Community | December 16, 2011 | 24 comments

WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS - Bill Proposed To Prohibit The Indefinite Detention Of US Citizens

source: http://www.politicususa.com/en/bill-proposed-to-prohibit-the-indefinite-detention-of-us-citi...

Image
WakeUpPeople
In my last article called Setting The Record Straight: The Changed Language In The NDAA I said that the NDAA didn’t allow Americans to be detained in sec. 1031 and 1032 but it says:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

The question I asked was, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed, rather than this current appropriations act.

Senator Dianne Feinstein just released this bill called ‘‘Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011’’. This bill may rectify what I was concerned about; existing laws that allow the detaining of American citizens.

"---
Her website states, The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically.

The Feinstein bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

The protections for citizens and lawful permanent residents is limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and excludes citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan.
---"

This perhaps can bring a sigh of relief to progressives like myself, who were extremely concerned about the ramifications of the NDAA and existing laws.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Culture,   12 more
  2. tags:
    NDAA,  National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012,  The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011
  3. recommended by:
    WakeUpPeople
  4.     
    |

24 comments // WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS - Bill Proposed To Prohibit The Indefinite Detention Of US Citizens

  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • Frankly I think Feinstein is a flake of the first order but I would support her on this 110%. Unfortunately I bet it goes nowhere. The traitors in the House and Senate are all over this.

    • 5 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +1
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • Positive, yes. But, this does not preclude the military from apprehending US citizens traveling abroad who have not taken up arms against the US, but who are outspoken about government corruption. Where there is a possibility for abuse of a law by the M.I.C.; (here's an entendre for mic check), it will always be abused. Next, they'll illegally sieze individuals within the US, to secretly transport them out of the country and stage a false arrest of them on manufactured charges. Under prevailing conditions, this will inevitably occur.

    • 5 months ago
  • Dagum
    • +3
      Dagum  

    • I support this effort but I fear it's for not. We shouldn't have to pass a ‘‘Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011’’ to have Due Process in this country.

      Due Process is such a fundamental concept in our society that it's enshrined not once but TWICE in the Constitution.

      There is a Due Process clause in the 5th Amendment and another in the 14th Amendment.

      If they are going to blatantly ignore not one, but two Constitutional provisions, they'll care even less about a statute.

    • 5 months ago
  • Anonmaly
  • hombre76
    • +3
      hombre76  

    • we already have the laws in place they are habius corpus and possie commitus in the constitution and the bill of rights. you can parse this bill how ever you like the munite it is used to areest and indefinatly detain Americans is the day we will know for sure all you appologists were wrong and the time for legal redress is passed. then we will hgave to shged our own blood to regain the freedoms people like you advocated relenquishing in the name of security and loyalty to a prez who didn't give two pisses about any of us.

    • 5 months ago
  • Dagum
  • gump
    • 0
      gump  
    • hombre76:

      I highly agree . But I expect we will just " disapear " over tme without documentation . We will have nothing to hold on to . Total secrecy is an impenetrable veil of death . That is what the one tenth of one percent want . And they already got it in the PATRIOT ACT . So it is already existing " law ". And the killers we call the supreme court are creating anti -human laws out of thin air . Illegally. So the rule of law is a thing of the past if it ever existed at all. What does the supreme court care what congress votes on or what the pressident signs or vetos When the court claims ( wrongfully ) that it can sit in judgement of all those efforts of governance and make up its own set of laws to impose on all of us humans . Like makeing corporations " super " citizens . Throwing elections for the Bush crime family . Or claiming that there shall be no limitatios on big money medeling in elections of every kind top to bottom. They ( the court ) will inevitably side with organized crime ( the extreme right ) while PAX AMERICANA comes home to murder us on the streets and pull us from our beds in the night to be tortured imprisoned and mudered by the CIA as has been done all around the world by " our " secret police . Political power is defined as : The power to make someone do something wether they want to or not . It is done by useing violence or the threat of violence . Humans ( the 99 and 9 tenths percent ) are not organized enough to use the threat of violence . And violence itself would destroy us all as surely as if we all laid down and set our selves on fire with gasoline . I expect to be among the dead . Have lived with direct threats since 1988 . These retro legelizations of past and present crimes against citizens are prelude to vast expansions of predation aimed in part ( large part ) at population reduction . Since I am part of the targeted segmets I am more than outraged . I am defensive . GOD HELP US

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  
    • gump:

      steel yourself compatriot. remember an untrained, untested, civilian force beat into submition the advanced, well trained, equiped force of Germany in WWII. dont let the hype fool you a Seal Or Delta bleeds like all the rest. Just aim straight and true and stand your ground, works for griz and facists alike.

