Skip to main content

What could possibly go wrong?  Apparently, many in Congress are concerned.  They wrote and submitted this letter of concern.

There has been a decades long process prior to NDAA, steps taken prior to NDAA 2012 that, when viewed clearly indicate an unsettling trajectory designed to set the ground work for our worst nightmare:  The loss of our Constitutionally protected Civil Liberties or worse:  People who disagree with government policies and daring to speak out becoming indefinitely detained.

It is this clause that is most concerning to me, because it is vastly vague and can be used to encompass anyone:

persons who supported aggressive acts against the US.

And this clause:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

No one that I can find is listing what and who those "existing law or authorities" are.  That would require an analysis of them.  

I have done this below.  It wasn't that difficult for me to do because I have been digging into this and even reporting it here for years.  

When you see the WHOLE PICTURE, the context of NDAA 2012 becomes even more unsettling.

In order to remind readers of how something that some see as NO BIG DEAL, I have included some Russian History.  WHAT I HAVE FOUND are some striking similarities, specifically the vagueness of law that set the stage in Russia for some 60,000,000 people to become indefinitely detained only to be released into the arms of death.  Few survived.

Perhaps people don't want to to know the truth.  Few can handle being shaken from their belief in the benevolence of the status quo.  I think this community can not only handle the facts, but will feel obligated to open others eyes as well.

That said, here are many of the government docs, those "laws in place" that have literally laid the ground work for rounding up US Citicizens deemed "terrorists".

But first the parallels between Russian History and ours:

Of course, we have no one like Stalin, however many are more than concerned about The Slippery Slope created by NOT prosecuting the detention and torture policies of the Bush Administration.  It seems these unchallenged policies continue and, even worse, are about to be unleashed on the citizens of the USA IN the USA.

Hey, I certainly want all the crazies that are contemplating causing mass destruction deterred.  Who doesn't?  However, if that means that people can be rounded up by military personnel (which will be called Homeland Response Units, details below) with no due process other than, hopefully, some evidence, and perhaps only on the word of another or a stupidly worded tweet, then I fail to see how such power won't deteriorate into a quasi-Gulag hell.

The human nature lessons from Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia prove the potential for insanely heinuos injustice and cruelty are unleashed by Ideology.  

It's this blind attachment to an Ideology based on fear and/or hate that opens the gates of hell, annihilating the sense of shared humanity in order to JUSTIFY the annihilation of the ENEMY.  In short, declare the OFFENSE, declare the ENEMY, JUSTIFY retribution, unleash the legally mandated Ideologues, and give them free rein to imprison and interrogate the ENEMY.

86,000 Nazis were tried in Nuremberg.  ZERO Russian "Organs so-called" were tried after Stalin's power passed.  It is estimated that perhaps 250,000 Russians took part in the capture, torture, imprisonment, and banishment to the Gulag/Siberia/Archipelago.

Yes, there are equally ideological people that would like to blow the western world off the planet.  Why?  Because they are 100% attached to an Ideology of hate and/or fear, too.  

Oddly, the Interrogation Techniques signed off and approved by the Bush Administration read like those listed in the book, GULAG Archipelago, pgs. 82 - 89..  Astoundingly similar.  The physical abuse is ghastly; however, it is reported that the worst and most damaging is sleep deprivation.

In the case of Home Land security the definition of the ENEMY is both clear and not clear.  Clearly any/all either connected to or in support of Middle Eastern and/or Other known Terrorists groups are also deemed TERRORISTS and can be indefinitely detained or murdered/eliminated if overseas.

If the Indefinite Detention US Citizens who are IN the United States is passed, I have some confidence that those in the know, like the law team for ACLU, will make sure the scope of "Who Is Elligible for Indefinte Detention" is CLEARLY STATED.

What creates some muddy water for interpretation is language within some of the followng military and civil documents that depicts a need to respond to Civil Unrest.

The question that really needs to be cleared up is whether or not a peaceful protestor or a writer of blogs, facebook posts, and/or tweets that is CRITICAL of US domestic policies can be deemed an ENEMY also ripe for indefinite detention.

