S1867 approved by the Senate

[S.A.M.]

Not sure if anyone is following this, since I didn't see it in WEP, at least in the titles...

S1867 has now been approved by the Democrat controlled senate.

Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil, and detain some indefinitely.

The vote was 93-7 for the bill authorizing money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested and $43 billion less than what Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

Shortly before final passage, the Senate unanimously backed crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump. The vote was 100-0.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2101270,00.html

What brought this to my attention was a link on facebook

60 senators betrayed you (it was 61, but Sen. Menendez changed his vote). They voted against an amendment to the Defense Authorization act, the indefinite suspension of Habeas Corpus. We are now officially a police state. Read the Amendment provision here. The house version of the bill is available here, 920 pages. Senate text is available here and a PDF of the full senate bill is available here, 682 pages. The amendment to the Defense Authorization act (the Udall amendment) would have removed some of the more draconian measures of the bill. To clear up some of the confusion, Sen. Udall was the good guy here.

We need to remember that the text of the bill would have provided issues for people who had not been legally found guilty (no due process), just suspected. If we look back at our recent history, we can see similar legislation being misused to silence political dissidents. Are you calling for the Federal Reserve to be abolished? Are you a John Bircher? Like the Tea Party better than Occupy or vice versa? Who knows how it can be misused. Not trying to be more alarmist than needed, but we do need to remain vigilant. Ignore your rights, and they will go away.

Read more: http://wearechangetv.us/2011/11/61-...te-suspension-of-habeus-corpus/#ixzz1fUTsISHT

So, whats going on?

 

[adoucette]

They voted against an amendment to the Defense Authorization act, the indefinite suspension of Habeas Corpus. We are now officially a police state.

Not trying to be more alarmist than needed,

Right

 

[StrawDog]

So, whats going on?

Further erosion and reversal of progress in human rights and the rule of law. Continuing on the path to Barbarity and ultraviolence. Dismantling of freedom of speech. Gathering momentum towards authoritarianism and Facism.
Goodbye to the land of the Free.

 

[CptBork]

So, whats going on?

Looks like no big changes, just business as usual, for better or worse.

 

[adoucette]

Further erosion and reversal of progress in human rights and the rule of law. Continuing on the path to Barbarity and ultraviolence. Dismantling of freedom of speech. Gathering momentum towards authoritarianism and Facism.
Goodbye to the land of the Free.

Nope.

Sec 1031 is very limited:

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(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.

But Sec 1032 clarifies WHO falls under this:

(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.


So the net effect of the amendment is simply that if we capture someone, who is not a US citizen (or legal alien) in the US associated with Al Qaeda we can turn him over to the military, not the US court system.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112smOzWH::

Arthur

 

[Gustav]

what happens if we capture a us citizen?

 

[adoucette]

A US Citizen, like Padilla, would get tried by the Federal Court system.

 

[Gustav]

in the current bill does the executive reserve the right to make a waver with regards to the venue a suspect might be tried under?

 

[StrawDog]

Nope.

Sec 1031 is very limited:



But Sec 1032 clarifies WHO falls under this:

(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.


So the net effect of the amendment is simply that if we capture someone, who is not a US citizen (or legal alien) in the US associated with Al Qaeda we can turn him over to the military, not the US court system.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112smOzWH::

Arthur

So in your opinion... non US citizens can be held without charge, indefinitely and without due legal process, as if that is somehow not barbaric or a reflection of gross human rights abuse?

 

[fedr808]

Further erosion and reversal of progress in human rights and the rule of law. Continuing on the path to Barbarity and ultraviolence. Dismantling of freedom of speech. Gathering momentum towards authoritarianism and Facism.
Goodbye to the land of the Free.

Well if strawdog said it then its gotta be right.

 

[fedr808]

So in your opinion... non US citizens can be held without charge, indefinitely and without due legal process, as if that is somehow not barbaric or a reflection of gross human rights abuse?

But its suddenly alright when Iran does it?

Of course not, its just that your willing to overlook it in their case. But you don't when the US does it.

What does that tell everyone else here.

 

[StrawDog]

But its suddenly alright when Iran does it?

Of course not, its just that your willing to overlook it in their case. But you don't when the US does it.

