anti-terrorist language in Defense bill??

[Chaplain Scott]

OK, in a thread that I started under "Off-topic" about two weeks ago, the subject was language in the Defense Appropriations bill that seemingly would allow US citizens, classified as terrorists to be held without the right of habeus corpus by the military (or various versions of that concept). I saw some news article as late as last night that claimed that the language was still in the bill.

Can any of you folks outthere in DC land shed any light on this subject (light, we need light, not necessarily heat ) I've been working 12 hour shifts in the hospital and have not had any chances to follow this issue.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Sig 210]

Here is the entire US defense appropriations law. For your reading enjoyment; go to page 359, Subtitle D, Detainee Matters, and read sections 1031-1037.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

[Hopyard]

It is going to be signed. Big disappointment that Congress insisted on inserting the language and big disappointment that The President has agreed to sign the bill. Hope there is a strong signing statement declaring that section unconstitutional, but I doubtit. Thumbs down to all involved. This one will come back and bite us all in the backside.

[Sig 210]

i hate working with PDF stuff. More:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

21 (21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
22ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.

[gunther71]

Make us all searchable..............what a joke! Watch hr822 pass the seante and get vetoed!

[Chaplain Scott]

Sig 210--thanks for posting the link and pointing the way to the right pages--glad I didn't have to search the WHOLE document

Hopyard---just curious, what specifically makes you uneasy about this??

[Hopyard]

Sig 210--thanks for posting the link and pointing the way to the right pages--glad I didn't have to search the WHOLE document

Hopyard---just curious, what specifically makes you uneasy about this??

It will, not withstanding the section removing a requirement as in post 4 be used against US Citizens, whether or not affiliated with Al Quaida since the threshold for that accusation is very low. The Mayfield case is illustrative.

Moreover, the mere insertion of this provision goes totally counter to the entirety of the Bill of Rights.

The Jose Padilla case is illustrative. He was seized from the midst of a Federal Court Proceeding, held incommunicado sans
lawyer for about 5 years; denied his Habeus Rights; denied a civilian trial. ONLY after the case took a long series of turns through the various courts and was about to be heard by the Supremes (for the second time I think) did the Administration of the day suddenly have a change of heart and move the case to a civilian court. They did this per discussions of the time to prevent a defeat if the case was heard by the Supremes as Scalia was considered a conservative NO vote for what the administration was doing.

IF TODAY they can say that suspicion of membership in Al Quida subjects you to being seized and dealt with outside of the normal court routines, tomorrow they can say that membership in the Bloods or the Crips is sufficient. THen they can say that
support for or membership in almost anything is sufficient.

This whole business is an end run around the Bill of Rights, based on an obscure and unique WWII espionage case which too could have been handled in a civilian court.

All of them (and this includes any member of the military who goes along) are deviating from their solemn oath to preserve the
constitution.

Again, I hope the President adds a signing statement but I'm concerned that he won't.

[Hopyard]

i hate working with PDF stuff. More:

If my city has a charter provision requiring it to collect property taxes, but that piece of language is altered so that the city may
collect property taxes, we all know what will happen. The city will still collect property taxes.

Cosmetic language changes don't an can't change the underlying flaw of this section, which is an end run around the Bill of Rights.

People here (US) are so fearful of Al Quida they will vote to give up that sacred protection. Today, Al QUida. Tomorrow, alleged
witches?

This thing is so fundamentally wrong the stench can't be covered over with the perfume of section 17.

[Chaplain Scott]

People here (US) are so fearful of Al Quida they will vote to give up that sacred protection. Today, Al QUida. Tomorrow, alleged witches?

Even though there is a clause which stipulates that this cannot be used against US Citizens, I entirely agree that this seems a very slippery slope.

By way of analogy: In ancient Rome, the early Christians were persecuted not because they worshipped Christ, they were persecuted, from the Roman point of view, because they refused to engage in Emporer worship and were thus considered bad, non-compliant citizens and home-grown terrorists! A slippery slope indeed!

[Doghandler]

long_tailed_weasel-8950.jpg

[HotGuns]

This whole business is an end run around the Bill of Rights, based on an obscure and unique WWII espionage case which too could have been handled in a civilian court.

All of them (and this includes any member of the military who goes along) are deviating from their solemn oath to preserve the
constitution

I'll start getting real worried when this quote gets changed. Then, and only then will I realize that all is lost...

"There are croakers in every country, always boding its ruin."
Benjamin Franklin