60 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus (UPDATED)

Spread the love
  • Yum

Yet another update: S1867 has now been approved by the Democrat controlled senate. All those who were only pointing the finger at Republicans in comments below may want to re-examine their statements and take a long hard look at the false left-right paradigm and equally assign blame to both parties. The senate version still needs to be reconciled with the house version which has already passed.

Yahoo News goes on to say:

Shortly before final passage, the Senate unanimously backed crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump. The vote was 100-0.

“Iran’s actions are unacceptable and pose a danger to the United States and the entire world,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. “Iran supports terrorist groups, arms the killers of American soldiers, lies about its nuclear program, violates its citizens’ basic rights and threatens Israel’s security.”

If this is true, then it would mean Paul, Udall, Franken and Sanders (who tend to be highly regarded in the Truther and Patriot communities) would have backed these sanctions.

UPDATE: 60 senators betrayed you (it was 61, but Sen. Menendez changed his vote). They voted against an amendment to the Defense Authorization act, the indefinite suspension of Habeas Corpus. We are now officially a police state. Read the Amendment provision here. The house version of the bill is available here, 920 pages. Senate text is available here and a PDF of the full senate bill is available here, 682 pages. The amendment to the Defense Authorization act (the Udall amendment) would have removed some of the more draconian measures of the bill. To clear up some of the confusion, Sen. Udall was the good guy here.

We need to remember that the text of the bill would have provided issues for people who had not been legally found guilty (no due process), just suspected. If we look back at our recent history, we can see similar legislation being misused to silence political dissidents. Are you calling for the Federal Reserve to be abolished? Are you a John Bircher? Like the Tea Party better than Occupy or vice versa? Who knows how it can be misused. Not trying to be more alarmist than needed, but we do need to remain vigilant. Ignore your rights, and they will go away.

Their names are as follows:

Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

Sen. Menendez asked for and was granted (by unanimous consent from the Senate) to change his vote. He is now recorded as supporting the Udall amendment and the final tally is now 38 to 60.

Senate votes to let military detain Americans indefinitely on Huffington Post
S 1867 would overturn Posse Comitatus Act on the Examiner
Stop indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process – Oathkeepers

Play Saga First MMORTS

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. he lost my vote

  2. if you think that’s bad…Obama is pretty much admitting to it look up “preventative & indefinate detainment” on youtube….It’s crazy….Ron Paul 2012…save the constitution!!!

  3. More domestic terrorism !!!!! HANG EM’ HIGH !!!! REVOLT !!! REVOLUTION !!!!!

  4. Diane Maupin says:

    We have been betrayed! May God help us all! Our government won’t.

  5. This is fox… is it fear mongering propaganda or is it real? Remember the “death panels”? lol Remember the paid generals that came on to promote the invasion of Iraq?

  6. Tom seiber says:

    Hey idiot’s the people of this country elected you to the Senate.You inconsiderate, lazy,never actully worked a day in your life morons,can’t agree on taxes for the wealthy,give company’s a tax break for sending the building of almost everything overseas,then as stupid as you are complain about unemployment.In this day the VOTERS know probably 80% more than we used to.The computer is going to send you lookihg for work,and guess what, there isn’t any your bullshit bill’s sent it overseas.How long before China own’s the UNITED STATES? You might think it’s nice for you now and hell it is, it’ll be a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT UNDER CHINESE RULE.UNLESS CHINA ALREADY OWN’S US AND TOLD YOU WORTHLESS PUPPETS TO MAKE THE FIRST STEP TO MAKE US A POLICE STATE.Well we already had a revolution against England more than likely another one is on its way.If what in my opinion is you ROTTEN CON MORON’S THINK IT’S NOT GONNA HAPPEN,your even dumber than I think.Looking forward to keeping your job’s?HAHAHAHA

  7. Help me out here? Which clause in either bill suspends habeas corpus? Thanks in advance, –Mike

  8. old news – Bush already did it with the Military Commissions act of 2006, and Lincoln did it too in 1862.

  9. obama has said he will veto this bill.

  10. Welcome to the police state! No currently elected politician, or any who are running for nomination in 2012 has ANY idea how to get us out of this hole. The world is coming to an end, but only as you know it.

    Please don’t fuck this world up any worse than it already is. My daughters haven’t got to experience true freedom.

  11. frank a. combs iii says:

    treason and then some,possibly crimes against humanity? Rand/Ron Paul all the way.

  12. read the documents before you speak, i did and all it was change detainment procedures for the military not private citizens.

  13. One step closer to The Handmaid’s Tale… read it if you haven’t.

  14. Notice that there are no California Senators on that list.
    Also if Ron Paul was in office he would remind them that they are supposed to be upholding the Constitution and helping their constituents, not imprisoning them.
    Ron Paul 2012 or we are all screwed.

  15. did he say ‘sacrifice your freedom for liberty’ at one point? i mean out of context of course, but those words are synonymous last i checked, i’ve always wondered why we need to be redundant.

    there are a lot of arguments from the point of the constitution, or our founding fathers, or the bible (or your holy book of choice, i’m an atheist and i could really care less), or the declaration of independence that could be mentioned. but i really think those are all red herrings- focus on simple morality. do unto others as you would have them do unto you (older than the new testament of the bible for the record) this is not only enough to fuel a revolution, but it is the only basis for an argument. otherwise we will be perpetually divided by semantics and therefor conquered. the revolution is all in your head. mind over matter.

  16. I respect your message, and agree this was a betrayal, but the Udall Amendment was actually voted down. The amendment would have removed the language enabling indefinite detainment.

    Also…RE post by “sammejo” the Obama admin. has suggested it will VETO this bill, so yes, Obama is “admitting” the bill threatens civil liberties and if we’re lucky he’ll do something about it.

    Details matter folks. When you say something that is based on mistaken or misquoted facts it distorts or undercuts your arguments no matter how “good” they might otherwise be.

  17. John Dornheim says:

    I believe the President has promised to veto this bill.

  18. John Dornheim says:

    I believe the President has promised to veto this bill. Change your headline, though. to be more accurate.

  19. Patrick Hogan says:


    “But on Tuesday, the Senate disregarded Obama’s veto threat and rejected an amendment to the defense bill from Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have shelved the detainee provisions until a study could be conducted.”


    I’m sorry, you were saying?