What does that tell everyone else here.

Tel me friend Fed. Is this topic on human rights abuses in Iran?

 

[chimpkin]

So, whats going on?

Silly S.A.M...
We are now in a police state. Of course.
I've told you we're not really in charge here anymore... do you believe me now?
ATM I don't think there's a whole lot I can reasonably do about this, but I'm far from happy about it.
...At least my attack wife has some ammo.
Might want to get more ammo.

 

[quadraphonics]

in the current bill does the executive reserve the right to make a waver with regards to the venue a suspect might be tried under?

Yes, although apparently the administration is also unhappy with how that process is spelled out in this bill.

Personally, I'm going to hold off on breaking out my "OMFG POLICE STATE" picket signs until this stuff survives reconciliation with the House version and a veto by Obama. Which it won't, so... it's something to keep an eye on, but the real question is how this stuff will get amended once Obama puts it back on Congress' desk.

Kinda baffling what the Senate is even thinking here though.

 

[quadraphonics]

But its suddenly alright when Iran does it?

Don't be silly. Iran uses show trials, not indefinite detention.

 

[chimpkin]

Personally, I'm going to hold off on breaking out my "OMFG POLICE STATE" picket signs until this stuff survives reconciliation with the House version and a veto by Obama. Which it won't, so... it's something to keep an eye on, but the real question is how this stuff will get amended once Obama puts it back on Congress' desk.

I'm less sanguine it will be vetoed.
The fact that they passed this at all is pretty outrageous anyway.

 

[superstring01]

Looks like no big changes, just business as usual, for better or worse.

Exaaaaaactly.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, although apparently the administration is also unhappy with how that process is spelled out in this bill.

Personally, I'm going to hold off on breaking out my "OMFG POLICE STATE" picket signs until this stuff survives reconciliation with the House version and a veto by Obama. Which it won't, so... it's something to keep an eye on, but the real question is how this stuff will get amended once Obama puts it back on Congress' desk.

Kinda baffling what the Senate is even thinking here though.

How many votes do they need to override the Presidential veto?

Silly S.A.M...
We are now in a police state. Of course.

Yeah but that was already in place:

Was arrested with 74 others in the "peace circle" in the middle of Occupy LA at about 3am Wednesday. The scariest time of my life. 500 riot clad cops storming Liberty Park, destroying everything in their path as they charged down city hall steps and into camp. Thank God they did not use tear gas, pepper spray etc. However, police brutality was rampant. I was one of lucky ones that only spent over five hours in zip cuffs. Others were cuffed in a bus for over 11 hours--no food, water or toilet use. People had to urinate on the seat they were sitting on or on the floor, if they could find a way. Medical help was non existent for those injured. Jail conditions were deplorable and very repressive, including sleep depravation, no soap, awful food, no reading material, limited phone use. I spent 63 hours in custody. Released at 6:35pm Friday, with another 1hour and 45 minute wait for property and yet another 30 minute wait for money to be returned. Our Constitutional rights were obliterated. This was a citation and release on OR type offense. Yet they placed all 292 of us on $5000 bail. The National Lawyers Guild filed various lawsuits today and more to come next week.

I've told you we're not really in charge here anymore... do you believe me now?
ATM I don't think there's a whole lot I can reasonably do about this, but I'm far from happy about it.
...At least my attack wife has some ammo.
Might want to get more ammo.

How would that help? Whom are you going to fire upon? Apart from the 600 billion dollars that they can use against you, there is also the existing status quo of too many weapons

source:http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...e-spending?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/alwaysmoreorless

These are not rational people you're dealing with

 

[quadraphonics]

How many votes do they need to override the Presidential veto?

2/3 majority (so, 67 in the Senate and 291 in the House).

But this bill is still in reconciliation - only the Senate has passed it, and it will only make its way to the President's desk after both houses of Congress manage to work out a common version and pass that.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm less sanguine it will be vetoed.

Why? Obama's been very clear that he will veto this. It would be a big embrassment for him to back down.

The fact that they passed this at all is pretty outrageous anyway.

Yeah, I'm at something of a loss as to what the Senate was thinking here. I just don't get the motivations.