    • 5 months ago
  • ThirdSection
    • +4
      ThirdSection  

    • If we didn't have a corrupt Supreme Court, we would have nothing to worry about, as this NDAA would be struck down just as sure as we metabolize oxygen.

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • Vic_Romano
    • +5
      Vic_Romano  

    • "The more corrupt a society becomes, the more it legislates."--Tacitus

      I don't need another bill to undo what the previous bill does. I demand that our President veto this one, so that the Congress can get it right the first time.

      Kudos to Sen. Feinstein for, at the very least, attempting to do what she believes to be the right thing.

    • 5 months ago
  • gump
  • Dagum
  • qwertyuioplkjhgfdsazxcvbnmqwertyuiop
  • maasanova
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +4
      WakeUpPeople  
    • maasanova:

      In this age of fear/paranoia/terrorism/Patriot Act/Gitmo/Jose Padilla/Ever-expanding wartime presidential powers, I don't think it is a bad idea to have a bill that reinforces the rights we should clearly already have. I consider it similar to a renewal of vows.

      Don't forget that the language has changed in the NDAA bill to exclude US citizens.

    • 5 months ago
  • FoosMaster
    • +2
      FoosMaster  
    • maasanova:

      Actually the Constitution is quite vague in regards to the details and limitations of law and government and was Intended to be interpreted by future rulings and modified by Amendments which were intended to be a way for future generations to deal with future issues. The founding fathers were Never arrogant enough to think that they knew what would be needed in the future, the way that many of the current politicians seem to think the founding fathers did with their nearly Worshipping of them. Many of them were political opposites the same as many are today. The Constitution was intended to be merely a base line to be followed and altered when needed which is why it allows for Amendments and why we have courts to interpret the fine points of law. The problem right now is the interpretations of the current court. That is why an Amendment is Needed.

    • 5 months ago
  • maasanova
    • +1
      maasanova  
    • FoosMaster:

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      Seems pretty clear to me...

      The only thing that is vague are the laws that Congress are putting forth these days and that is the reason for Feinstein's amendment.

      But I say don't let her grandstand and play hero when she voted "yea" on the Defense Authorization Act with the full knowledge and understanding that it was to be used on American citizens.

    • 5 months ago
  • Ambill94
  • FoosMaster
    • +2
      FoosMaster  

    • Existing laws only allow for short-term detention within the USA without charge and only allow the military to detain someone on American Soil in cases of National Disaster Areas, such as the New Orleans Floods, or Martial Law. At least that is how it has been interpreted until now. The language of the law does have a couple gray areas that have had to be ruled on by the courts and the Supremes can no longer be trusted to protect “the people”, so YES we Do need a law that Clarifies exactly what is and is not allowed.

    • 5 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +7
      WakeUpPeople  

    • I think that if we value our due process, we need to stop the indefinite detention of ANYONE - including our enemies.

      “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” ~Thomas Paine

      The Third Geneva Convention Treaty actually defines what constitutes a POW and what rights they have. It is true that (alleged) terrorists do not fit that definition, and are thus unlawful combatants. While we are not bound by the Geneva Treaty in our handling of unlawful combatants, we should set an example as a civilized nation that we do not torture (yes, we really do) and that we even offer due process to our unlawful enemies. I think that we can waiver on the right to a 'speedy' trial for security purposes, but there has to be a promise that the detainee will have an opportunity to defend against the charges. "Indefinite" needs to be become definite, and regardless of enemy status, the US should abide by the Geneva Treaty's standards of humane treatment.

    • 5 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
more from Community:
from the community

top videos