Monday, 28 November 2011

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

It is my understanding that President Obama has the power to VETO such a bill. A failure to stop this legislation will confirm who ths guy is working for. There is no need for such a Law in order to "protect" the public. Detention without trial is unconstitutional and simply unjust.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 28th, 2011.]


steven andresen said...


It is my understanding that the military detention provisions of this bill are supported with the argument that it is needed just so we can protect ourselves from Al Queda operatives. The claim that you made, that it was not, is one of the controversies about it. Why, for example, do these Senators believe the military is capable of acting in-country when the FBI, et al, are supposedly already on these cases? Why believe that the FBI needs to give up on any such cases and give their leads over to some military team?

You have done no work here to provide any reason to these Senators, or us, that the military should not round anyone up who looks cross-eyeed at the government, just by saying they aren't needed.

Given that the military has the deepest pockets around, that is, no one will ever vote no on a military authorization bill, it would seem they are in the best shape to fight Al Queda. Why open oneself up to a charge of being weak on terrorism by keeping our glorious soldiers from protecting us. Let everyone have a shot at Al Queda, after all.

...I am convinced that the politicians will not defend democratic principles or institutions because they have figured doing so will not get them re-elected.


Spookypunkos said...


I understand that the bill is written such that dissenters, not Al Qaeda, will be the primary targets.

The "AlCIAduh" threat is only a valid reason if you adhere to the propaganda, which many Americans might do.

However, I think the present argument being made against the Bill does highlight the broad based wording that allows almost anyone opposing the Government's War on Terror to be detained. This is not good for the peace movement or the 1st Amendment.

The Law seems overblown and unnecessary, and I hope that it gets canned. This whole espisode may be a ploy to make Obama look good before the 2012 elections. I hope this is the case.

I sincerely hope the bought politician do not think this Bill will make them look good, and will reconsider their positions after it is VETOed (I hope), and after the criticisms are put forward.

Problem with a bought Congress is they can end up backing almost any position that serves the interests of the establishment despite negative opinion polls and rational counter arguments.

Spook !