An understanding of history demonstrates some startling similarities that many have recognized:

UNITED STATES

We are protecting our homeland with Homeland Security.
The enemy is called Terrorist.
The threat is possible nuclear annihilation.
Known "crimes" of the Bush Administration were not investigated and prosecuted.  
Used the term Terrorist/Terrorism to justify new laws.
Patriot Act
Indefinite detention.
Military Civilian Labor Camps

The chronology of the torture issue, who, when, how the policy seems to have been adopted can be found here.  This is included because the Obama administration and Congress refused to investigate torture and indefinite detention:

Powell Told Bush "Don't Do It" on January 26, 2002

Obama wins the right to invoke “State Secrets” to protect Bush crimes

STALIN'S RUSSIA

Stalin's Russia was protecting their Motherland.
The enemy was called Enemy of the Worker.
The threat was disruptive or destructive descension.
The "crimes" of Stalin's regime, against millions of Russian people, were never investigated and tried.
Used the term Terrorist/Terrorism to justify new laws.
Russia had RSFSR Penal Code, Article 58
Indefinite detention.
Military Civilian Labor Camps.

Solzhenitsyn writes on page 139:

Yes, so-and-so many millions did get mowed down—but no one was to blame for it. And if someone pipes up: "What about those who..." the answer comes from all sides, reproachfully and amicably at first: "What are you talking about, comrade! Why open old wounds?"

Sound familiar?

LAWS THAT OPENED THE GATE FOR A DETERIORATION OF PROTECTIONS UNDER LAW

I would like to recommend reading this article by Bill Moyers:  The Patriots Dream – How Wall Street Occupied America BY Bill Moyers, because Moyers corroberates my concerns...well, OUR concerns.  

In his article he refers to The Powell Memo.  I highly recommnd reading both IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT ONTO this erosion of the Constitution trajectory.

You will find links to both here:

1971  The Powell Manifesto

1996-Present: FBI Uses InfraGard to Train Private Citizens to Cooperate with Government, Potentially Enforce Martial Law

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

The US  PATRIOT ACT and S. 1867

After July 11, 1997: CIA Obtains Domestic Call and Financial Information to Support ‘Black Ops’

February 2001 and Beyond: Three US Telecom Firms Cooperate With NSA Surveillance Program; Qwest Refuses

October 2001: NSA Creates Massive Database of US Citizens’ Phone Calls

October 23, 2001: Justice Department Memo Says Bush Has Power to Order Military Strikes inside US

October 4, 2001: Justice Department Issues Secret Opinion Regarding Interrogation Techniques

November 23, 2004: Congress Slips Patriot II Provision into Intelligence Spending Bill

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT RE:  Deterioration of Rights Under Law

These are official military documents.

April 17, 2002 - USNORTHCOM

As authorized by President George W. Bush April 17, 2002, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced the establishment of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) to consolidate under a single unified command those existing homeland defense and civil support missions that were previously executed by other military organizations

2004 - The State Department creates the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS)  

These capabilities and procedures include adequate planning mechanisms for stabilization and reconstruction operations, efficient interagency coordination structures and procedures in carrying out such tasks, and appropriate civilian personnel for many of the non-military tasks required.

June, 2004 -  State Department awards Blackwater a sole-source contract. Blackwater was ultimately paid $488 million.

January 14, 2005 - Army Regulation 210–35

Installations
Civilian Inmate Labor Program

SUMMARY of CHANGE - This rapid action revision dated 14 January 2005--

     o Assigns responsibilities to Headquarters, Installation Management Agency
(para 1-4j).

     o Makes administrative and editorial changes (throughout).

This new regulation dated 9 December 1997

     o Provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations.

     o Discusses sources of Federal and State civilian inmate labor.

February 2005, General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited the creation of S/CRS as “an important step” in helping “post- conflict nations achieve peace, democracy, and a sustainable market economy.”

June 2005 report of the

Congressionally-mandated Task Force on the United Nations, chaired by former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, recommended that the United States strengthen S/CRS and that Congress provide it with the necessary resources to coordinate with the United Nations. (ibid)

December 7, 2005,

President Bush issued a presidential directive intended to improve conflict-response coordination among executive branch agencies. This document, National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 44, is entitled “Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization.” NSPD-44 supersedes PDD-56 (Ibid)

January, 2007 - State of the Union address, President Bush

called for Congress to work with his Administration “to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps.” Included in the Administration’s February 4, 2008, budget request for FY2009 is a $248.6 million Civilian Stabilization Initiative that seeks to establish that corps.

August, 2007 - U.S. Police in Peace and Stability Operations Report.  

What we are learning is that "What is invented in Iraq comes home."  We will see this unfold.  However, it seems that a need for a National Police Force trained for crowd and riot control was expressed in 2007, interestingly as the economy is collapsing.

• The United States lacks civilian constabulary (gendarmes) or other national police forces specially trained for crowd and riot control. Instead the U.S. relies on civil police provided by commercial contractors that do not perform this function.

