's a list of which senators supported the bill.

Dave

about 8 years ago

Left and Right can sometimes agree about civil- liberty issues. Both Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voted AGAINST the  Defense Authorization Act containing the indefinite detention provision. Sadly , only 5 others joined them. In a vote on amending the act to remove the ID provision 38 senators voted to remove it and 60 voted to retain it. I think both Franken and Klobochar voted to remove indefinite detention , but after losing that vote they both voted for the final , ugly product. 
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention.

Jadiaz

about 8 years ago

@ Patty, Many Chaplains joined before don't ask don't tell was repealed. All you are really saying is keep Chaplains out who don't believe homosexuality is right/keep religion out of the service. Doesn't work that way.

Also quit trying to paint me as some sort of bigot. Personally I don't give a shit who marries who.  What I'm saying is, you shouldn't be allowed to force someone to marry two people if it goes against their faith for any reason, same sex or not. 

Don't destroy the careers of good people over this when they just found a way to allow other good people to keep their careers. 
You can't protect one groups rights by shitting on anothers.

zra

about 8 years ago

What does Jim not understand about equality? That's what this country was founded on, right? It's even in the constitution that Jim claims to love so dear:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that All men were created equal."

In Jim's case, some folks are just a little bit more equal than the rest of us ... particularly those that are white, male, monied and conservative, and fall in goosesteplockstep with his backward worldview.

Sorry Jim, the LGBT community seeks to be treated the EXACT same as the rest of society. They're not looking for, as you would call, "special treatment." 

Equality. That's all. To have thew exact same rights as you and me. Bogus ideology be damned.

Dave

about 8 years ago

And so it goes- two conversations, one thread. Oh well. I just hope people are paying attention to the indefinite detention issue.

zra

about 8 years ago

That's what happens when you have riders introduced into legislative bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself.

WTF does an issue that involves LGBT issues have to do with national security?

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Zra, we do cause all those hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes plus ruin heterosexual marriage.

c-freak

about 8 years ago

I get the magnitude of the bill. I was commenting on the useless drivel in the amendment. 

And Jaidaz - I don't have a lifestyle. I have a life. A fucking tax-paying life that is marginalized by shit like said amendment.

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Ditto to you to, Jim.

Jim

about 8 years ago

Freak- I feel bad for you, and myself. I am truly at odds over this issue. I don't understand it, and I'm not sure if I ever will. 

My difficulty lies in a multitude of reasons that is too long for even me to describe. Part of me totally accepts you for what you are and feels that you deserve every right that any other person deserves on this planet. I would welcome you in my home, share meals and champion your love that you share for your partner or children or whatever. 

The other part of me tells me that the stereotypical homosexual lifestyle that is portrayed by the media, that I have learned about, observed and to a degree detest, is wrong. I also apply these same standards to heterosexuals that live what I consider to be deviant lifestyles of promiscuity and self destruction. These feelings are based upon my religious beliefs as well as an internal gut reaction that writes my own code of morals. 

So, how does that apply to a definition of marriage? I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a traditional view that the overwhelming majority of the global populace agree with. 

That being said, as a "modern" society that has accepted homosexuals as part of a diverse culture, I believe that you should enjoy the same rights as those who are legally married as a man and a woman. That does not, however, mean that you should be able to call it a marriage, no more than you should be able to call it a heterosexual relationship. This would re-define something that doesn't need to be redefined. Call it something else until all humans evolve into hermaphrodites or women take over the world. Then you can call it whatever the fuck you want.

Patty

about 8 years ago

It occurred to me that I'm not clear on military authority when it comes to chaplains.  If, for example, a Catholic priest is a chaplain and a same sex military couple wish to be married by him; is it possible that the military can order the priest to do so; even though his Church does not recognize such unions?  I find this very surprising that the US military supersedes an organized religion, in terms of religious authority.  

