Welcome: Fascist Dictatorship America?

[Original Looper 1]

If You Thought Police Brutality Was Bad … Wait Until You See What Congress Wants to Do Next Week

The police brutality against peaceful protesters in Berkeley, Davis, Oakland and elsewhere is bad enough.

But next week, Congress will vote on explicitly creating a police state.

The ACLU’s Washington legislative office explains:

The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

***

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.

***

The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.
***

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

***

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

***

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown.

Part of an Ongoing Trend

While this is shocking, it is not occurring in a vacuum. Indeed, it is part of a 30 year-long process of militarization inside our borders and a destruction of the American concepts of limited government and separation of powers.

As I pointed out in May:

The ACLU noted yesterday [that] Congress is proposing handing permanent, world-wide war-making powers to the president – including the ability to make war within the United States:


Read the rest of the story at: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27886

****************************

All this while our country's borders to the north and south remain practically wide open and unsecured for over 40 years but especially during the past 10 years when we are supposedly in a war on terrorism.

It's apparent now that Obama is paying for everything - endless war profiteering, amnesty for illegals and public union largeness - by devaluing our currency (aka printing press inflation) and by cutting Social Security and Medicare for the elderly private sector retiree taxpayers that have paid for everything. And he's doing it with the help of both parties in Congress that represent their global bankster masters.

Don't count on the gaggle of Republican presidential candidates to solve our country's problems as their proposed policies will only add to the depth of the wealth transfer from the working middle class Americans to the very top group of global banksters and corporate CEOs.

Where's the corporate neocon sponsored, liberal media when you really need it? Oh that's right, they're busy bringing us the latest updates on Lindsay Lohan, who won Dancing with the Stars and the latest sports scores.

As always, follow the money.


Regards,

Paul

[zul8tr]

Some comments from the web. There could be some confusion? In any case the power given to the executive branch is another example of Liberty being limited over security. Ben was thinking about this at the start of this Republic............

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

- Benjamin Franklin



On 11/27/11 at 04:39 PM, fourgen wrote:
ACLU published

Report inappropriate comments
On 11/27/11 at 09:04 PM, jayber wrote:
This sounds pretty scary.

Report inappropriate comments
On 11/27/11 at 09:26 PM, JohnL50 wrote:
Sorry fourgen, but this is a bunch of ACLU and Alex Jones nonsense...

Read Section 1031 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."

---

And from Section 1032:

"(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(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."

---

Perhaps I need to brush up on my "legalese" fourgen, but I believe you have been swept into the wrong understanding on this one.

This does not circumvent the US Constitution.

When at War, a country must be allowed to persue the enemy.

Give it a 2nd look..


Report inappropriate comments
On 11/27/11 at 09:54 PM, JamminJahMon wrote:
What you just described is the Patriot Act. It's nothing new and hardly anybody cried foul (every single conservative politician was for it, except Ron Paul) when it was passed 10 years ago. Our conservative Congress passed this over and over in 2001, 2004, and 2006


Since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001 and nobody protested it, we've all become numb to it and now all of a sudden some people protest it when it suits their specific cause against government? Sure, nobody likes intrusion of government into their lives, but why are the mad people waiting until now to rally against something that they advocated for 10 years ago? What changed? All the stuff the intelligence agencies are doing now, they did under Bush for 8 years and nobody protested once. Obama has had 3 years, hasn't changed a thing and he's just kept the same personal in place who continued the previous policies that were in place for the sake of national security. What difference does it make now that it didn't make 10 years ago?


I don't like any of it and I thought it stunk from the beginning, but getting mad all of a sudden when you've had 10 years and haven't said a word until now seems a little weird.




Report inappropriate comments
On 11/27/11 at 11:22 PM, ThosPayne wrote:
Even Ron Paul has voiced concerns about S. 1867 and the NDAA detention provisions.

Report inappropriate comments
On 11/27/11 at 11:41 PM, ThosPayne wrote:
S. 1867 would give the federal government the explicit power to imprison civilians, including American citizens, indefinitely with no charges or trial. Control would be taken out of the hands of civilians and put under the jurisdiction of the military.


While Subsection 1031(c) of S. 1253 claims that it does not apply to lawful residents of the United States or citizens “on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution,” loopholes allow "suspects" to be imprisoned without charges, legal counsel, or trial - especially citizens or lawful residents of the USA who are suspected of wrongdoing outside of the United States.


The deciding factor on whether a citizen will be detained indefinitely is made by officials in the Executive Branch. The NDAA would remove federal, state, and local law enforcement and justice from the process of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution, and imprisonment and hand these powers over to the military acting under presidential fiat.



Report inappropriate comments
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log