•    Fortunately the U.S. government is taking steps to address this deficiency.

Current State Department plans call for creation of a Civilian Reserve Corps that would have a police component.

February, 2008 the Bush Administration

requested $248.6 million for its “Civilian Stabilization Initiative” (CSI), which rolled into one its request for funds for continued operations of S/CRS, funds for a 250-member interagency Active Response Corps and a 2,000-member Standby Response Corps, and a 2,000-member Civilian Reserve Corps, and money for deployment of experts.

September 30, 2008 - Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

October 1, 2008 - NON-LETHAL weapons training began.  (Same article)

June 11, 2009 - The Global Peace Operations Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress

June 18, 2009 - CERFP: Remember the name in a disaster

“It was actually developed after a capability gap was looked into years ago on a national level,” she said. “That gap was that we needed to provide mass decon and extraction capabilities for both military and civilian populations in the event of a (use of Weapons of Mass Destruction) or a natural disaster. That’s the void that this team fills.”

July 14, 2010 - DoD, Guard establish eight Homeland Response Force units

What's a HOMELAND RESPONSE FORCE UNIT?  This is spelled out here by Homeland Security.  However, what isn't made clear is that Homeland Response Force Units will be directed by DOD's Northern Command (NorthCom).  So, in essence, Posse Comitatus can be sidestepped by a name change from CERFP to Homeland Response Force Units which are defined by a string of additional acronyms.

Department of Defense Homeland Response Force (HRF) Fact Sheet

An exploration of all the acronyms within the above DHS Fact Sheet can fill another diary.  Will update later.

How do we know that Homeland Response Force Units will probably be under the control of NorthCom and not the State Governors?  

It is stated in PUBLIC LAW 111–383—JAN. 7, 2011    124 STAT. 4137, Subtitle E—Homeland Defense and Civil Support, SEC. 1041. LIMITATION ON DEACTIVATION OF EXISTING CON- SEQUENCE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE FORCES, Subsection (c) REPORT REQUIRED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on plans of the Department of Defense to establish Homeland Response Forces for domestic emergency response to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

     (2) ELEMENTS OF REPORT.—The report required by this subsection shall include the following:

     (E) A description of the command and control arrange-
ments proposed for the Homeland Response Forces, including a description of the degree to which the Homeland Response Forces would be subject to the direction and control of the Department of Defense, as compared to the Governor of the State in which they are located.

December 29, 2010 = Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 3025.18 - Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA)

This support includes loans of arms; vessels or aircraft; or ammunition. It also includes assistance under section 382 of Reference (d) and section 831 of title 18, U.S.C. (Reference (ab)); all support to counterterrorism operations; and all support to civilian law enforcement authorities in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated
.

March 4, 2011 - Peacekeeping/Stabilization and Conflict Transitions: Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response/Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and Reconstruction Capabilities

Because that pace stressed the U.S. military, many policymakers believed that the United States must create and enhance civilian capabilities to carry out the peacebuilding tasks that are widely viewed as necessary for stability and reconstruction in fragile, conflict-prone, and post-conflict states.

This is from the White House, Office of the President

August 3, 2011 President Obama

   

Sadly, the threat of violent extremism in America is nothing new.

Throughout our history, misguided groups—including international and domestic terrorist organizations, neo- Nazis and anti-Semitic hate groups—have engaged in horrific violence to kill our citizens and threaten our way of life.

Most recently, al-Qa’ida and its affiliates have attempted to recruit and radicalize people to terrorism here in the United States, as we have seen in several plots and attacks, including the deadly attack 2 years ago on our service members at Fort Hood.

As a government, we are working to prevent all types of extremism that leads to violence, regardless of who inspires it.

December, 2011 - "Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States"  

A complex issue like violent extremist radicalization and recruitment requires a nuanced path to guide a whole-of-government approach. The SIP outlines this path and facilitates a division of labor by assign- ing responsibilities between Federal Government departments, agencies, and components focused on law enforcement and national security and those whose efforts support, but do not directly lie within, these areas.
 

MEANWHILE, The Military Industrial Complex, financed by Bank of America has been really busy since 2005.  Wall Street now has its own armies, etc.

Chronology:

2005 - 2009 General Tommy Franks, who led coalition into Afghanistan and Iraq, sat on the board of Bank of America.

"Tommy Franks' experience managing large, very complex operations and logistics will be invaluable," said Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis. "This, coupled with his ability to develop strategy and lead others, makes him an ideal director for a corporation of our size and complexity."