If the argument is that military authority has the power to allow a high ranking officer to force a Catholic priest, or chaplain from any organized religion that does not recognize same sex marriage, to marry a same sex couple -- that just doesn't seem possible.

Can anyone clarify?

Jadiaz

about 8 years ago

@C-Freak, When the fuck did I say you have a "lifestyle" not a life? You said that shit, not me. Get over your self pity. Great strides have been made to promote equality. This doesn't cheapen it all, but creates a balance between your freedoms and rights to equality and their right to religious freedom. 

All your doing is making me dislike YOU, not those who are homosexual. I don't care about a persons orientation. It isn't my business.

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Jadaiz - sorry. My mistake. It was Jim who used the lame term "alternative lifestyle." I have zero self pity and your last post probably should have been in caps. That is all.

pH

about 8 years ago

No matter who you are, the basic protections in the Bill of Rights are a big deal, and they are in play here.  Thanks Dave, for bringing it forward. 


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/jon_stewart_blasts_congress_obama_over_terror_bill/

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/05/shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer-the-defens

(The last two links have a video component, worth your time.)

Dave

about 8 years ago

Thanks for the links, @pH, and for un-jacking this thread. Glad to see John Stewart exposing this thing.

Jadiaz

about 8 years ago

I already gave you an answer Patty, you just don't want to accept it. Yes, a higher ranking officer can issue an order to a lower ranking one. As long is it is not illegal, it must be obeyed or a court martial will happen. Morality and Faith, like with many other legal issues, don't always line up with legality. 

Will most officers force a chaplain to go against their faith? No. Are there officers who would? Absolutely.

DaVe

about 8 years ago

"Senator Levin told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama's officials saw the text though, says Levin, "the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section...."

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13201

Lojasmo

about 8 years ago

Jadiaz:  chaplain a has a third option.  Officers can resign their commission at any time.

Jim: as one who claims to have served, you should understand that soldiers don't have "rights." They follow orders.

The lives of countless good soldiers have been ruined over the years just because of who they are.  If bigoted chaplains (note I said bigoted) won't marry gay service embers, they can GTFO of the service.

The text of the bill is not contained in the OP link.

Lojasmo

about 8 years ago

burnspbesq - December 14, 2011 | 9:01 pm · Link

@SteveinSC:

Apparently Nadler is no more literate than you.

SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be—
(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and

(B) a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031©, except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that date.

DaVe

about 8 years ago

Obama says he will not veto the bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/indefinite-detention-veto-threat-white-house_n_1149576.html

I doubt the creepy majority on the Supreme Court will stop this travesty either.

DaVe

about 8 years ago

"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."

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

DaVe

about 8 years ago

Sometimes we need to imagine the worst to keep it from happening. I can't help but wonder if the elite know better than we just how close to economic collapse we really are, and, seeing the strength of the Occupy Movement, foresee how they could clog the court system with civil disobedience. Can't have that. Easy fix?  Do away with the ability of the courts to protect citizens' constitutional rights. Or should I say FORMER constitutional rights. The proto-fascists of the Bush era have not gone away. The 1%  are not about to let something as messy as democracy get in the way of their ruling the world. Just as Latin America and parts of the Middle-East throw off their shackles, We the Sheeple of the United States of Amnesia are headed in the opposite direction. Is this the freedom we're always told our soldiers are fighting and dying for? Saddam Hussein couldn't have taken away our freedoms. The Congress + the White House + the Supreme Court can. Mission accomplished.

Robin

about 8 years ago

Once again, we sit silent as security takes over. Are we awake yet?

Lojasmo

about 8 years ago

Eric Holder has announced that President Obama will issue a signing order n the indefinite detention clause of this bill.

Rightards who were previously furiously opposed to this bill: heads assplodes in 3...2...1...

Leave a Comment

Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here

Read previous post:
William (Billy) Harper found dead at UMD

UMD  released the name of a student found dead in his dorm Monday. William "Billy" Harper, 19 from Coon Rapids,...

Close