What do libertarians have to say about this?

[Skipjack]

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/ob ... americans/

Personally I cant put into words how disappointed I am by Obama and how disgusted I am by the senators that are selling out the freedom of the people of the United States to you know who under the cover of "national security".

[KitemanSA]

What did you expect? Demoblicans, Repocrats, no difference.

[Skipjack]

I never thought that I would say that, but Ron Paul has all of a sudden become a lot more electable...
My wife and I are also going to look into some of the independents. Maybe it is time to rally the people and give the two big parties are demonstration of the power of votes. Worked in Austria, where the two big parties are loosing voters to a 3rd oposition party like crazy, atm. This 3rd party might be strongest party at the next elections. Sure is a wakeup call for the big ones (who have been trying all sorts of unfair means to denounce the 3rd party for decades now, but nobody believes them anymore).

[Skipjack]

Hopefully this doesn't count as a "belligerent act"...

[Diogenes]

What did you expect? Demoblicans, Repocrats, no difference.

"No difference" is a little too harsh. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats want to make us wards/slaves of the State as quickly as possible, while the Republicans are willing to allow the same thing, but they just want to slow down the pace.


As long as there is no negative feedback system in place to prevent the positive feedback effect of incumbency and pork spending (No Representation without TAXATION!) this will be the only sort of politician that will be able to win an election.

We are getting the kind of government we have because we have allowed people to vote who don't pay the bills (24th amendment.), and others who are really too young to have useful good judgement and life experience. (26th amendment.)

[Diogenes]

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/ob ... americans/

Personally I cant put into words how disappointed I am by Obama and how disgusted I am by the senators that are selling out the freedom of the people of the United States to you know who under the cover of "national security".

The man is an IDIOT who happens to be a good liar and con artist. The Media ran interference for him to prevent the public from seeing how stupid he is, and the only people that discovered the truth were the ones who actually examined him, such as myself and others.

He is the stupidest and most disloyal "Precedent" this nation has ever had. He is the poster child for why affirmative action and foreign influence is a bad idea. His loyalty and his entire world view are tainted with un-American ideas, He is thuggish and corrupt, and he has steered this nation into a perfect storm of vile corruption.

He is a an ignorant and vicious fool, and I wonder if he is even an American at all.

[Skipjack]

The man is an IDIOT who happens to be a good liar and con artist. The Media ran interference for him to prevent the public from seeing how stupid he is, and the only people that discovered the truth were the ones who actually examined him, such as myself and others.

He is the stupidest and most disloyal "Precedent" this nation has ever had. He is the poster child for why affirmative action and foreign influence is a bad idea. His loyalty and his entire world view are tainted with un-American ideas, He is thuggish and corrupt, and he has steered this nation into a perfect storm of vile corruption.

He is a an ignorant and vicious fool, and I wonder if he is even an American at all.

Yeah, but what does that make all the congress men that voted for the bill (with only 5 or so voting against it, god bless them!).
Btw, I find it reason for concern that several of our friends are to affraid to discuss this topic on the internet. They fear repercussions, like being put on some government lists etc. Whether this concern is valid or not, the pure fact that this is happening is IMHO reason for concern.

[Skipjack]

You may think of his political orientation whatever you want, but this man got a point there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRKLstWV ... e=youtu.be

And here is a republican who also sees an issue with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8

Heck even Fox news gets it, or so it seems.

[Tom Ligon]

Thank God I still have all my fingers. They'd have me on the rest!

[ScottL]

I don't see a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both are spend happy, it just depends on what they're spending it on. The belief that you throw a lot of money at a problem will make it go away is ridiculous. If we go Democrat, as many others would point out, we'd have a socialist welfare state. If we go Republican, we get a military or police state. Either way we're "slaves" to the top 1%.

As for Obama, he had promise until he started using Bush's architecture for everything National Security. This law was a clarification of powers the president already had since Bush's term. As progressive as I may be, I view this as a huge step back for our civil liberties.

[choff]

I remember watching a tv show about a top secret ac/dc converter site underneath a train station in New York. Apparently during WWII the US government passed a law stating that anyone who accidently discovered the entrance would be arrested and detained indefinitely in secret. Anyone who entered with a bucket of sand was to be shot on sight.

This and other stories like it were the basis for that 60's tv classic 'The Prisoner.' For fun try googling 'Inverlair Lodge' or 'Secret Scotland.' It's rumoured the US had or has a similar place like 'The Village'.