As we all know, the Military and the Federal Government use lots of private contractors.  The potential for profits was not lost on private equity firms.

The following PRIVATE CONTRACTOR TRANSACTIONS have transpired in 2010:

2010 Bank of America finances sale Blackwater/Xe, Xe's Aviation Division, and Dyncorp.  All three are military contractors on a large, even controversial scale.

March, 2010 Blackwater/Xe Sells Aviation Division for $200,000,000

That division has a fleet of 58 aircraft, many of which are used under U.S. government contract in Afghanistan.

AAR Chairman and CEO David P. Storch said in a statement that the market for government aviation "represents a tremendous growth opportunity."

August, 2010 - Eric Prince moves his family to Abu Dhabi

“He needs a break from America,” said one colleague, speaking only on the condition of anonymity about Mr. Prince’s long-rumored move.

December, 2010 Blackwater/Xe Sold for about $200,000,000
Dean Bosacki, Managing Partner of Manhattan, said, “Xe is an absolutely unique asset, and is recognized as ‘best in class’ by many of the Company’s elite customers. We are excited to complement the Company’s management team who are committed to professionalism and ethical conduct wherever the Company operates.”

This change of ownership does not affect the previously announced Consent Agreement between Xe and the U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

As part of the agreement, Wendy Wysong, a partner at Clifford Chance LLP, will continue to serve as Special Compliance Officer for the Company and will oversee the export compliance program at Xe.

Bingham McCutchen acted as legal counsel to USTC Holdings and the Chertoff Group in collaboration with Avascent Group performed strategic due diligence on USTC Holdings’ behalf.

Financing for the transaction was led by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Bank of America helps finance sale of Dyncorp  

DynCorp was sold by one Private Equity Firm to Another Private Equity firm, financed by Bank of America, CitiBank, Barclays, and Deutsche.  Veritas sold DynCorp to Cerberus. Check.  Done. April, 2010

For fun, Cerberus was a ‘mythological’ giant dog that guarded the gates of Hades. No one escapes him.

May 4, 2011 - Blackwater’s New Ethics Chief: John Ashcroft

SO, WHAT IS A TERRORIST?

Who is capable of making sure Congress, in the unfathomable complexities of law making regarding Homeland Security, doesn't make it possible for a Protester or Blogger to be swept up in an INDEFINITE DETENTION situation.

It can happen here!

It happened to Bradley Manning.  Ok, he was in the military but his treatment has been very harsh.

Which is another reason I am very concerned.  

We are on a very slippery slope, if history is prescient.

There are trust issues.  Do we trust our government and our rule of law?

Additional Agencies that are watching for terrorists:

1996-2008: FBI Uses InfraGard to Train Private Citizens to Cooperate with Government, Potentially Enforce Martial Law

INFRAGARD started as a FBI pilot program in OHIO (1996)

At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector. InfraGard is an association of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement agencies, and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the United States.

<

a href="http://www.infragardphl.org/resources/InfraGard_History.pdf">After September 11, 2001 NIPC expanded its efforts to include physical as well as cyber threats to critical infrastructures. InfraGard’s mission expanded accordingly.

In March 2003, NIPC was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which now has responsibility for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) matters.

May, 2007 - USIP Options for Police in a U.S. Civilian Reserve Corps

COPS - Justice Department

COPS — the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services is the office of the U.S. Department of Justice that advances the practice of community policing in America’s state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. COPS does its work principally by sharing information and making grants to police departments around the United States.

NOW HEDGE FUND MILLIONAIRES are Funding Online Primary For 'Independent' White House Run

What could possibly go wrong?  Apparently, many in Congress are concerned.  They wrote and submitted this letter of concern.

I also recommend reading Matt Taibbi's article

Indefinite Detention of American Citizens: Coming Soon to Battlefield U.S.A.

Here's the Bill that Rolling Stones cites:  112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION II - Calendar No. 230 - S. 1867

Matt Taibbi ends his article, cited above, with

"A few years ago, that would have sounded like a hysterical question. But it just doesn’t seem that crazy anymore. We’re turning into a kind of sci-fi society in which making it and being a success not only means getting rich, but also means winning the full rights of citizenship. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see this ending well."

QUESTIONS NOT ADDRESSED IN NDAA 2012:

What part, if any, could S. 1867 resemble Stalin's Russian Law:  Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) which is the law that allowed Stalin's "Organs" (men and women comfortable with using extreme torture) to round up innocent people, place them in indefinite detention while they were interrogated and tortured, forced into bogus confessions and accusations about others, and then shipped to the Archipelago to work in labor camps?  The Organs had monthly quotas to fill, so anyone and everyone was at risk of being rounded up.  Millions were and millions died.  No one was ever prosecuted for this dark time.

