The US Senate's Defense Authorization Bill

[FSogol]

Ok, I admit I'll been out of the loop lately between being off the grid down at my parent's farm for Thanksgiving and working about 90 hours a week in November, but I don't remember seeing anything about this here.

From BoingBoing:

"Senate set to pass bill that redefines America as a "battlefield," authorizes indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial

The US Senate's Defense Authorization Bill redefines America as a "battlefield" and authorizes US troops to conduct military arrests of civilians on US soil, and to indefinitely detain citizens without charge or trial. The ACLU wants you to write to your senator and demand that this insanity not pass."

Whole article here:

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/29/senate-set-to-pass-bill-that-r.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29

[midnight]

1. NO one was in the Loop.... It was done in secret.

[truebrit71]

2. Un-real...and WTF is Carl Levin doing as a co-sponsor...

...Seriously :wtf:

[damonm]

3. Small prob.

I read the relevant sections of the bill (you can too at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112w7Skym:e462417:), and in subsection b, paragraph 1, it says:

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Meseems the rhetoric is a touch overheated.

[DirkGently]

4. I keep seeing that paragraph cited as though it reveals all is well. How is that, exactly?

So the military isn't "required" to pick up U.S. citizens? Isn't the issue defining America as a "battefield" and undermining Posse Comitatus by allowing U.S. military arrests on U.S. soil?

All the quoted section suggests is that the military could pick up the phone and have the local police arrest someone as well.

[G_j]

6. requirement?

doesn't that mean it is still a choice?????

[Warren Stupidity]

7. From the ACLU

"UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so."

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

[DirkGently]

8. Thank you. So much for "much ado about nothing."

[damonm]

9. Upon further review...

I was wrong.
This shit shouldn't see the light of day, and no one who voted down the Udall Amendment has any right to invoke the Constitution - EVER.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Exactly. Well...putting aside we can't indefinitely detain anyone.

[DirkGently]

11. .

:toast:

[midnight]

12. Thank you for this clarification....

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Well since we killed OBL and are winding down (allegedly) our GWOT overseas

we need to bring the war back home. Otherwise how could we justify spending 1T a year on military junk?