  20. We, the People, will win this one. It’s just a matter of time.

  21. Darlene Wigston says:

    One step further into the book of Revelation! And the worst is yet to come.

  22. Ya notice how 90% of em are REPUBLICANS??? Greedy B**tards is all they are!
    If you think your gonna Run my Life, You better wake up now cuz you ruined OUR lives enough with you Money Hungry all for yourself decisions!!
    You wonder why people do what they do!!
    You LOST all of our Votes!


  24. Ayotte (R-NH)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Brown (R-MA)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hagan (D-NC)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wicker (R-MS)

    You better be looking for a job because you have just cut your own throat!

  25. JM in San Diego CA says:

    Not a problem.

    I notice that neither Boxer nor Feinstein were onboard with this one. I tend to worry less about it for that reason.

    I rarely agree with things they advocate, so I find myself unconcerned about something they oppose. If I find out the ACLU opposes it too, I’ll know I’m right.

    It’s a simple way to view such issues but it’s working like a charm.

  26. BOTH of my senators voted FOR this! I am so damned pissed off! THIS is one “vote” that IS going to cost them at the polls. Neither will be reelected. There are several THOUSAND of us “radicals” that are going to protest outside there homes, offices and at EVERY speaking event within the State of Kansas. DAMN TRATORS!!!!

  27. Im ashamed of our representatives.When our economy i in the shape it is in.They r ready to take away more and more of our rights True Americans that love this country.The only reason no1 has ever invaded American soil is bcuz most homes have firearms.We are suppose to have the same access to the weapons the government has so the government cant do what created this country n the 1st place.Taxation without representation.We will just ammend this law and do what we want.I 4 one dont feel like I’m represented in Washington.If we try to get prepared for a hurricane.Living in Fla. This is a yearly task. Now I cud b considered a terrorist.I know plenty of construction workers who have lost fingers to saw blades or a nail injury getting infected.Now they can b locked up indefinatly without due process.Please let ur state representatives and congress how u fell about how they r spending ur tax dollars when there are soo many other pressing problems going om n this country.I am truely ashamed they cant figure out what is important in this country.The rest of the world already hates us for spending thousands of dollars on our yards.Wasting all this pure water just to cut it on the weekend.They cant get clean water to drink.We have a nation run by idiots working every day trying to figure out how to take away more and more of their fellow Americans rights.Please wake up America and vote.I know u think ur vote doesnt count but it does so get off ur asses and lets change this crap even if it means a third party write in


  29. Uhm what sort of study do they need to do? This violates due process pure and simple.

  30. Patrick Hogan says:

    @Bobbilynn, Michael@: I don’t generally like Fox News. as I’m more of a liberal. However, the video above, with the newscasters shredding the politicians for this, is from Fox News, so really, guys, it’s not as polarized (party-wise) as it seems. I think it’s more likely the people with the money in their pockets (see the Democrats as well). And to that end, I worked the numbers, and the Republicans only count for 72%… Democrats count for 25% (Joe Lieberman= 3%). Nit-picking? Maybe. But just look at that 25%. If we point out faults, we need to look at our own as well…

    “I awoke, only to find that the rest of the world was still asleep.”

  31. Neither have you

  32. Very Good Article – worthy of my newsletter at http://miamicarpetcleaning.com/monthlynewsletter/
    pass the word people !

  33. Jessica B says:

    Thanks a bunch, Scott Brown.

  34. We are Toast.

  35. 15 of them (25% of the 60 votes) are Democrats.

  36. Gianto Robo says:

    Such shameful traitors. Another sad day. I remember when America used to be free. Now it is scary & only becomes darker day by day.

    I hope Americans arise united to slough off this fascist tyranny. To overthrow the revolting corporate system which puppeteers our now hollowed-out ‘government’ & has spirited our beloved democracy away.

    It frightens me how so many people are still unaware. The chains are lowering & soon will fasten so tight not one can ever hope to escape. If we cannot unite & stand together very soon… what will happen to America?

  37. Gianto Robo says:

    I think it is beyond voting now.

    Both parties only serve the rich corporate lobbyists & private sponsors. It does not matter anymore who is ‘president’. That has been made into a big puppet show. The system is rotten to the core. A new system must begin.

    Unfortunately systems cannot be elected. It is a much more difficult change.

  38. (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.

  39. yeah. this comment here about the newsletter is spam. there is no way this guy is putting this in his *carpet cleaning* newsletter. he’s just trying to get free advertising.

  40. Yup. And her more recent ones like Oryx and Crake. Also Starhawk’s The Fifth Sacred Thing. It’s getting harder and harder to sleep at night.

  41. Peggy Ellithorpe says:

    We expect the GOP to fall lockstep into these Orwellian ideas. THE REAL WALL OF SHAME IS HERE:

    Casey (D-PA)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Hagan (D-NC)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)

    If you live in one of these states, please send these politicians a lump of coal immediately. The SHAME. Oh the shame.

  42. When you say “FOR”, I assume you mean they voted AGAINST the amendment. Like i says in the article, Udall is the good guy here.

  43. I am very happy to see that no votes for this came out of Colorado. I still have some faith in our guys, they do respond to communication.

  44. Leroy Jenkins says:

    Slightly misleading. Many folks are taking this to mean that S. bill 1867 was passed on Tuesday, when that’s not true at all. In fact, today (1 DEC 11) the bill is still in legislative process and hasn’t had a passage vote yet. Udall amendment struck down, yes. National Defense Authorization bill passage, no. Also, there should be some mention of Feinstein’s amendment 1125, which requires a clarification of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees. This would cover some ground that the Udall amendment would have taken away, since it would actually make requirements instead of “because I said so”. Still a no good provision to ride onto the military funding bill, but since there’s not many blowing up their senator’s phones and rallying public support it seems, it’s the best we can get.

  45. Betsy Dicks says:

    first let me say I’m glad there aren’t any Colorado folks on there….

    having said that I need to point out that the way you put this sentence
    (They voted against an amendment to the Defense Authorization act, the indefinite suspension of Habeus Corpus) makes it look like they voted against suspending habeus corpus. Sorry for being so picky but I didn’t understand it at first and I’m a writer (a bit) and I’m a little nuts and proofread almost everything I read online….silly I know…..
    and this shows that we need to take it up a notch…..too bad it’s

  46. Betsy Dicks says:

    democrats aren’t much better…..it’s time to change things…..we need a new government and that’s all there is to it….

