Is S. 1867 more dangerous than terrorism?

[unkachuck]

"Bipartisan legislation being considered in the U.S. Senate would expand the military’s power to go after any terrorism suspect, including American citizens, anywhere in the world—including within the United States—and confine them indefinitely without being charged or tried."

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Senate_Bill_Allows_Indefinite_Imprisonment_of_Americans_without_Trial_111129

I'm beginning to be more afraid of our corporate/MIC/government than I am of the terrorists. Have we lost our democracy? How can we replace this current crop of seemingly traitorous politicians with people who will uphold our Constitution and the liberties of the American people?

Are we already a fascist state? This has me very worried.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "I'm beginning to be more afraid of our corporate/MIC/government than I am of the terrorists"

I've been a LOT more afraid of our government than of terrorists from the start.

Everyone should be.

A terrorist MIGHT, just MIGHT do something that actually harms me.

My government sits up at night concocting new laws that make me ever more expendable.

[prairierose]

8. Thank you, I have felt this way for some time...I'm glad...

to know that I am not alone.

[teddy51]

2. Was this voted on today and passed? I think the middle class and

poor are toast in this country. My big surprise is that Bush/Cheney did not declare a Dictatorship in there time in office. I guess the only reason that I can come up with is, Bush was bored and lazy.

[unkachuck]

6. "I think the middle class and poor are toast in this country."

....anyone who opposes wall street or war is toast and is obviously a terrorist....if this passes, wall street will be able to use their military at will....

[rug]

3. It's state terrorism proposed in the name of combatting stateless teerrorism.

[truedelphi]

4. Sadly one of the better speeches against this bill came

Out of the mouth of Rand Paul.

And it was co-authored by Senate Dem Carl Levin.

[woo me with science]

5. It passed the Senate today. nt

[truedelphi]

9. I was just over on the Senate.gov site and didn't see

It has passed. I saw that two senators offered amendments to the bill, which would have restricted the bill's all encompassing nature, and those failed miserably. (Too bad on that failure.)

It looks to me that since those amendments didn't make it, then the bill WILL indeed pass, but can you show me where it did pass?

[woo me with science]

10. Actually, just the Udall part passed, but that is the part that is causing so much outrage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.


Also from the Washington Post (It is hitting all the mainstream papers now): http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-rejects-effort-to-strip-provisions-on-terror-suspects-from-defense-bill/2011/11/29/gIQAIC7V9N_story.html

[truedelphi]

15. Now I am totally confused.

In just the paragraphs you are citing, it is being said the Udall provision DID NOT Pass.
In your paragraph above:
But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against,
and 37 for it.
But you say in your header that the Udall provision passed. Did you mean to say the Udall Provision was concerned about a certain section of the legislation, and that since the Udall provision did not pass, then that section of the bill is still intact?


And in the Huffington article, Di Feinstein is quoted as saying she has an amendment that will fix everything and still allow the nation to be the democracy it is known for.

Since I trust Di Fi about as far as I can spit, that isn't a lot of comfort.

[woo me with science]

18. Yes, you're exactly right.

The Udall provision was defeated. The wording was poor, because I was reading from the Huffington Post article that phrased it like this:

"The 16 who voted for the harsh detainee rules were Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). National defense hawk and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) also voted in favor of the tougher language."

But you are right; the senators actually voted AGAINST the Udall provision that would have REMOVED the rules. So we are still in danger.

Thanks.

[truedelphi]

19. However, I will remain confused until I hear that

Any of these "legislative attempts" to deprive us of our liberties are voted down.

It was also upsetting to realize that Scalia (never a favorite of mine) will not favor these attempts, but not hear much about what the other "more liberal" SCOTUS members would think.

[truedelphi]

20. Oh and thank you for these links. n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

27. Feinstein

I can spit a LOT farther than I trust Diane Feinstein.

[RC]

7. This is a part of State Sponsored Terrorism in this country.

Don't we have laws in this country saying the military can not be involved like this?

[JDPriestly]

11. Yes. Finally, people are beginning to realize that we are in the

pre-Fascist or pre-NAZI phase.

We have to stop the violations of human rights by our government now. And we have to do it nonviolently because violence will justify more repression.

[SomethingFishy]

12. Yes... it is.

I remember back in the early 80's hanging out with my friends, smoking dope and talking about how I was less scared of the "Commies" than I was of my own Government. Those times were nothing compared to this. This is seriously FUBAR.

Shit this was meant in response to post #1.. sorry.. Point still stands though.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Terrorism is the excuse the used to grab the power they always wanted.

Of course, the basis of disaster capitalism (which is power as well as money and resources) has one sometimes causing the very conditions in which one may benefit.

[MadHound]

14. And will Obama sign this?

And should we support any president who enables and enacts such heinous legislation?

[SomethingFishy]

16. To give him credit where it's due, he says he will Veto...

and he fucking well better. This isn't even one that requires any thought. This legislation if enacted will be the turning point. There will be no going back because no one will have any recourse at all against the actions of the state. It will be the nail in the coffin of America.

