Faschist Police State

Fatchist police state-


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Can US Citizens Now be Detained Indefinitely?
Tom Parker, January 5, 2012
There has been a great deal of confusion over whether the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) apply to US citizens or not – the simple answer is that it is too early to tell.

The NDAA provisions greatly strengthen a framework for detaining suspected members of Al Qaeda or its affiliates that is derived from the law of armed conflict. Under the law of armed conflict belligerents can be detained until the conflict ends or until they no longer pose a threat.

The NDAA drafters draw a clear distinction between US citizens and non-US citizens which is itself problematic since equality before the law is one of the most fundamental principles of justice and a core human right.

The NDAA “requires” that non-US citizens be treated as enemy combatants rather than as criminal suspects unless the President issues a waiver in the interests of national security.

The NDAA does not “require” that US citizens be treated in a like manner. Indeed Section 1021(e) of the Act appears to offer US citizens some protection stating:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who captured or arrested in the United States.”

This might seem promising but, unfortunately, the existing the law does allow for the detention of a US national on US soil as an enemy combatant under the law of armed conflict.

In a case heard during World War II, Ex parte Quirin, the Supreme Court upheld the executive’s right to hold a dual US-German national, Herbert Hans Haupt, as an enemy combatant. Haupt had landed in Florida from a German U-Boat in June 1942 as part of a unit of Nazi saboteurs who were swiftly apprehended by the US authorities. Haupt was subsequently tried by Military Commission and sent to the electric chair.

The facts of the Haupt case are interesting in and of themselves. Haupt claimed that he had only joined the German mission as a means of returning home. On setting foot on US soil he immediately left his companions and made his way to his parents’ home in Chicago where he was ultimately arrested. He did not carry out any acts of sabotage during his ten days at large. His parents were both convicted of treason for not turning their son into the police and his father remained in prison until 1957.

Ex parte Quirin was cited in some detail by the proponents of the indefinite detention provisions during the extended debate on the bill in the Senate, as in this xchange on December 1st between Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
Mr. GRAHAM. Does the Senator agree with me that our Supreme Court ruled then that when an American citizen decides to collaborate and assist an enemy force, that is viewed as an act of war and the law of war applies to the conduct of the American citizen?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague, yes. My colleague knows this case, I am confident. I think one quotation from the case makes the point clearly–in Ex parte Quirin the court made clear: “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of his belligerency.”

During the debate Lindsay Graham also cited the shockingly mismanaged Jose Padilla case as presenting further legal precedent for holding US citizens:
“The statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

It is no overstatement to suggest that the idea that US citizens could be held indefinitely as enemy combatants has significant support in the Senate.

As so often with the passage of legislation, the full implications of the NDAA will only become clear over time as the manner in which it is put to use by this, and successive, administrations is tested in the courts. The NDAA is going to be with us for some time and it is worth bearing in mind that President Santorum might interpret it rather differently than President Obama.

As things currently stand, we can say this: The NDAA has further entrenched the law of war paradigm at the heart of US counterterrorism efforts; At least one US citizen – Jose Padilla – has been detained as an enemy combatant since 9/11; The NDAA makes it more likely, not less, that this will happen again.

Reacting to the concerns of civil liberties groups, President Obama sought to allay fears that the NDAA might be used to detain American citizens in the signing statement he released on New Year’s Eve:

“I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”

Of course, this comes from the man who also once pledged to close Guantanamo so it’s not exactly a promise you can take to the bank.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/ ... efinitely/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I suspect you over (or perhaps under) simplify things Jello.

Did Obama ever have the executive/legislative power to close Guantanamo, without the support of Congress?

I don't know, and am not willing to invest the time to dissect the entrails of the (essentially corrupt) US political system to find the answer.

Maybe we need a re-entrance from WBU to answer these questions - hopefully in a non-partisan manner.

I would support an end to indefinite detainment of American citizens apprehended in dubious situtions such as "hanging out with the enemy in the war zone". Instead of calling it "indefinite" detainment why don't we call it "definite" detainment of say 150 years and contimue to keep them at Gitmo.

As a soldier to fat now for meiningful discource I find it interesting that the inflow of "badguys" into Gitmo has stopped. Bad guys are now being held as grease spots in their country of residence. The compassionate friends of the bad guys have done them no favor.

Jello, thanks for the article. I always wondered what Tom Parker got up to after the death of Elvis. Now we can see that Colonel Tom has re-invented himself as a scare-mongering political analyst. 55555

Jack, yes it would be helpful to have WBU back to provide his in-depth non-partisan views on issues like this one.

NDAA 2012 sections 1021 and 1022 appears to apply to any person, any where in the world, holding any citizenship to now include US citizens. It is not limited to a war zone location and can be triggered to handle anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies. What is the definition of a "belligerent act"? Who provides that definition? The US Government does believe in Equal Opportunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _Year_2012

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

Not only are they read emails, but there dam CAMERAS everywhere. Take out you WILLIE for a LEAK and Smile you might just be on CAMERA! HMMMMMMMM!

jackspratt wrote:I suspect you over (or perhaps under) simplify things Jello.