  47. Betsy Dicks says:

    They ALL need to go….except for Al Franken
    they all need to go and as Americans it is our duty to get the government back in line

  48. JG read more carefully. Citizens can fall under the definition of covered persons. The executive is not *required* to put a citizen under military custody as it is with non citizens, but it is given the power to do so.

    The construction amounts to this:

    1 The executive is granted the power to tie its shoes.
    2 The executive is not required to tie its left shoe.

    Does not being required to do something you get the power to do represent a real protection? I think not.

  49. Enough with the Ron Paul already. Many of us have heard his ideas, read his vision for the country, seen him speak and find him as incorrect as any other. The only thing that can be said for him is that he sticks to his guns–his dogmatic unbending guns. Well the ability to question your own ideas and perhaps be willing to change them is something thinking people appreciate. There IS a difference between flip-flopping for political gain, and recognizing an incorrect dogmatic stance that needs to be re-evaluated. I want a country that is a community, not the sink or swim, dog eat dog utopia the Pauls envision.

  50. Obama says alot of things.

  51. Happy to see my state (Oregon) was not represented in this!

  52. You have no one to blame but yourselves for the destruction of our country. You (collective voters) have voted for people like President Obama, Senators Kerry, Schumer, Levin, Stabenow, Boxer, Kennedy, Fienstien, Cantwell, Murry, Durbin, Coons, Franken, Leahy, McCaskill, Menendez, Mikulski, Reid, Rockefeller, Sanders, Sheheen and all the Republicans who are anti-American!

    It’s not the politicians fault. They’re only doing what’s in their hearts. It’s the voters fault for the way America is. If you want change then vote right and vote all the anti-American idiots out of Washington.

  53. Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!

  54. Kudos

  55. on the contrary says:

    for the last time, RON PAUL IS A MASON
    part of the game..
    the elected = selected

  56. Everyone needs to research and learn about Esteban Garcia. All the good he does through God in using the habeus corpus to get the wrongly accused or unjust sentencing of prisoners free. Without the habeus corpus, Esteban’s life’s work through God would be so much harder! Please take the time to read about his great work and all the help he does! You will see why the habeus corpus is so important to our civil rights! Also take the time to check out the sites he has set up on facebook…..well worth it!!

  57. The presidency has been an ‘appointment’ for quite some time. They all work for the bankers. Our system was taken over a very long time ago. Unfortunately, most people have been so busy with their lives, they simply missed what happened. We lost our sovereignty in 1913 with the signing of the federal reserve act. We are literally owned by the rothschild family. I know it sounds crazy but unfortunately it’s true. WE THE PEOPLE need to stand together and TAKE BACK AMERICA. Nothing short of a revolution will work. We need to end this left/right paradigm and go back to the constitutional republic which the founders intended…

  58. What vote? Oh, you mean the easily hackable voting machine vote where you get to choose between the lesser of two evil Democratic or Republican servants of their gilded fascist elite masters. So again I ask, What vote?

  59. 25% of them were Dems. Can’t pass the jobs bill but sure can arrest american citizens.

  60. Not arguing about anything else you’ve said but China only holds 8% of our national debt ($1.14 trillion)… About 6% of that debt has been cause by the American PEOPLE ($959 billion). $9.8 of the $14.3 trillion debt is owned by the American people and the government. ( if you do the math that means that nearly $9 trillion of $14.3 debt is owed by the US GOVERNMENT to the US PEOPLE.) The reason why republicans had no issue raising the debt limit when bush was in office is being the people they were opening the tab up with were other republicans who own companies that make military equipment and other crap. No republicans what to collect on that bill. Otherwise they would just dismiss the debt and instantly fix our economy…

  61. In section 1033. the lie they keep telling you about that supposedly excluded US citizens is in section 1013 of the NDAA bill. (BTW I may have mixed those up but those are the 2 sections of the bill you are looking for.)

  62. It wouldn’t matter. If Obama vetos it then it just gets sent back for another vote. If the amendment fails to pass again with a majority vote of 2/3 then the law stays and the president can’t do a thing about it. Sadly thou the 2/3 majority vote almost already resides on the side of the republicans.. they already have 61.2% of the votes on their side.. welcome to Nazi America.

  63. It wouldn’t matter. If Obama vetos it then it just gets sent back for another vote. If the amendment fails to pass again with a majority vote of 2/3 then the law stays and the president can’t do a thing about it. Sadly thou the 2/3 majority vote almost already resides on the side of the republicans.. they already have 61.2% of the votes on their side.. welcome to Nazi America.

  64. Ladies and gentleman, please return to your TENTH GRADE US GOVERNMENT CLASSES! It wouldn’t matter If Obama vetoed it (not even saying he wants to) because if he did veto it, it would just get sent back for another vote. If the amendment fails to pass again with a majority vote of 2/3 then the law stays and the president can’t do a thing about it. Sadly for us the 2/3 majority vote almost already resides on the side of the republicans.. they already have 61.2% of the votes on their side, we have no hope of getting this overturned.. welcome to Nazi America.


  66. These Particular Politicians represent a Danger to America & All Americans, regardless.


    *regarding the UDALL now FEINSTEIN Amendment:


    Their Petitions already ACCEPTS that MILITARY force can be used against our Civilian Population .. which is ILLEGAL and against Constitutional Law .. so .. IT’S SUPPORTS USING MILITARY FORCE AGAINST OUR CIVILIAN POPULATION .

    Their Petitions only stated purpose is to remove the ‘ indefinite incarceration ‘ from the wording .. while getting ‘ Voters ‘ to Petition allowing the USE of MILITARY FORCE against our CIVILIAN POPULATION.

    Use of America’s MILITARY FORCES against Our Civilian Population is NOT ACCEPTABLE nor CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL AT ANY TIME!


    The Occupied Wall Street Journal
    You can’t evict an idea.

  67. China already owns the United States sweetie.

  68. The problem is that while it is similar to Handmaid’s Tale they don’t have the problem of infertility that was the scare back in the 1980s.

    We have yet to see someone murder the President and then gun down all of Congress as well.

    Plus the fact that the Republic of Gilead is run by religious political movements. The United States would be too stupid to try and create a world where a woman’s role is so degraded from what it once was.