[MadHound]

17. He damn well better.

This legislation is a travesty.

[unlawflcombatnt]

28. It certainly is. But he won't veto it.

Here's an article from Lawfareblog giving another opinion on whether Obama will veto the bill or not.

www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/is-the-president%E2%80%99s-veto-threat-credible

Is the President's Veto Threat Credible?

by Jack Goldsmith

"Ben wrote last week about the Administration’s threat to veto the Defense Authorization Bill, in large part because of its detainee transfer and related provisions. As Josh Gerstein notes, “whether for political reasons or due to some complex internal dynamics, the administration seems at this point willing to put up more of a public fight over detainee-related strictures than it has in the past. However, whether that will ultimately translate to a willingness to blow up the defense bill with a veto is unclear.”

I doubt that the President will blow up the bill. Too many liberal democrats, including Senate Arms Services Chair Carl Levin, support it, so the president cannot charge political extremism. And as John McCain has said, “here is too much in this bill that is important to this Nation’s defense.” Is the president really going to expose himself, in an election cycle, to the charge (fair or not) that he jeopardized the nation’s defenses in order to vindicate the principle of presidential discretion to release terrorists from GTMO or to bring them to the United States to try them in civilian courts? It is the right principle, but it is a generally unpopular one that the president has not to date fought for. I doubt he will start fighting for it eleven months before the election.

If I am right, it raises the question why the president “ratcheted up the stakes . . . with a threat of a veto,” as Senator McCain put it. He may have done so to appease the left side of his party. But failing to veto the bill after threatening one will hardly make the left happy; it is more likely to confirm its belief that he is spineless on detention issues. It will also undermine further the credibility of the president’s veto threat."

[unlawflcombatnt]

26. Obama will NOT veto this

And we absolutely should not support him when he finally does wimp out on this idle threat.

[86MILee]

21. Is S. 1867 more dangerous than terorism?

It effectively establishes a military police state worldwide, and subjects Americans to violation of habeas corpus right and many other egregious actions.

[spin]

22. Considering that too many congressmen are bought and paid for by the 1% ...

who run the big corporations and banks in our nation, I have grave concerns about this legislation.

I can see how this legislation could be abused to attack the OWS movement if the rich begin to fear the the demonstrators during the upcoming spring and summer. Unfortunately the media will also side with the rich and portray the protesters in a negative light.

I can see some similarity between the OWS movement and the Sons of Liberty that existed in America prior to the Revolutionary War.

Sons of Liberty

The Sons of Liberty were a political group made up of American patriots that originated in the pre-independence North American British colonies. The group was formed to protect the rights of the colonists from the usurpations by the British government after 1766. They are best known for undertaking the Boston Tea Party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts (an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolutionary War in 1775.

Origin

After 1765 the major American cities saw the formation of secret groups set up to defend their rights. Boston had the "Boston Caucus Club," led by Samuel Adams and comprising artisans, merchants, tradesmen, and professionals, as well as the "Loyal Nine".<1> Groups such as these were absorbed into the greater Sons of Liberty organization. Its name comes from a speech in the British Parliament by Colonel Isaac Barré referring to the colonials as sons of liberty.<2>

In the popular imagination, the Sons of Liberty was a formal underground organization with recognized members and leaders. More likely, the name was an underground term for any men resisting new Crown taxes and laws.<2> The well-known label allowed organizers to issue anonymous summons to a Liberty Tree, "Liberty Pole", or other public meeting-place. Furthermore, a unifying name helped to promote inter-Colonial efforts against Parliament and the Crown's actions. Their motto became, "No taxation without representation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

In my opinion, the Founding Fathers would have opposed the Patriot Act and this National Defense Authorization Act bill. If alive today they might consider the big multinational corporations as similar to the British empire and would feel the the average citizen has little say in how the nation is run. They might well join the OWS movement.

[burrowowl]

23. Go here to find out how your Senators voted

http://warisacrime.org/content/heres-how-your-senators-voted-udall-amendment-strip-out-war-and-imprisonment-power-grabs

[unlawflcombatnt]

24. It's the OWS "Terrorists" they're really worried about

Amazing how they keep ginning up the "terrorism" cause, when there have been almost no US-located, terrorist-related deaths since 9/11.

But there has been the domestic tranquility threat by Occupy Wall Street movements.

And those are the real terrorists.
They're a threat to the financial fortunes of the only people that really count in this country--the top 1%.

[truedelphi]

29. Bazinga!

The threat to this nation is those of us who are tired of what passes for government, and which apparently cannot be changed by voting.

Thirty years of repression trickling down on the middle class, the poor and anyone who doesn't care for endless un-winnable wars. Last thing the Powers that Be want is to have a wholesale uprising.

[Desertrose]

25. Yes.

Are we already a fascist state?

Yes.

[burrowowl]

30. K&R

Hold them accountable. May Obama VETO this!

[burrowowl]

31. YES!

Go here and hold the Dinos who voted for it accountable!


http://warisacrime.org/content/heres-how-your-senators-...

[Politicalboi]

32. Must have already started

Page not found.