Senate Bill 1867 Vote Set, defines entire nation as a "battlefield"

It would be useful to know the exact timing on the Bill's creation, and by whom (it would be staffers and lobbyists who did the job for their whores, McCain and Levin), but what it seems to do technically is provide a roadmap for dealing with unrest in the US, in case the Occupy movement gains momentum and turns towards more aggressive tactics, such as the anti-VietNam movement, the Wobblies, and so forth.

The detention of just about everyone- citizen, resident alien, and illegal - is laid out, and who they will be in custody of - military or civilian entities - and where - either in military or civil custody domestically, or rendered to foreign countries or, of much more concern (if that's possible) by any "foreign entity" whatsoever.

It's another brick in the wall for the forces of evil and greed. Just another brick in the wall, that carefully constructed, thoughtfully constructed, wall that's been going up since the ultraright really got under steam during the final days of the Wilson administration, under leaders including Henry Cabot Lodge and Herbert Hoover. In fact, they're putting the finishing touches on it right now.

any day they decide to start...there may be some openings for guards at the camps if you are looking for work

I suggest a minimum of fists, kicking and wedgies.

Everyone in Congress, with the exception of a few, need a boot in the ass, with or without their votes on this! This vote will only add to the long list!

Can you imagine the size of crowds if public punishment replaced jail time? Talk about huge events! Sell tickets and give the money to the poor!

I hope you're correct and saner heads prevail. Where's Russ Feingold when you need him?

How'd ACLU do with the Patriot Act?

He lost because dems couldn't be bothered to vote in 2010.

Until everyone joins us in the streets, they will chip away at liberty second by second. This is all part of corporate right's intent on enslaving the world.

Yes it is, YousefIslam.

That's exactly what's happening, Common.

What ChanceTheGardener said.

That's way too simplistic of an explanation of what took place in WI. The Koch's bought themselves a senator just like they bought themselves a governor. They flooded the airwaves with lies and misinformation and people who would have normally crossed party lines and vote for Feingold believed the "send a message" BS. There is also a misconception that the state of WI is still a solidly Blue state. Sadly, it no longer is. Many of the old guard on the Left, have died or moved to FL or AZ and the Gen Xer's, who have taken over the state's politics, are right wing ALEC bastards. Us on the Left, are fighting for our political souls and Scott Walker has woke up many in the middle to the reality of the new right wing.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the update from WI.......we feel for you. Keep up the good fight!

Thanks for listening and understanding, OlBlue, and thanks for your support. :)

Thanx for clearing this up. The whole internet is running around like a bunch of hens in a coup with a fox on this one.

Seems like you've got it wrong, mite.

Section 1032 only states that citizens will not normally be subject to MILITARY custody. That requirement can be waived under Sec 1032(a)(4)(4), meaning civilians may be interned under non-military custody, e.g. civil custody, presumably any sort of custody under the auspices of civilian contractors or DHS or even CIA.

Further, without necessity of waiver, Secs. 1031(c)(3 & 4) allows the transfer of ANY accused person:

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

This Section is unaffected by the requirements of Sec. 1032.

This does not address any current ability for the CIC to designate ANYONE as an "enemy combatant." ANYONE can be picked up off the street and interned in either military or civil custody for any amount of time, and even be shipped (i.e. rendered) to any foreign country.

There are several thousand sections, and perhaps ten times that many subsections, to this Bill. I can't imagine you've studied the bill, but you should check around the internet for people who have. You're cherrypicking sections for your own purposes.

Your pal Mite didn't clear anything up, except to display his limitations.

Read the response to his post, and then go to the actual Bill text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112yOtNI8:e462417:) and peruse it for yourself.

NIce try - but it is not plain as day. Also your quote is out of context. From the very same section of the bill -
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
5 WAR.—
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
12 under the law of war.
13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de15
tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de16
termined—
17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co19
ordination with or pursuant to the direction of
20 al-Qaeda; and
21 (B) to have participated in the course of
22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
23 attack against the United States or its coalition
24 partners.
___________
The point you are looking at covers long term custody, it does not cover taking citizens or legal residents into custody in the first place. That falls under this requirement right here, if you notice - it doesn't mention anything about being limited to people w/out papers. It makes no mention of citizen status whatsoever.