Could the US enroll enough people to slip down this slippery slope?  Most of the Russian Organs faced torture, the labor camps, and death themselves if they didn't comply with orders to arrest and torture.  Many were happy in their roles as interrogators and torturers.

Where in the NDAA or any law, that condones indefinite detention of American citizens by the military, are TERRORISTS concisely defined and what acts are clearly defined as those of TERRORISM.  And where can we find the Northern Command (NorthCom) instructions that specifically deal with American Citizens IN the USA.  S. 1867 is a reference, but lacks specifics.  

FOR THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED IN LEARNING HOW 60,000,000 were indefinitely detained for decades, you can peruse GULAG Archipelago.  

I HAVE TO BE HONEST.  I am half way through an abridged version of GA.  I am astounded because it almost seems like BushCo used this book to design their "torture techniques"  The similarities are just too stark.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Clause That Most Disturbs You Doesn't Exist (8+ / 0-)

    At least not as you cited it.  Here is the actual language of the bill:

    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    In other words in order for anyone to be covered by the out of context portion you list, they would have to be doing so in support of either Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or a force directly associated with them.

    And even then--as you cite--US Citizens are exempted.

    You did a good deal of typing, but your claim that this puts us on the road to filling up the work camps or whatever is spurious hyperbole at best, and I'll omit the "at worst."

    •  And then there's this... (4+ / 0-)
      (d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
      •  The language is too vague and too broad (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mint julep, musicalhair, kurt, Johnny Q

        MANY in Congress, the FBI, CIA, NSA and Justice Department agree with me.  Here is a transcription of the letter written and submited by Congress Members:

        Dear Chairman McKeon, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Smith, Ranking Member McCain:

        We write to raise serious concerns regarding three sections of the fiscal year 2012 National Devense Aughorization Act (NDAA).

        The House-passed version of the NDAA, H.R. 1540, contains Section 1034, an expansive authjorization for detention of and use of military force against broadly defined adversaries substantially exceeding the scope of such authorizations already in law.  The expanded authority has no geograhical limits, provides authority for open-ended armed conflict, and is unacceptably broad.  We strongly object to the inclusion of this language in the final authorizing bill.

        The Senage-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens' right to trial.  We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U. S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.

        Furthermore, Section 1032 of S. 1867 would require that suspected foreign terrorists be taken into custody by the military instead of civilian law enforcement authorities.  This would deny civilian law enforcement authorities the flexibility necessary to conduct effective counterterrorism operations.  Respected bipartisan members of the national secuirty community -- including the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Central Intelligence agency, and the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division -- OPPOSE THIS PROVISION.  We also strongly opose its inclusion in the NDAA.

        As you know, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat because of these provisions.  We urge you to make appropriate changes so that Congress can provide essential resources to our armed forces while ensuring we have the flexibility to confront terrorism as effectively as possible.

        You and find and read the December 12, 2011 letter here and see who signed it.  

        This is a serious and conflicted issue and, rather than being slipped into NDAA 2012, deserves many Congressional hearings and a great deal of SPECIFICS.

        I agree that, as written, THE INDEFINITE DETENTION CLAUSES ARE "UNACCEPTABLY BROAD"

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:50:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Too broad and vague indeed. What is also (5+ / 0-)

          entirely creepy is the fact that secret meetings were held to hammer this out in committee.  If what these people were doing was so great for the American people, then why skulk around in secret?  And why ram it through as quickly as possible, as quietly as possible when the House and Senate have done little else but block, freeze, obstruct, filibuster since the 110th Congress?  People get a clue please.

          This is a terrible, terrible time for this nation and its peoples.  Those who don't think something bad could happen to them at some point aren't learning the lessons of history.

          And uh, oh yeah there is that little thing about provisions/language in this bill shred the Constitutional rights of people six ways from Sunday if passed.  (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and parts of 14th Amendments.)

          NO BIG DEAL?  Sleepers awaken!

          When everybody talkin' all at once no one can hear the wise one speak, So just be still and silence will provide the wisdom that you seek - by Tori del Allen

          by Dumas EagerSeton on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:33:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's human nature to NOT want to rock (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, rlochow

            a person's views.

            I hate having to know this stuff but at least I am preparing for the worst while still enjoying my life.

            The balancing act.

            Thank you for contributing.  Few want to acknowledge the danger we face.