  69. But would not the book of Revelation regard the entire world, and this is just the United States?

  70. Actually, it change the detainment procedures for private citizens in that it now considers the United States to be part of the warzone, which gives the military the ability to arrest anyone, anywhere, without charges, Miranda rights, or any of the other rights that every US citizen is legally guaranteed, all while being held indefinitely.
    The 60 names above are traitors to the United States and it’s citizenry, and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate should be arresting them all on grounds of Treason.
    Shame, shame, shame.

  71. Randy Armijo says:

    Bastards!…they are bringing on the New Revolution now!…Keep the lists for your sites!

  72. Randy Armijo says:

    Right On!

  73. Randy Armijo says:

    Hell yes! Colorado! Most High!

  74. Not true, I read the document, it changes the detainment procedures for those detained BY THE MILITARY. It excludes any member of the military. It’s on page 2, subsection (b): Covered persons – A covered person under this section is any person, OTHER THAN A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, whose detention or persecution BY THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES…

  75. Robert I. Laitres says:

    Which it is my sincere hope he will do. That bill should be titled “A Bill Put Forth to be Vetoed and Arrive at the President’s Desk DOA”

  76. Jim Tuckers says:

    I imagine they needed to “study” whether Americans would let them get away with this.

  77. 61Traitors

  78. I haven’t read through both documents yet, but there is a pretty suspect clause in the house version, page 441, line 17 through 21:

    (4)The President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority to detain belligerents… until the termination of hostilities

    I read that as the Military having the right to detain any person whom they consider to be hostile or anyone who they consider to be aiding or supporting any person considered hostile until whatever the US government considers to be the end of the war. That would suspend habeas corpus for those specific individuals. It is definitely important to note, but I do think the author of this article is going a little overboard suggesting that any person in the US who might be pro Tea Party or pro Occupy Movement might be detained indefinitely. The Amendment clearly states that these bills apply on to those detained by the military.

    Note, I am not arguing in defense of this bill. I simply believe that all Americans have the right to understand the unspun facts. Congressional bills are so overwrought with difficult legalese that it takes advantage of the average person’s ability to understand the true cost of what our politicians are doing.

  79. Eva Thury says:

    To me, it’s not okay that we are doing it to non-citizens, but that’s something for us to discuss. Some people feel so threatened that they feel we are at war and these are the enemy, so it’s okay to treat them differently from citizens. I’m not down with that.

  80. Philip Medlock says:

    US Constitution Article 1 Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed

  81. This is what everyone gets for voting republican. If China has not ordered this just wait they can. They have ALREADY BOUGHT OUR JOBS. They pay the chamber of commerce and others billions to fool you fools, into thinking republicans are good for you. This is what you have brought us. Can’t figure out why the democrats are doing this unless you are right, that it is too late.

    I guess it is time to storm the exchange.

  82. Paul Citro says:

    Did the Senate exempt itself from this law?

  83. They passed S. Amdt. 1456 by a vote of 99 to 1. This amendment, Removes U.S Citizens from the target list. They couldnt take 1867 out completely, so they modified it. It means that Americans are safe.

  84. Hey Korva, where exactly (which document/page) did you get this? I would appreciate the context. Thanks!

  85. Mary Ann Martorana says:

    Of course there are no California senators on that list. If there were we wouldn’t let them come home.

  86. until the private citizens are labeled as “domestic terrorists” for disagreeing with the governments decisions that effect you. then were does this argument hold water????

  87. My anger at our increasingly worthless government grows. It’s like they’re deliberately setting out to pull off the dumbest shit they can think of. During a recession, while a major protest is sweeping the country, they pull this and are attempting to pull off PIPA/SOPA? The only thing that can come from this is the wrath of the American public, and they MUST realize this. If they keep up such idiocy, I suspect it won’t be long until we see the Second American Revolution. And sadder yet, I’ll be glad to see it come.

  88. Senator Udall actually voted for this… Read his own website. Scary times indeed…

  89. R.B.Yetman says:

    remember who they are and vote them all out .Anti-patriotic bastards,how could they even put this up for a vote this is treason and for it they should not even tried as they would wish upon us but just plain shot.

  90. Obama promised to veto this bill if it passes. Make sure you know all facets of an issue before you form an opinion.

  91. Near the very beginning of the article it says:
    They voted against an amendment to the Defense Authorization act

    It never says they passed s1867 or even tries to imply as such. Absolutely nothing misleading.

    Read more: http://wearechangetv.us/2011/11/61-senators-betrayed-you-today-they-authorized-the-indefinite-suspension-of-habeus-corpus

  92. WRONG! The damage has been done whenever DEMOCRATS have had the majority in Congress and yes of coarse your Messiah Obama in the whitehouse. So asshole dont just blame republicans . Most of the shit has come from the dems!

  93. Well, on the bright side, if it passes after a veto, maybe the military can invade wallstreet for us and arrest all the 1%ers that screwed America and hold them forever. :-)

  94. All that is needed to be done is to make The Bill of Rights ENFORCABLE! The Bill of Rights is the highest law of our land and MUST be treated as such! EVERYTHING government does should pass the test of The Bill of Rights. Any government agency that does not pass this test will be deemed unconstitutional and should be immediately shut down

  95. You do realize that only 16 of the 60 senators that voted for this were Democrat–right?

    Please read the whole article. There was like 1 independent, and the rest were Republicans.

    Obama is vetoing this bill when if it crosses his desk.

  96. – please read the whole article.

    Out of those 60 Senators, only 16 were Democrats. Please read the whole article.


  97. JG is correct…and I simply do not get the “hysteria…” If the “relevant sections” 1031,1032,1033 & 1034 were as are being portrayed, I would be just as alarmed as others here. But, they are not. The text is clear. This is a change in Obama policy being enacted into law (hence Veto threat). That is, “legit” terrorists (NOT US Citizens) are now “required” to be detained by the US Military (no due process, no miranda, etc.) which I have no problem with. “Covered Persons” specifically “does not extend to” US Citizens or Legal US Residents “on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States…” [See Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens; Sec. 1032; (b)(1)(2)]. So, I would ask…what part of “does NOT extend to…” [US Citizens] can somehow be interpreted as “extending to US Citizens?” This is more accurately, the “no more Rights for Terrorists” Act, but it has nothing to do with Detaining American Citizens…Period!