Sec. 1031 which begins the authorization also has no limit on citizenship or residency status as well. There is nothing clear about this provision to anyone outside the legal profession.

Good post!!! Funny I didn't see this post earlier, and posted an article from Boing Boing on the same topic under the "New" topics...you can verify...and I got the exact/verbatim post that Mitekillem posted above from YousefIslam...hmmm...trolling?

Well, I'm not too good at reading this legal jargon. If you are right, and this passes, then that will be in direct violation of the constitution.

Details, please.

Also re your note on ACLU, "still working on it," where's the beef? Patriot's been law for almost 10 years. That, and the current bill, are in fact right along the lines of the Blueprint for America.

In fact, there's a rulebook, so we don't have to guess. Look into the Foreign Policy Initiative, successor organization to the Project for a New American Century. Study their whitepapers. This Bill, like the Patriot Act, reads like a distillation of their policies. Stuff like this: http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/07/09/6255.

If you checked it out, it ought to have gotten your attention. If you do check it out, let me know if Barack Obama's re-election campaign is still advertising on that link. It was last time I saw it.

Nor sir...I'm point out the precise part that everyone's freaked out about. It specifically details WHO the MILITARY can DETAIN. Detain being another word for ARREST WITHOUT CHARGES.
"(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.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

Now, if you can find something that STATES the opposite, please bring it forward. It states exclusively that the "requirement to detain (arrest) a person (human being) in military custody (branches of the armed forces) under this section (being the section which covers detainee matters) does not Extend (meaning does not apply; or rather the military's power to detain does not reach) to Citizens (those born in the US of the age of at least 18, those with a parent born in the US, and those who have obtained citizenship legally) of the United States (the area located North of Mexico, South of Canada, including Hawaii, Alaska, and other US Territories.

The military has no power to automatically detain US Citizens, if they are not associated with foreign threats.
To qualify for this you need to meet these requirements: "(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."

So long as you are not a member, or associated with a member of Al-Qaeda (or an associated group) then you are not in danger. It does not mention, nor does it correct anything related to the CIC's ability to blacklist anyone. They can do this already, then the law will not change that.

Before you Cherry-picked you're reference, right above it, lists who is affected: "(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

The section you're worried about: 1031 (a)(4) (not a-4-4 (which doesn't exist)), it says this: "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."

Which means The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and The Dir. of National Intel (all three) are required to submit a written waiver to Congress for approval if they find a threat to the US or it's allies. Once Congress deliberates and agrees upon it, then the threat can be detained. HOWEVER. This is all included in Subsection A. Immediately afterwards, in the very next section it says who this does not apply to...that is US Citizens. -In order for that to change, there would need to be something which explicitly states an exemption...a loop-hole. Being in programming, I know a thing or two about loops. This is not one, since there is a declaration which specifically excludes it.
-I hope this clears things up. If you're still having trouble understanding it, ask a lawyer to explain it to you.

It does mention the citizens status. Section 1032 b 1-2. Status for exemption = US Citizen, or Legal Resident. i.o.w. Illegal Aliens will not be protected. Section 1031 doesn't need to mention it, because it's completely covered in Section 1032. Unfortunately the written word is two dimensional, so things must either be preceded or succeeded. Section 1031 Sets the aim of the detainee matters, section 1032 makes exclusions and sets procedures, 1033 handles internal transfers of detainees, etc. People are freaking out about a loop-hole that doesn't explicitly say one thing or another. However, it does say who it will not effect. And in order for them to take a US Citizen hostage, it would literally take an act of Congress.

The waiver you cite appears to be valid merely upon certification to Congress, not dependent upon Congressional action. Military detention is mandated unless such a waiver is filed. Civilian detention is the alternative, as the previous section describes the process whereby a detainee is transferred to an appropriate judiciary or rendered overseas to "any foreign entity." If I were using such a law as a tool I would constitute detention under a civilian contractor.

You are mistaking being a convicted defendant with being a suspected enemy agent in your citation of the requirements for military (or civil) detention. The Bill is concerned with suspects, not individuals actually indicted or even formally charged, much less proven guilty.

