S. 1867 passes 93 to 7

/newpol/ -

A very important event recently occurred in the US Senate. According to the Library of Congress, as no major news organizations are currently covering this matter, Senate bill S.1867, also known as the NDAA, has passed, 93 to 7.

That's right - the Senate just passed the bill that, among other things, classifies America as a "Battlefield", and allows the President to order the US Military to forcibly detain American citizens without warrant, due process, stated charges, or public record of destination, if they are even suspected of terrorist activities or involvement with a terrorist organization.

Now, the Obama Administration has so far come out against this bill, and threatened to veto it if it reaches his desk, so it is not law yet. However, the fact that 93 of 100 Senators voted for this bill is nothing less than a blatant attack upon the Constitution.

Senators take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same". In light of that, and how this would allow the circumvention of the legal protections in the Bill of Rights, this action could, and in my opinion, should, be considered treason.

This needs to be known. This needs to be talked about. Even if it fails in the House, or is vetoed, 93 Senators voted to effectively allow the President to disregard most constitutional protections simply for suspecting someone of terrorism. This is not just political bickering which results in legislation that's dangerously vague - in my opinion, this is insane.

If you are skeptical about what I'm saying, please go to the Library of Congress's legislative information section and look up "S.1867" by Bill Number for yourself. It is clearly and easily accessible.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

The relevant section is "Subtitle D - Detainee Matters : SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE."

As further proof that this does indeed apply to American citizens, and isn't just interpretive trickery, take a look at the C-SPAN covered proceedings. From 7:20:00 to 7:20:18 , Senator Lindsey Graham directly states 1031's application to American citizens.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

Please don't misunderstand my intentions; I am not trying to tell others on 4chan what to think. I'm not trying to use anyone as a personal army. I'm just trying to get the discussion going on an issue that should be critical national news, but is being quietly steamrolled through Congress and willfully ignored by the major media companies. This is important, whether you are for or against it. People need to know. So I'm doing what I feel is right, and trying to spread the word as rapidly as I can.

>>1
>to forcibly detain American citizens without warrant, due process, stated charges, or public record of destination
The US military has never been subject to the constitutional restrictions placed upon law enforcement, because apart from the address of crimes committed on the high seas, the function of military isn't equivalent to the function of police. The police are always civilians. However, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the US or any member State from placing military or a branch thereof under the charge of law enforcement agencies (by principle of posse comitatus), and it prohibits military from being arbitrarily used against civilians within US territory. The latter prohibition would be amended (repealed) by the NDAA.
>detain
Of course, that's to say: detain, assault or kill. You know?
Also, note that the word "arrest" is never used. Why? Because arrest implies charge, prosecution and trial. Whereas detention in and of itself doesn't.
>suspected of terrorist activities or involvement with a terrorist organization
The implicit function of military is to defend the citizenry and their territory, from the military institutions of other nations: waging war. And it's ready, willing and able to oppositionally match any force projected. While neither a terrorist organization is a military nor its members are traditional (and overt), combat units, it is similar. Yet again, terrorism is a form of plain crime, not always specifically a broad, militaristic transgression against a sovereign nation, whether unprovoked or offensive or defensive, such as waged war.
>Senators take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same". In light of that, and how this would allow the circumvention of the legal protections in the Bill of Rights, this action could, and in my opinion, should, be considered treason.
Nothing stated within the Bill of Rights actively protects anybody from anything that the military functions to do except for warrantless search, warrantless seizure, or invading somebody's house for the purpose of personnel quarter (e.g. room and board) without consent. Mind you, in the case of war or of terrorism, the military will have near unlimited, "probable" cause to assault, kill, capture or detain enemy combatants, enemy soldiers, enemy spies, enemy generals and enemy heads, at any time. Although the rules of the Geneva Convention might not apply, they most certainly should.
>treason
Violating the constitution isn't treason. Acting at the behest of a foreign power, aggressively against the citizenry (the nation) is.

>>6
>It hasn't been signed into law yet and Obama said he would veto it. Who knows, he could still puss out on this.
Even if he vetoes it, he'll still order the military act against US citizens, as either it, the SecDef or himself pleases, as long as the offending, targeted citizens aren't within US territory, at the time of action.