  98. KO

    Not sure what bill you’re reading but the text you indicate in bold letters is not found in S. 1867 Title X, Sec. 1031 or 1032, which are the parts of the bill that extend to US citizens. You may be looking at a completely different part of the bill referring to a completely different topic. It’s not hard to do, even in debate on the floor of the Senate people were referring to sections of the bill incorrectly, or misrepresenting the full meaning of what it says.

    Example, Sen. Graham emphatically stated that all detentions were subject to judicial review quoting Title X sec. 1035. Except that 1035 only applies to people detained at Guantanamo and it only allows for review by a military judge, not a civil judge. So a US Citizen detained under this bill but not held at Gitmo gets no review, unless they can invoke habeas corpus, which the whole bill throws into question.

  99. While it’s true that the Dems maintained control over both houses of Congress for a short time, remember that a 60-super majority is required on any piece of legislation before it can move from debate to a vote. A single senator can voice an ‘objection’ to the bill, thus putting it into filibuster limbo, which cannot be broken unless they achieve, again, a 60-vote super majority. Since Obama was sworn-in the Republicans have used their right to filibuster (which is a pathetic excuse of the administrative tool it once was) more times than all previous sessions of Congress combined. And a great number of the bills that they have filibustered were concerning measures that their party has long supported. However, since their ‘mission in life’ is the defeat of Obama come 2012, they are excersing any and every weapon they can to ensure that little of the President’s or the Dems of Congress’ agenda is even voted on, let alone passed or defeated.

    There are things that could and should have been done to help this nation on its road to economic recovery. Much of that has not been done, as a result of the actions of the Republicans. And let’s not forget that Republicans promised to make Jobs their number one priority since winning control of the House, and yet have failed utterly to produce any measure that could win sufficient support to pass. Not to mention that their idea of job stimulus is providing even more tax breaks for those individuals and businesses who are the greatest users of government services and infrastructure.

    How will Republicans justify allowing millions of Americans remain out-of-work, just so they can try to get the job of one man?

  100. Eva Thury says:

    The first thing I said which was deleted somehow is that the name of the thing we are talking about is “habeas corpus,” not “habeus corpus.” It means “you may have the body” and it refers to the fact that we are talking about a writ about whether someone else may take over your body–by throwing you in jail. “Habeus corpus” is incorrect.

  101. Sad to say but this will only create another civial war americans vs goverment only thing i can say is time to bare arms

  102. Jade S Crespo says:

    The black panthers tried to make some changes and they all got kill!

  103. Couldn’t have said it better.
    Also, not only is the the phrase you quote older than the new testament, a version of it is in every so-call “good book” man has ever created to represent the word of his god/gods. Yet our greed will almost always overpower it.

  104. @my name says: You will find it under Sec. 1032 (b)(1)(2) of S.1867. It is perfectly clear language. This whole blog is completely misleading and the issue is being totally misportrayed. There is NO betrayal. @WeAreChangeSF: I find what you are doing here extremely disingenuous. THIS “DOES NOT EXTEND TO” American Citizens, period. It applies only to “legit” terrorists, and now “requires” the Military to Detain them (NOT US Citizens). It is a change to Obama Policy being enacted into Law on how to handle terrorists (i.e. no miranda, due process, etc.). That is why Repubs are for and Dems against, and why Obama is signaling a Veto. All the hysteria here is misplaced. And, btw, @all you Lefisit/Democrat/Socialist Obama Lovers – STOP! We are NOT a Class System. You are advocating the destruction of the only system in the history of the world that allows “the have nots” to become “the haves.” The issue is Opportunity & the Freedom to pursue it. Limited Enumerated Federal Powers. If Obama prevails, say goodbye to that very precious opportunity that so many have died to preserve…and hello to permanent misery. Why would anyone wnat that? Real Constitutional Conservatism (not R vs. D) is the only thing that will save US…if you love your Country, I ask you each to re-evaluate your support for Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et.al., and any RINO’s.

  105. My sentiments exactly, Kevin!!!

  106. Bravo :) i could nt have said it better

  107. Near the end of the bill they say they can target a civilian if they really feel like it. Did you read all 600+ pages or just the 3 or 4 parts everyone quotes repeatedly when making that allegation of our being disingenuous and misleading?

  108. bare or bear? there’s a difference

  109. Taylor,

    I am surprised that you can read the language and still miss how it works. You say: “what part of “does NOT extend to…[US Citizens] can somehow be interpreted as “extending to US citizens?”

    Here’s how:

    1 – Section 1031 permits the executive to place any “covered person” suspected of al-Qaeda association into military detention without trial.

    It simply does. This is not debatable. Furthermore there is no limitation here exempting US Citizens.

    2 – Section 1032(b)(1)(2) states that THE REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN A PERSON IN MILITARY CUSTODY…does not extend to US citizens.

    Please understand what that is saying. It does not say as you suggest that “covered persons” does not include US citizens. It says that if a covered person is also a US citizen then the executive is NOT REQUIRED to place them in military custody. It still permits the executive to put a covered person who is a US citizen into military detention if the executive chooses to do so.

    Your understanding of what the bill will do is inaccurate.

  110. Liz,

    This still matters. The larger the body of law authorizing actions like these the more it becomes secured by precedent and difficult to reverse. You are correct that Lincoln under cut protections for citizens in the context of the Civil War. You are also correct that it was done again in 2006. But what Lincoln did was not repeated until very recently. Lincoln’s precedent – occurring during a crisis so dire that it threatened the existence of the Republic – was used to justify actions by the Bush administration under circumstances that were difficult, but hardly comparable. What Lincoln did probably helped save the Republic in 1862. What is going on now may be setting the stage for the end of the Republic within our own lives or those of our children.

    If we allow expanded executive powers like this to be clothed with legitimacy then they will be “legitimate” and we’ll have to live with them forever.

  111. ddavid8181 says:

    You are a moron!!

  112. Taylor,

    Although you claim that the language is “perfectly clear” it appears that you do not understand it very well.

    If I give you the power to shoot all the dogs on the earth, but tell you shooting dogs without tails is NOT REQUIRED, you still have the power to shoot all the dogs on the earth. If you then proceeded to do and I said, “Wait you weren’t supposed to shoot the ones without tails!” You could correctly state, “No I wasn’t REQUIRED to shoot them. I did so to be absolutely sure and after all I was given the power to do so.”