You seem to trust that in every case, SecDef, State, and Intel will hand carry a request for waiver to Congress, which will then vote on it. It would not happen that way. A wonk would send the certification to Congress and that would be that. I doubt it would even appear in the Federal Register.

Whether he signs it or not, the tragectory would suggest that it is only a matter of time when this concept becomes law.

That's probably why there is the language, cited above, in the Bill rationalizing military custody obviously in favor of civil custody and the ability of the Executive branch or its designates to transfer anyone suspect under the Bill to any appropriate judiciary in the US, or any country in the world. Without limitation, apparently. The Bill says, again, that anyone detained under the Bill is subject to "Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

Read it again. The Bill allows anyone suspect to be transferred anywhere, to anyone.

I'd be grateful if someone can come up with an alternative interpretation of that specific language in the Bill.

The transfer of custody is limited to prisoners of war.
It doesn't mention how one could become a prisoner of war, that's in another law.
But it appears that people are jumping to conclusions over things which are actually covered in S. 1867.

For example, there was an American-born terrorist who went to Africa to fight with a group associated with Al-Qaeda. He is an american citizen. However, being on the opposing team, means that he posses a "threat to the united states" making him the enemy. If he gets captured, he will be classified as a POW. But the legal mess in this, I'm uncertain about, the two conflict. Being a US Citizen affords you certain rights, being a POW denies you those rights. Typically, a denial of rights out-weighs the approval of them. But that would be for courts an lawyers to decide, should the SNAFU ever happen.
Luckily most islamists romanticize dying in battle...do they prefer not to be captured.

FYI, perhaps you might accept Senator Leahy's comment on the Floor of the Senate during the debate:

Mr. LEAHY. So, contrary to what the bill sponsors claim, they have not incorporated the administration's requests, and the current language does not remove the risk of impeding intelligence investigations or prosecutions of terrorist suspects. As currently written, the language in this bill would authorize the military to indefinitely detain individuals--including U.S. citizens--without charge or trial.

The debate that's been going on for the past few days has been engaging. It actually makes good reading. Obviously we as Americans accept the necessity of responding to groups/nations who attack us, and Al Qaida must be defeated. But that is just the current subtext to the war that's been going on since 1914.

This Bill goes a lot further than that. Try reading the sections concerning America's intention to enter into a "defensive relationship" with the Republic of Georgia, including providing armaments. They are right on Russia's border. Can you imagine Russia doing such a thing in, say, Mexico? Cuba? Well, in Cuba, it happened, and I was there when Kennedy and Khruschev marched to the brink and stared into the abyss. Of course, we happend to have nuclear-tipped missiles in Turkey aimed at Russia, and the settlement included both Russia and America removing their respective missle forces in Cuba and Turkey, but we lucked out that time. Why would we provoke Russia now? The Georgians are as crooked as the Russians as well as most of the FSU. I wrote elsewhere in this blog that Russia announced a few days ago it was sending a task force including a nuclear-missile, aircraft capable warship to Syria to "prevent" conflict. WTF? This is typical, bombastic, dangerous brinksmanship that Dean Acheson would have been proud of. It comes from putting greedheads, incompetents, and crackpots in charge, which comes from Corporate wealth, for its own purposes, funding the education system (political advertisements) that the voter must rely upon to make his or her decision.

Of course, we could be seeing an event of cultural evolution repeating itself as it has since the beginning of recorded time: once these greedy primitives completely screw up the World economy, the only way to push the reset button is by cataclysmic conflict, destruction, and slaughter. From which Corporations invariably profit. Greatly.

Again, FYI: Senator Udall introduced an amendment including specifically modifying language in the bill restricting indefinite internment of American citizens without charges being brought to Americans captured overseas rather than in the US. The amendment was defeated.

If that amendment was defeated, then why is that language still in the bill, specifically stating that the military custody of "terrorists" does not apply to US Citizens?

It's a technicality to avoid constitutional limitations on domestic military activity.

US citizens are dealt with by the language stipulating authority to turn over detainees, including civilian detainees, to courts of appropriate jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to have them rendered overseas to any foreign government or "entity" whatsoever.

We already know how US citizens who are overseas, and who are suspected of terrorist activities, are dealt with.