Did Obama ever have the executive/legislative power to close Guantanamo, without the support of Congress?

I don't know, and am not willing to invest the time to dissect the entrails of the (essentially corrupt) US political system to find the answer.

Maybe we need a re-entrance from WBU to answer these questions - hopefully in a non-partisan manner.

He can close it by executive order, however congress has made this difficult by passing laws that prohibiting the detainees prosecution in U.S. federal courts and making it extremely difficult to transfer them to other countries. Congress can overturn a executive order in US court if the executive order is unlawful.

I'm sure a difficult decision with many factors to take into consideration, but difficult decisions is the job he signed up for. It was a campaign promise.

Here's Obamas promise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0

And this is what he's done so far:
Obama announces changes to Guantanamo detention policy
Updated: Wednesday, March 9th, 2011 | By Robert Farley
On March 7, 2011, President Barack Obama signed an executive order making a number of changes to policies regarding those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a reversal of his previous policy, the order resumes military trials for Gitmo detainees. It also establishes a "periodic review" process for for long-held Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted or designated for transfer, "but must continue to be detained because they 'in effect, remain at war with the United States,'" according to a White House fact-sheet.

The new policy was viewed by many media outlets as an acknowledgment by the administration that it could not keep Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo facility.

The lede of a Washington Post story said the president's executive order "will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security" and that the executive order "all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counter-terrorism policy."

The New York Times, meanwhile, said that while the order permits military trials to resume, it is also "implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp."

And ABC News, said the order "sends mixed signals about the future of the controversial detention center and the president's own standing on the issue, experts say."

Although Obama did not mention the fate of Guantanamo in his brief released statement, the accompanying fact-sheet released by the White House maintains that the administration "remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay" and makes the case that the policy changes are "in keeping with" the president's long-term strategy toward that end.

But civil rights groups quickly denounced Obama's order as an admission that he has turned his back on his campaign promise.

"While appearing to be a step in the right direction, providing more process to Guantanamo detainees is just window dressing for the reality that today"s executive order institutionalizes indefinite detention, which is unlawful, unwise and un-American," Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a released statement. "The detention of Guantanamo detainees for nine years without charge or trial is a stain on America"s reputation that should be ended immediately, not given a stamp of approval."

"The only way to restore the rule of law is to put an end to indefinite detention at Guantanamo and the broken commissions system, and to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal criminal courts," Romero stated. "Today"s announcement takes us back a step when we should be moving forward toward closing Guantanamo and ending its shameful policies."

Full story at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-center/

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:Jello, thanks for the article. I always wondered what Tom Parker got up to after the death of Elvis. Now we can see that Colonel Tom has re-invented himself as a scare-mongering political analyst. 55555

Jack, yes it would be helpful to have WBU back to provide his in-depth non-partisan views on issues like this one.

Good catch Laan Yaa Mo!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

cw wrote:NDAA 2012 sections 1021 and 1022 appears to apply to any person, any where in the world, holding any citizenship to now include US citizens. It is not limited to a war zone location and can be triggered to handle anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies. What is the definition of a "belligerent act"? Who provides that definition? The US Government does believe in Equal Opportunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _Year_2012

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

Good question. The Geneva Conventions says: An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
U.S. interpretation may differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Statesman Ron Paul's bill to end unconstitutional NDAA Section 1021

Today Ron Paul stood on the floor of the House and introduced legislation to strike the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act Section 1021, the discretionary detention provision authorizing the President to detain persons accused by the government of without due process, from the law.

While the South Carolina Primary went on, Ron Paul acted on behalf of the people of American and in keeping with his Oath to defend the Constituion against domestic enemies. Integrity, putting the country ahead of his personal desires, is Ron Paul and today he gave us an example of a true stateman and leader is. Something that is sorely missing from the halls of our Congress, in the White House and in our national media.


Full article at: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-ch ... ction-1021


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Well, it did not seem to do him much good in the South Carolina primary. More to the point, does he believe in open marriages or not?

Who is to say the other Republican candidates do not speak for the people of the United States? I am sure they believe they do as much as you, the writer of the article, and Paul think that he does the interpreting.

If someone has not corrected Othello or Jello, the word you want is 'fascist'.

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:Well, it did not seem to do him much good in the South Carolina primary. More to the point, does he believe in open marriages or not?

That would be Newt and his wife.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

That look would scare you out of bed in the morning.

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:Who is to say the other Republican candidates do not speak for the people of the United States? I am sure they believe they do as much as you, the writer of the article, and Paul think that he does the interpreting.

Yes they do. There just all wrong.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:If someone has not corrected Othello or Jello, the word you want is 'fascist'.

.

Thank you spelling Nazi



Uploaded with ImageShack.us