    Sec. 1031 gives the executive power to place *all* covered persons in military custody.

    Sec. 1032 *requires* the executive to place non-citizen covered persons in military custody. It does not prevent the executive from using its 1031 powers to detain US Citizens should the executive decide to do so. It simply says use of the sec. 1031 powers are *required* in the case of non-citizens and *not required* in the case of citizens.

  113. You realize that every one of these officeholders has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. To the extent that this bill represents an erosion of Constitutional protections for American citizens it is a violation of that oath. The voters send their representatives to Congress in good faith. They cannot tell the future and are not somehow *more* responsible for the faithless actions of their representatives then those officeholders themselves.

    That being said, yes we should vote out these people and get better people into office.

  114. Here is the text of the relevant amendment:

    On p. 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

    (e) 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.

    This amounts to an effort to preserve habeas corpus rights for US citizens and resident aliens. But it is a weak effort. It does not effect the powers conferred in Sec. 1031 and 1032 of Title X. Those sections subject all covered persons including US citizens to the possibility of indefinite detainment without trial. These words might do you some good if you ever got a petition before the Supreme Court, but your access to civil processes is at the whim of the executive. What if they don’t want to give you that access?

  115. O'Neal Jones says:

    Do you really think the president will turn down supreme dictatorial powers? A president? A politician,…..are you serious? The best we can hope for is that this is a really elaborate re-election campaign scheme. There is no left or right, conservative/ liberal issue here….just an issue of the people of this country having their rights taken away.

  116. No, the right to bare arms. Wear T-shirts.

  117. Just because the executive isn’t required to do so they still have the power to do so if they want to.

  118. I read that obama was going to veto it because it didn’t go far enough.

    He’s a traitor to the democratic rank and file – so is reid and most of congress.

    The worry about Israel’s priorities and not about American’s needs as in gasoline.


  119. Harvey Henkelmann says:

    1984 here we come!!!

  120. Peter Walsh says:

    Here is an analysis of how the NDAA works like a bill of attainder:


    Check it out if you’re interested.

  121. @Huttah…thanks for the clarification. That is exactly what I was looking for was a way to reconcile the “Requirement” part – which is clear – and the “hysteria” part – which is “let’s go round up them damn Tea Partiers, etc.” So, I think my understanding of the Bill and what IT will do IS accurate…the issue is what will a given Executive do with this discretion? And, no I don’t want BHO making these decisions, but hell, I don’t want BHO making ANY decisions. My greater concern is the “boy crying wolf syndrome’ when the time comes, God-fordid, one-day it really matters. I am not particularly concerned about being linked to Al Qaeda myself…are you? Anyone you know? And, except for the language “including any person who has committed a belligerent act” which I would vigoroudly agrue to have removed…again, the quote “target” unquote of this legislative “affirmation” – which is what it is – an affirmation of previously delegated powers (Public Law 107-40) is in fact, “legitimate” terrorists, who will no longer get mirandized, due process, or other rights BHO/Holder want them to have, etc. Do you really think BHO in the next twelve months will use this Law to falsely accuse otherwise law-abiding Tea Party Conservatives, or other harmless opposing political party US Citizens and swoop them up without any Public hue and cry? Really? Huttah, you write very well, but the tin-foil hat may be getting a bit tight. Just sayin…

  122. Alexander says:

    Can’t believe some people are still arguing in terms of the Republican / Democratic parties. Can’t you see it is all fiction? The two parties represent the same force – using different lies and excuses to promote the same agenda. Wake up!

  123. Did anyone notice that the Iran sanctions are for denying their citizens basic rights while they are taking ours? In case there is any confusion the Udall Amendment would NOT have rendered the bill any less dangerous to the American people. More importantly THINK for a minute about what this means and this ‘dissent’ from some reps. Do you really think they are not ALL clamoring for this. Its no coincidence this comes amid the nationwide protests, 911 and antiwar movements gaining traction. NO DUE PROCESS WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!! Where is the outrage from the reps that cast nay votes? There is none because they are ALL in on this treason!!!! We are ALL terrorists now. This is what the naysayers said would never happen, the researchers acitvists and historians have been warning about and what we knew was coming and have been dreading. When can we start detaining war criminals and terrorists within our corrupt out of control govt?

  124. Please catch up. FOX produced propaganda films for the Nazis and is not infiltrated by CIA. FOX NEWS IS A CIA OPERATION! Research it.

  125. @Taylor

    While I agree that the provisions of this bill are unlikely to affect me personally in the short term, it makes no difference. Allowing an erosion of our Constitutional protections now will have consequences upstream. I have two children and I’d like them to inherit a Republic where liberty is still protected by Constitutional limits on executive authority. I am not looking at the next twelve months I’m looking at the next twelve decades. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the 1860s has reappeared recently as precedent for limited habeas corpus in the 21st century. My concerns here are not fanciful events in the present exemplify the threat a bill like this could represent to the future.

    The problem with the language of the bill is its vagueness on several counts that produce far-ranging powers in the executive with very weak checks. You take issue with “belligerent act”. I find “material support” (or whatever the actual phrase is) to be the most disturbing as it is vague enough to apply to many situations.

    I respect your view that none of this matters in the short term, but I suggest you might want to do some long term thinking looking both forward and backward. The founding generation went apeshit in 1773 over a law that actually *lowered* the market price of tea simply because they saw it as a threat to the long term preservation of their liberty. In the opinion of the British imperial government the American colonists were a pack of inconvenient crackpots. I guess tight tin-foil hats are a well established tradition in American political thought and include some of the same people who framed the Constitution. Just sayin….

  126. David Myers says:

    I don’t think he cares. He’s in-the-system and they will take care of him.

