I’ve been warning for some time that the regime of indefinite detention of terror suspects — started by Bush and continued by Obama — would not stay confined to foreign terrorist (it never really was, as Jose Padilla could tell you). Well, here we go:
Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial.
The ACLU reports even US citizens wouldn’t be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the “battlefield” in the War on Terror.
The bill gives the President unilateral power to detain anyone, mandates detention of civilians outside of military control and transfers control of detention to the Department of defense.
Mark Udall and Rand Paul are trying to strip this provision from the defense bill and Obama is threatening a veto. The ACLU has more here.
McCain and Levin — the authors of this provision — respond here. Almost all of their points address concerns that we’re not giving the President enough power to declare anyone to be a terror suspect and turn him over to DoD indefinitely. The closest they come to addressing civil liberties concerns is a claim that they are simply codifying what the President is already doing:
No provision in the legislation expands the authority under which detainees can be held in military custody. On the contrary, it codifies detention authority that has been adopted by two administrations and upheld in the courts. The bill states clearly that it does not expand or limit the president’s authorities under the original 2001 authorization of the use of force against al-Qaeda.
Even if this were true — and the ACLU thinks it isn’t — the detention power the Presidents have assumed since 9/11 already goes too far, is too arbitrary and has no review or oversight. To call it “Star Chamber justice” is to insult star chambers. It grants our president the power no president should ever have: the ability to declare someone an enemy and throw them into a prison for as a long as he wants. This includes American citizens caught on American soil.
Notice something else about the McCain-Levin op-ed. It includes a plethora of phrases that Terror Warriors use to try to frighten us into surrender:
the unprecedented kind of war that came to our shores on Sept. 11, 2001 … the threat posed by al-Qaeda … al-Qaeda terrorists who participate in planning or conducting attacks against us …
Whenever I see these asides in an article, post or speech, I know what follows is likely bullshit. They are the War on Terror’s answer to liberal asides like “corporate power” and “wealth disparity”. They are the grease for the multi-pronged dildo that is to follow.
Al-Qaeda is waning as a threat. This President has taken out their nominal leader and most of their upper echelons. And the response is … to increase our government’s anti-terror powers? What McCain and Levin are unwittingly revealing is what civil libertarians have been claiming all along: that this was never about terrorism; this was about increasing government’s power.
25 comments
No ping yet
JimK says:
November 29, 2011 9:54 am at 9:54 am (UTC -4)
This may make me a bad person – and I honor his service to this country in uniform, and respect his ordeal as a POW – but honestly, I’m at the point where I sort of hope John McCain gets very ill and has to leave politics. I simply cannot tolerate any more big government bullshit from this RINO.
Hal_10000 says:
November 29, 2011 10:13 am at 10:13 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, I’m feeling the same way. Hate to say it, but I do.
Nexus says:
November 29, 2011 10:35 am at 10:35 am (UTC -4)
I just got a cold shiver down my spine…
FPrefect89 says:
November 29, 2011 11:21 am at 11:21 am (UTC -4)
I got a few more then just down my spine. My whole body, and it reminded me of a quote from one of the new Star Wars movies, “This is how the empire ends…” Do not remember the entire quote, or which movie, but all the cheerleaders for this scare me.
Nexus says:
November 29, 2011 11:24 am at 11:24 am (UTC -4)
I think the quote your looking for is, “so this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause”. It was from Revenge of the Sith.
Seattle Outcast says:
November 29, 2011 11:30 am at 11:30 am (UTC -4)
There are just so many fucking cliche’s here it’s sickening. The most apt one is “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and these fuckers are going for absolute power.
How is this NOT a direct violation of the constitution?
blameme says:
November 29, 2011 2:28 pm at 2:28 pm (UTC -4)
But hey – let’s give them control of our healthcare AND pass stricter controls on guns. Oh, and more money via taxes.
I mean, government is inherently good, right?
/
AlexInCT says:
November 29, 2011 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm (UTC -4)
Because they say it is not. Don’t you know that only rethuglicans violate the constitution?
Seriously, I am more concerned about the excuses or lack of interest from those that would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had done this but now can’t be bothered with the whole thing despite Obama now making Bush look like a piker on all this stuff.
AlexInCT says:
November 29, 2011 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm (UTC -4)
The only institution to trust to solve all our earthly problems and bring us heaven on earth!…
/stupid lib off
West Virginia Rebel says:
November 29, 2011 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm (UTC -4)
This is one instance where I do hope Obama uses his authority and nips this in the bud.
And it is a shame because I do think that McCain is overall an honorable guy and good American.
West Virginia Rebel recently posted..No Frills The Hard Way
HARLEY says:
November 29, 2011 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm (UTC -4)
Im just fricking glad his sorry ass did not get elected to the presidency…. oh wait, did i just say that…crap.