[kcdodd]

I have been trying to understand the arguments of whether this applies to US citizens. I think it is important to know the subtly here and I am trying to keep an open mind but it's hard. The full bill text can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:. The last entry is the one that passed the senate. The two sections in question are 1031 and 1032. There have been a string of failed bills introduced with very similar language, some explicitly allowing the detention of us citizens. McCain introduced "S.3081 - Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010", who also co-sponsored the bill in question. I think there is an effort to get this kind of language in for a while now but of course couldn't get it passed alone which goes to motivation.

Now, what about the actual bill passed though. The two sections should be studied together to try to figure out what exactly is being pushed here. The final draft of 1031 includes the text:

10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States.

This was added presumably in response to uproar that US citizens could be detained under the law, and the text could be used to argue that it doesn't. But does it really say that? All it says is that "existing" authorities are not affected, but not that "new authorities" are not introduced or would not be introduced or claimed. Also consider the fact that an amendment specifically excluding US citizens was rejected. Sen. Levin (co-sponsor) claims that an early draft included a specific US citizen exception, but that Obama asked it to be removed. Whether this is true I have no idea.

Secondly in section 1032 (REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY), there seems to be another red herring.

10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
11 ment to detain a person in military custody under
12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
13 States.

This seems to clearly exempt US citizens, or does it? It simply states that the military is not required to detain US citizens which fall under 1031, not that it cannot detain them. Also, if section 1031 is not intended to apply to US citizens in the first place, then why would they have to specifically state that the military is not required to detain them in 1032?


To me the fact that there is a concerted effort to not specifically exclude US citizens with this muddled language makes the intent clear: US citizens on US soil are intended to fall under this provision of indefinite dention without trial. And I think that those who crafted this think they can squeak it by the lawyers when the executive branch inevitably tests the limits.

[ladajo]

This seems to clearly exempt US citizens, or does it? It simply states that the military is not required to detain US citizens which fall under 1031, not that it cannot detain them. Also, if section 1031 is not intended to apply to US citizens in the first place, then why would they have to specifically state that the military is not required to detain them in 1032?

The US Military has always had the right to detain US Citizens. It is allowed under Posse Comitatus guidance. It has requirements to be enacted, but has been, as well as exercised on many occasions. This is all Red Herring arguments pushed by the left in the election run-ups.

The generic public person thinks that the military can not be used for law enforcement. This is not true, and thus the fallacy for all these arguments.
In fact, the National Guard is used routinely for law enforcement, as are regular component miltary.

The Navy routinely participates in law enforcement at sea, The Army contributes to areas, as does the Air Force, and even sometimes the Marines. As one example, and there are many others, next time you are bored, look up Joint Task Force 6, and as it is now known, Joint Task Force North.

[kcdodd]

I am not sure you are correctly representing what the military has traditionally been able to do. Posse Comitatus is supposed to prevent the use of military as law enforcement, except of course when allowed to by congress (which is why the law is relevent). The National Guard is supposed to be under state control, not federal. The Coast Guard is a law enforcement agency, not military. Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to the Navy since we can't have ships patrolling main street, but the DoD has applied it's own restrictions. It certainly would not suspend Habeas Corpus either way allowing indefinite detention and possibly torture of citizens. And what does this have to do with left vs right. This was a bipartisan effort by Levin, McCain as well as from Obama to get this language.

[ladajo]

except of course when allowed to by congress

This is somewhat of a misconception. Posse Comitatus was written to allow use of Military for Law Enforcement. It spells out how and when. It also does not require Congressional Approval. The President can do it.

The navy routinely gets used for Law Enforcement. I was not speaking of the Coast Guard. Navy ships have a long standing practice of temporarily placing themselves under Coast Guard "control" to perform Law Enforcement duties. These duties can and do sometimes involve the detainment of US Citizens in US waters.

While National Guard is a "State Militia" it is also a component of the larger military. It is also routine for regular component to augment and assist, as well as sometimes command National Guard Law Enforcement activities. This is prevelant when the activities cross state lines, as what happened during Katrina.

Posse Comitatus is one of the most mis-understood concepts and entities going regarding the military. This mis-understanding also exists within the military. Even in graduate level military and goverment professional education it gets argued and mis-interpreted.

I also maintain that the bulk of the hullaballoo surrounding the current issue is due to right, left and center trying to take political advantage using it as a lever. Co-sponsered or not, in many circles it is viewed and presented as a partisan issue. The irony to me is that it really has not "re-defined" anything much at all. In my opinion it is another example of wasted legislative effort on verbage that is not needed, and further complicates and confuses existing standards. I predict that someone will try to take it to the Supreme Court where it will either be ignored as redundant, or crossed out as redundant (the former being the more likely).