            Do we want these people in charge?

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:10:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Why do we need the indefinite detention (0+ / 0-)

          aka Black Bag language anyway?  And why are the "pragmatists" so desperate to downplay it?  There is no justification for this legislation and it is at odds with both Democratic and democratic principles.

          You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

          by Johnny Q on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 03:36:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's the current language (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeeDeeS

        I downloaded from THOMAS this a.m. and the "public  print" version had this:

        Sections 1031(e) (authorization of military detention):

        (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

        and 1032(b)(1), requirment for military dentention, unless a special expection is made:

        (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
        (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

        I would feel a lot more comfortable if the bill was more direct, e.g.:

        No United States citizen or lawful resident alien shall be classed  as a "covered person" nor subjected to military detention under this Act.

        But it isn't. And as i read it, U.S. citizens are not entirely  exempted.

    •  Like I said, most can't handle the facts. (6+ / 0-)

      The nuances in NDAA 2012 are too many.

      If you take the time to read all the links, which your quick response indicates you have not, you will see the OTHER laws that have been put in place prior to the passage of NDAA 2012.  The laws and authorities that won't be affected.  The include the installation of state side active troops which morph into an army under Homeland security that are conveniently renamed the Homeland Response Forces which do not come under Posse Comitatus constraints.

      Whatever.  The docs are above.  The trend of which is unsettling.  

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:33:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Admit I Only Skimmed Your HRFU Paranoia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Polly Syllabic

        ...but I did read the fact sheet you linked to, which states pretty explicitly that HRFU troops are National Guard troops which have never been covered under the PCA.

        •  National Guard troops most definitely are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q

          affected by Posse Comitatus.  It keeps the Guard from Tennessee, for example, from parolling the streets of New York.  It keeps the Guard under the direction of the Governor of the state in which the Guard resides.

          HRFU sidestep Posse Comitatus.

          All under rosy scenarios; however, in the wrong hands these vague laws could be a nightmare.

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:41:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Odd, I copied that phrase from the diary. (0+ / 0-)

      But the diary changed.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:32:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That seems to be correct (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      War on Error

      (I copied the bill's Section 1031 and 1032, which seem to be the relevant sections, this morning from the final "public print" version of the bill  on THOMAS, see those sections here).  

      At the same time, the bill as it stands gives me some heartburn.

      A lot of people are quoting only part of the two relevant sections, not looking at the whole thing in context.

      As I read it a U.S. citizen can be detained under these provisions if that citizen sets foot outside the U.S. (Got relatives to visit abroad?  Travel for business?  Always wanted to see Winchester Cathedral? Say goodbye to the Bill of Rights.)

      A legally resident alien can be detained even inside the U.S, for actions that person did abroad (and maybe even in the U.S. because this section is very, very weasel worded.)

      A tourist from abroad visting in the U.S., an undocmented immigrant, or indeed anybody anywhere on the globe that the U.S. decides is persona non grata can be grabbed anywhere, anytime.

      Yes -- a lot of this is already being done. Among other things, the bill may bolster practical immunity for past abuses. It is also likely to be yet another thin edge of another wedge.

      We didn't need this in WWI or WWII, where there was a lot of concern about possible saboteurs (and in fact thousands of Japanese-American citizens were illegally detained, another story). I think it's very unhealthy.

  •  wow woe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error

    don't you ever sleep.

    so much here to digest, to fathom.


    the similarities are startling, but I find it hard to imagine,

    a mass program of work camp internment, as happened in Russia,
    happening here in the US.  Who would organize it, who would order it?

    Why would people stand for it?  American does have Amd II.


    A friend of mine, who follows CT Conservative blogs,

    keeps telling me "THEY" are about to start round people up,

    that "THEY" have built FEMA Prison Camps all over the country, just for this purpose.  (is there any evidence of this?)


    Exactly who "THEY" is?   he can only stay someone in the War Machine (ie the endless MIC, orchestrating things behind the scenes.)


    I dunno.  How long did it take Russia to go from where we are now,
    until they reached their Gulag apex?

    And wasn't much of that driven by Stalin's own power-hungry demons?

    Who would be our "Stalin" ... Newt, Mitt, Bachmann?


    T&R  for the voluminous research, and for the "lines in the sand" you have drawn,
    in name of protecting Civil Liberties.


    What is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.
    -- Maslow ...... my list.

    by jamess on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:53:34 AM PST

    •  Jamess, I have gathered this info over the years. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, Mindmover, Clio2, kurt, Johnny Q

      And presented it here in bits and pieces over the years.