HARLEY says:
November 29, 2011 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm (UTC -4)
I hate to be all melodramatic about this, but if this passes, how long would i take to redefine the parameters for the definition of terrorist?
LEE, warned us about this shit way back when….
Mississippi Yankee says:
November 29, 2011 10:29 pm at 10:29 pm (UTC -4)
I posted about this in a comment last night BUT THEN I got some REAL facts and asked to have the comment deleted.
TITLE X–GENERAL PROVISIONS
..Subtitle D–Detainee Matters
…SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
….(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
…..(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Looks like we’re rising to ACLU bait on this one. If ACLU does not like something, usually that means we should like it.
Now take a deep breath and rant about all the other b.s in the bill
Hal_10000 says:
November 29, 2011 11:17 pm at 11:17 pm (UTC -4)
MY, I’m not seeing that this refutes the point. I need to look at it more closely, but saying something isn’t required isn’t the same as saying it can’t be done. The legal language may be confusing me though.
Mississippi Yankee says:
November 29, 2011 11:40 pm at 11:40 pm (UTC -4)
Hal,
The bold print was my doing (the bolding of) of the original italicized text. But it was all from the bill.
And as long as honest people don’t over-react and allow falsehoods to be spread this fascism can be stopped, once again. And by ‘honest’ I mean people armed with facts, existing laws and the forethought to stay away from disingenuous and dishonest tactics.
This administration and the entire DNC are in “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” mode. they’re panicked because this presidency did not work out as planned. Helping them by taking their bait will be quite counter-productive IMHO.
Hal_10000 says:
November 30, 2011 1:31 am at 1:31 am (UTC -4)
Even supporters of the bill are saying it applies to American citizens:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/29/senate-keeps-indefinite-detention-provis
Linsday Graham is admitting it applies to Americans. The House version woudl not.
Hal_10000 says:
November 30, 2011 1:33 am at 1:33 am (UTC -4)
Oh, and here is McCain himself confirming it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXbwmqq-6Y4&feature=player_embedded
Hal_10000 says:
November 30, 2011 1:34 am at 1:34 am (UTC -4)
The Udall ammendment failed. Only 2 Republicans voted for it. Fuckers.
FPrefect89 says:
November 30, 2011 2:02 am at 2:02 am (UTC -4)
That is what I was looking for. I was trying to hurry up and get to work.
Mississippi Yankee says:
November 30, 2011 4:42 am at 4:42 am (UTC -4)
McCain danced all over the place rather than give a direct answer to sen. Paul’s question.
See this makes my point about not being disingenuous and dishonest.
Goes for you as well as McCain. Better heads seemed to have prevailed tho…
Xetrov says:
December 1, 2011 10:09 am at 10:09 am (UTC -4)
MY, IMO you’re missing something in how you’re reading the law. Remember, Legal wording is very specific.
Full text of the pertinent sections here – http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112QC50Hu:e462417:
Section 1031 authorizes the detention -
There’s no exclusion in that section for US Citizens being detained.
Section 1032 that you quoted previously pertains only to Section 1032 and the rules of how someone is detained (bolded the pertinent wording for you), not who can be detained –
There’s more to section 1032, but it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand.
As I read it, a US Citizen can be detained indefinitely under section 1031, and the guidelines outlined in section 1032 do not pertain to them.
Mississippi Yankee says:
December 1, 2011 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm (UTC -4)
I’m the first to admit my legal education is non-existent. Which is why I can’t understand why sec. 1032 and sec. 1031, of the same bill, are being viewed as complete separate entities. It’s as if one deliberately conflicts with the other.
Was this the plan all along?
Xetrov says:
December 2, 2011 9:26 am at 9:26 am (UTC -4)
Because section 1032 specifically has the words “under this section” when singling out US Citizens. Not “under this law”.
1031 – Anyone can be detained indefinitely by the military if they are deemed to be tied to terrorism.
1032 – Here is how we treat those detained people – except US Citizens.
There’s much more to the law than those two sections. By and large 95% of that law doesn’t have anything to do with the controversial section 1031. If politicians wanted to eliminate the controversy, they could easily have put the US Citizens exclusion in section 1031, or included the words “and the preceeding section” in 1032. They didn’t do either, so something else is going on.
HARLEY says:
December 2, 2011 6:28 pm at 6:28 pm (UTC -4)
We have already have had government, and elected officials call the ea party supporters terrorists. It is only a matter of time.
Mississippi Yankee says:
December 2, 2011 9:37 pm at 9:37 pm (UTC -4)
Thanks Xetvor, that makes it a little clearer.