  127. Huttah,

    Very well articulated, and I concur wholeheartedly with your above analysis. Thank you for the thoughtful and mature discourse. I consider myself a “Constitutional Conservative” and I am a believer in “Limited Enumerated Federal Power,” our Founders vision (tight-hats and all – so no disrespect meant with that descriptor), and the free-market system (ala Adam Smith). It sounds like you and I are on the same page relative to the errosion of the checks & balances necessary to preserve our Liberties, the desire to preserve the same for our children & their posterity, and the very real threats thereto, which have been compounding particularly over the past Century. I agree with G. Washington on his admonitions regarding political parties. The challenge we all face is how to put the “genie back in the bottle.” My main contention with the debate surrounding this particular Bill, is that the “discretionary” part of the executive power you seem to find the most concerning, already existed before this specific “affirmation” – the new part is the “requirement” portion (for the military vis a vis non-citizens as you accurately state). So, this Bill does not change the fact that the current POTUS, or any future potential despotic POTUS with nefarious aims could “choose to” falsely indict politcally enemies (US Citizens) with a misuse of the already existing executive power. It appears, then the difference is with this Bill, now he can have the military handle the detention, rather than FBI, DHS, CIA, or some other domestic agency? To me, that is a distinction without a difference. And, as viligant as we must be, I am not sure how we, as a People, prevent that should a particular POTUS be so inclined? It is for this reason, I characterized much of this as “hysteria,” for as I said ‘the genie is already out of the bottle.” But, you make very sound, salient points. Thanks, again.

  128. @ Taylor,

    I appreciate your kind words and your own high level of discussion.

    Perhaps you can help me with some specifics: where exactly does the executive already have the power to place US citizens into indefinite military custody?

    The 2001 use of force resolution lets the executive wage war on any nation, organization or persons involved in the Sept. 11th attack or anyone that materially supports them. I imagine in the heat of the moment it never occurred to anyone that US citizens could fall into that universe. But regardless perhaps we can agree that the Congress cannot declare war on a US citizen? A citizen committing treason falls under a judicial process. Nothing I can find in law has changed this and use of the FBI, DHS, CIA etc. would not subject a citizen to indefinite detention while isolating them from a civil judicial process.

    The NDAA bill would allow the executive to place anyone in the category of “covered person” into indefinite military custody, without trial. The only specific protection for US citizens is that the executive is “not required” to invoke military custody in their case, though I hope you agree the executive could still opt to do so.

    This is a new grant of power. Now I grant that it will not affect most citizens directly. In fact the only people that it will affect are a very unsympathetic group of louts that we might rightly say hardly deserve their citizenship.

    But none of that matters. The effect of this bill is to craft something called a bill of attainder. A tiny universe of citizens, who fit the category of “covered persons” would be subject to a law that identifies them, punishes them (imprisonment falls into a specific legal definition of punishment in this case) and denies them recourse to a trial. BTW, Sen. Graham was clear on this issue in debate. This bill can mean a de facto life sentence for a covered person. He was also clear on his disdain for due process in the case of covered persons – regardless of their citizenship. He is reported to have said: “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ ”

    This cannot be necessary to protect the homeland and even if it were this type of law is specifically forbidden in two sections of the US Constitution. Allowing this to become precedent means that Congress may craft other clusters of legislation that have similar effects tending to widen the number of people subject to imprisonment without Constitutional protection. I doubt I’d live to see it, but it still matters.

    The problem with waiting until “God-forbid one day it really matters” is that it’s far too late by then. If 50 years from now people are subject to legislative proscription they’ll have been acclimated to it, it will be used in politically popular ways and it will serve as responses to domestic problems that people want to see solved. I do not add my voice to those who say “now we live in a police state”. But when the police state actually comes it will be because people will want it and they will probably not recognize that they’re choosing to live in one.

  129. The use of military force against the civilian population is legal and has been used that way at various times from the founding of the country starting with George Washington using the military to put down the Wiskey Rebellion in the 1790s. The very oath of office states that that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

  130. Wasn’t the Wishkey rebellion about taxes?T hat would then make that force illegal, no?

  131. i’ve got a couple bear arms hanging around here somewhere, gonna smack the crap out of the national guard w/ ’em- aha, just kidding. this sucks, it’s painful, and it will keep being painful but we need to sacrifice … for our rights… because freedom isn’t free (jefferson not anonymous rednecks)

    viva la revelation

  132. MajorHart says:

    SO then congress will have to attack itself, since they are the domestic enemy.

  133. Jimbo1866 says:

    Divide and Conquer

  134. Jimbo1866 says:

    Yes, but it’s like shoot first, ask questions later. This started with Bush and is following its logical conclusion – the ongoing erosion of rights of all. The government no longer fears it citizens, it controls us through fear. This is just one more tool, in this case the denial of due process.

    Be careful what you say. . .

  135. Huttah,

    I feel you…to answer your question, may I ask specifically, where does the Executive already have the power to kill American Citizens with drone strikes? Would you not agree this action is a bit more extreme than “[opting to]…subject a citizen to indefinite detention while isolating them from a civil judicial process,” and certainly has happened, prior to the enactment of this Law? Additionally, as you seem to agrue that a “rogue” executive is a “neccessary condition” who would then necessarily have to chose to act upon the most cynical of interpretations of the Law; it would seem the current occupant has already proven both of us correct, unless of course, he is never held accountable for his actions. Furthermore, as to the FBI, DHS, CIA, etc… If I am not mistaken, I believe under all current & existing law (including Public Law 107-40), each of these Agencies answer to the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, his discretion as to how each Agency treats an individual US citizen would appear to be rather absolute, at this point in history, irrespective of this new proposed Law (S.1867).

  136. Taylor,

    I agree that “targeted” drone strikes against US citizens is a terrible precedent. The main difference between what happened to al-Awlaki and what the current NDAA allows is that al-Awlaki was apparently part of the military command of al-Qaeda and he was outside the US. If he’d been killed incidentally “on the battlefield” no one would bat an eyelash. But it seems he was specifically targeted and that amounts to execution of a death sentence without trial.

    But the fact of al-Awlaki’s targeted killing does not justify the further expansion of executive authority represented by the NDAA. All of the executive agencies you note: CIA, FBI, DHS while operating within the executive are supposed to follow due process. You may argue that they do not always do so (and I’d agree) but to the extent they do not this is recognized by our legal system as wrong and subject to correction. What NDAA would do is take an inappropriate extension of executive authority (permanent detention without trial) and clothe it in legal legitimacy.