      The "indefinite detention" issue, imo, has to be seen in context.

      It only took about a hour to pull together all my prior research.

      Sigh, it is too unsettling for most to read the links to see how, in context, the indefinite detention clause is but a culmination of what has preceded it.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:05:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To your questions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, musicalhair, kurt

      a mass program of work camp internment, as happened in Russia, happening here in the US.  

      Who would organize it?  NorthCom and Homeland Security with the blessings of the President.

      Who would order it?  Homeland Security

      Why would people stand for it?  Fear, the bigoted, and the ignorant.  Most Russians had no idea how many people were being removed.  Those that knew were fearful of speaking out.

      American does have Amd II.  Under the guise of "anti-terrorism" Amendment II becomes toothless for any deemed "terrorists", a term that needs to be detailed ad nauseum.  

      A friend of mine, who follows CT Conservative blogs,
      keeps telling me "THEY" are about to start round people up:
       They are already rounding people up for indefinite detention.  The illegal immigrants, as we citizens don't seem to object.

      "THEY" have built FEMA Prison Camps all over the country, just for this purpose.  (is there any evidence of this?)  The 2006 KBR contract

      A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.

      Exactly who "THEY" is?   he can only stay someone in the War Machine (ie the endless MIC, orchestrating things behind the scenes.)  You might remember that Halliburton (Cheney's company), owned KBR.   The year before the multi-million dollar KBR detention center contract was signed, this was released by the Army.  Open the link.  It is an ARMY cite

      Civilian Inmate Labor Program

      I dunno.  How long did it take Russia to go from where we are now, until they reached their Gulag apex?   The pretext to the context is different.  Prior to Stalin's laws sanctioning "indefinite detention" the prior leaders detained, tortured, indefinitely detained in labor camps, and killed millions.  Stalin's regime wrote vague laws to protect Stalin's culpability, and rules that gave the millions of technocrats free reign to detain people for 20+ years for minor infractions under the guise of "protecting the Motherland" from terrorists and terrorism.  That morphed into "thinking" as being an act of terror.

      And wasn't much of that driven by Stalin's own power-hungry demons?  Short answer:  It only takes a few hundred at the top willing to destroy anyone who disagrees with them to enroll millions of technocrats to do their dirty work out of fear of becoming one of the tortured and imprisoned.   Stalin enlarged the horrid practices of prior leaders.  The need for power is a dangerous psychosis.

      Who would be our "Stalin" ... Newt, Mitt, Bachmann?

      I would encourge you to listen to this lecture by a Professor from Cornell:

      Theocracy Watch, Cornell: Dominion Theology (1/5)

      Also read:

      Forget What Party You Belong to. Congress Members Own Too Much TBTF Stocks!

      SCARY: Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 3025.18 December 29, 2010

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:31:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Crux is Who "Determines" Who is Suceptible (6+ / 0-)

    to such treatment, and what checks, balances, transparency and accountability are on the determination and the determiner(s).

    A law that says only those accused of terror can be held forever is merely scary for terrorists.

    A law that says that determination is made by secret authorities immune to appeal means the law permits everybody to be held forever for anything.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:55:27 AM PST

    •  Yes, you get it. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabney, musicalhair, kurt, Johnny Q

      But for me here is the kicker.

      Our laws have served us well.  The UK has already struggled with this.

      They limited detention to a number of hours/days in order to keep a potential harm from happening BUT they had to provide what we call Habeus Corpus within a reasonable time.

      Take the word "Indefinite" out of this and SPECIFY the rules and who falls under the rules ad nauseum and the debate would calm down.

      Obviously, most in Congress want the vaguary.  And THAT is the concern.  Why?

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:38:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stalinist USSR? This is getting tiresome. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error

    String together a huge wad of disparate military codes, disassociated laws, communist work camps, and what do you get?
    Paranoia. Getting to be a little too much of this on DKos.

    •  Right. lalalalalalla If that works for you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musicalhair, Johnny Q

      READ THE LETTER FROM CONGRESS MEMBERS equally concerned for the very same reasons I am concerned:

      Dear Chairman McKeon, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Smith, Ranking Member McCain:

      We write to raise serious concerns regarding three sections of the fiscal year 2012 National Devense Aughorization Act (NDAA).

      The House-passed version of the NDAA, H.R. 1540, contains Section 1034, an expansive authjorization for detention of and use of military force against broadly defined adversaries substantially exceeding the scope of such authorizations already in law.  The expanded authority has no geograhical limits, provides authority for open-ended armed conflict, and is unacceptably broad.  We strongly object to the inclusion of this language in the final authorizing bill.

      The Senage-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens' right to trial.  We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U. S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.

      Furthermore, Section 1032 of S. 1867 would require that suspected foreign terrorists be taken into custody by the military instead of civilian law enforcement authorities.  This would deny civilian law enforcement authorities the flexibility necessary to conduct effective counterterrorism operations.  Respected bipartisan members of the national secuirty community -- including the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Central Intelligence agency, and the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division -- OPPOSE THIS PROVISION.  We also strongly opose its inclusion in the NDAA.

      As you know, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat because of these provisions.  We urge you to make appropriate changes so that Congress can provide essential resources to our armed forces while ensuring we have the flexibility to confront terrorism as effectively as possible.

      You and find and read the December 12, 2011 letter here and see who signed it.  

      This is a serious and conflicted issue and, rather than being slipped into NDAA 2012, deserves many Congressional hearings and a great deal of SPECIFICS.

      I agree that, as written, THE INDEFINITE DETENTION CLAUSES ARE "UNACCEPTABLY BROAD"

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:45:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not a bug, it's a feature. (4+ / 0-)

    It's no coincidence that the Bush administration's torture techniques were like those employed by the former Communist enemy.  Our military's Cold War SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training program was meant to help our soldiers resist Communist torture tecniques, and the Bush administration's torture techniques were developed just by reverse-engineering SERE.  Use of Techniques in Interrogation.

    Well, since it was well known that the Communists' torture techniques were much more effective in getting false confessions than in getting any true information, one may well ask why our government decided to start employing those techniques.

    I think the answer is obvious, but perhaps I shouldn't spell it out in this forum.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:58:34 AM PST

  •  France just convicted former President Chirac (5+ / 0-)

    of crimes.  Still no talk of prosecuting the people in the Bush administration.  The Statute of Limitations probably protects them now for most of their crimes, but the responsibility for allowing that statute to run out rests with the current administration.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:00:06 PM PST

    •  Tsk Tsk (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musicalhair, Johnny Q

      "What are you talking about, comrade! Why
      open old wounds?"

      "We're moving forward, not backwards"

      Yes, we are moving forward with the same powers in tact.

      Shameful

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:12:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama's team doesn't want prosecutions of either (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlochow

      former administration officials for war crimes or the biggest banks for criminal corruption and collusion with federal and state agencies to commit thefts and other serious crimes.  They have moved to quash or interdict efforts to prosecute, even as far as objecting secretly to Spain and others.  See Wikileaks and Manning's reveals.

      The first group as an inoculation for himself when he leaves office (the next President would give him the same courtesy)

      The second group because the same people who committed the worst economic depredations, crimes are also his key donors, funders and backers.  As a class.

               Only one counterexample:   just yesterday,

      Fannie and Freddy Mac have six senior officials being indicted.  It will be interesting to see if this is an anomaly or the beginning of an institution (career DOJ) actually moving  to hold some accountable.  Success with some of these might be applied in the private sector.

               "Might" is a qualified cautious statement because it is not necessarily be a guide for the future legal actions, might rather be a media event, a distracting example to stop right there at the 6 tokens.  Might be a clever "vaccination" to spoil the efforts for the much larger and significant group of criminal defendants  at the pinnacle of financial crimes.

      If you think that you and a bunch of other people can just show up on Wall St, camp out and have any effect whatsoever.... Yes we can! Lexington Kentucky 77 days we are going strong!

      by BeeDeeS on Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 09:25:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think it's paranoia or CT to worry (5+ / 0-)

    about bills like this. There are so many clauses and amendments that allow and disallow things, I wonder if all it would take to pass something truly odious (getting harder to surpass that bar daily) would be to slip something in to 'reform' a previous amendment, in another 'must pass' bill that no one reads thoroughly or analyzes completely.

    Once power is granted, it will be used for unintended purposes. Look at how the 'Patriot Act' is used to hunt drug related 'crimes'.

    And the attitude of those wielding power over others only grows worse with time. Witness the recent OWS protests where non-violent protesters, where linking arms is classified as violent resistance. Wilco Tango Foxtrot.

    Don't even get me started about the SOPA disaster. To hell with stocking up on inertial weapons, stock up on ham radio equipment and encryption software. Freedom of WHAT?

    Remember the quote from Little boots, who said the Constitution is nothing but a gawdam piece of paper. Chilling words now, as they were then.

    It is not certain that everything is uncertain. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

    by BusyinCA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:15:47 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site