  137. Huttah,

    No argument. It appears to me this legislation indeed expands the authority of the Executive far beyond Constitutional limits, and is wholy unecessary to boot. Thanks for your assistance in helping me understand it better. It would appear that we agree on balance. [“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle…” – Thomas Jefferson (First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801)]. Upon first hearing of S1867, my “knee-jerk” reaction was the same as yours, and many on here on this blog. However after reading it, I was perplexed, and tempered my reaction, while seeking a more thorough understanding of it. Now, I am back to being totally apoplectic. In my original reading, I focused on the “requirement” (1032) more than the “executive discretion” (1031). I also considered it more in its context of the definition of “detainees held at Gitmo” than the loophole surrounding “covered persons” along with the political and policy context(s) of our time. The more fundamental issue is giving dictatorial power to the executive (which admittedly, I did not recognize at first). The greater issue though, still boils down to virtue in my view. We are suffering a tremendous dirth of virtuous leadership across the board. [As John Adams said, “The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.” June 21, 1776. And, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, “…without virtue, there can be no political liberty…”] I do believe the majority of the American People are still virtuous (albeit perhaps 53%/47%). And, it is paramount that we make it to Nov 2012 to cast our ballots. My greatest fear now is the current Administration is putting the pieces in place such that, God forbid, we may not get that opportunity, (i.e. couple this Bill (and it’s timing) with the “nationwide test of the emergency broadcast system” conducted for the first time EVER only a few weeks ago. Things that make you go hmmm…?) We are living through extremely tenuous times for the Republic.

  138. @John R: two-words: Harry Reid! 900+ days with no budget, and 60+ years of failed Democrat policies, the creation of a permanent under-class (when we were never a class system to begin with), the destruction of Liberty and threatened destruction of opportunity itself – the one thing that is uniquely American – the ability to be born a “have-not” and become “a have” in this Country, and now, preparing to give dictatorial power to a man who has already proven he will send a drone to kill an American Citizen, if he chooses. Meanwhile, you are so brainwashed, you keep voting for Democrats, while the Country goes to hell around you. Not all Republicans are virtuous, but Republicans have sent 23 “common-sense” bills from the House to the Senate. Harry Reid has not allowed a vote! Now, that’s a Representative Republic! Enjoy the Socialist hell you have helped to create by voting for Dems.

  139. Hi Nora,
    How about we let Obama tell you how he felt on the topic (treason) back in 2009. This is what the historians, researchers and activists have been warning of. They will pass this with great (fake) debate and dissent (Feinstein, Udall, Paul) but dont be fooled. They are all clamoring for this because the populace is starting to catch on to how bad things are. As our voices grow the corner gets a little closer to their back. They wont just give up power. It will be ugly.

  140. Absolutely jaw dropping…the definition of “fundamentally transform” gets clearer everyday. Equally amazing, this was reported on MSNBC by Rachael Madcow. A naked, full-frontal assault on our Constitution and basic liberties. All that remains now, is the speech explaining why we must suspend the Nov 2012 election “for our own good.” I have said it before, and will say it again…Obama08 = Castro59. I hope I am wrong, and history will be the judge, but sadly the vast majority of Americans (folks on this blog generally excepted) are too apathetic, complacent, or brainwashed to care. We are “the boling frog” and the heat is being turned up.

  141. Huttah,

    Did you see this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43BJ8yrYyfY Absolutely jaw dropping…the definition of “fundamentally transform” gets clearer everyday. Equally amazing, this was reported on MSNBC by Rachael Madcow. A naked, full-frontal assault on our Constitution and basic liberties (which we already knew). All that remains now, is the speech explaining why we must suspend the Nov 2012 election “for our own good.” I have said it before, and will say it again…Obama08 = Castro59. I hope I am wrong, and history will be the judge, but sadly the vast majority of Americans (folks on this blog generally excepted) are too apathetic, complacent, or brainwashed to care. We are “the boiling frog” and the heat is being turned up.

  142. We been saying this was coming for Years.. and lookie here guess what.. IT’S HERE.. SHAKING MY DAYUM HEAD.. i see my michigan people signed it.. for shame and forget my vote .

  143. Before all of you go flying off the handle let me point out that the article is 100% crap. The amendment that failed would have done nothing but create useless reports wasting more tax dollars. Read the text of the amendment and the Section that the amendment would apply to. Here is one of the parts of the affected section that would have been removed:

    (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.

    Habeas Corpus is a constitutional right and absolutely nothing can change the constitution but another constitutional amendment. A simple bill passed by one house of the congress can not do change the constitution. The same bill if passed by the house of reps, can not change the constitution.

  144. glenn geronimo cernicky says:

    Thanks for your perception! :)

  145. elections can be and are rigged and if you don’t think so you are naive. We don’t get to vote into office who we really want!! that’s all decided before hand it’s the guy who can BUY the most support. I was reading another article on Hillary raising hell with Russia over their elections hell the same thing is happening here.
    I agree with you Tom we do need a revolution. Big business has taken over our country and turned it into a nation of greedy bastards that think only of themselves. Who ever said “money is the root of all evil” knew what they were talking about.

  146. they don’t stand by anything else they say why should we believe this?? they also said they wouldn’t interfere with state medical marijuana laws but they certainly are!!! and to those of you who don’t know YES that is in writing. But yet they raid dispensaries and farmers and make it look like an illegal operation when it wasn’t just to push their weight around and show us pee ons that they can still come in and tear up your home, take your money, destroy your livelyhood , arrest you and detain you and misconstrue the law to suit themselves claiming violations that never happened and those of us with a mmj card may not be able to use our card in defense if prosecuted, it is happening every day.

  147. Taylor,

    Thanks for the link to the MSNBC piece. One of the things I find interesting about this issue is that here is something many on “opposite” sides of the political landscape can agree upon. My limited survey of political discussion on the internet bears this out so far. So called “left” and “right” do not seem to apply to this issue. You and I may disagree on many matters of policy, etc. (just a “for instance” I don’t really know for sure) and agree on this very strongly. The “boiling frog” analogy is very apt.

  148. Oh good. They aren’t “required” to detain citizens. Whew, that was a close one. Hey dumb dumb – notice it doesn’t BAN detaining citizens? Yeah, these people are all lawyers.

  149. The habeas corpus issue is a red herring. Habeas corpus can be satisfied by having you brought before a military judge. If the judge decides the government has cause to hold a civilian then back into indefinite detention you go, no trial. Civilians accused of treason have a right to a civil process under the 5th and 6th amendments.

    This bill is a misuse of the war powers to short circuit the Constitutional protections of citizens against bill of attainder and abuse of the crime of treason.

  150. Are you that gullible Nora? Get YOUR facts straight first. Obama was calling for this in 2009. Think he will veto? BAAAHAAAAHHAAAAA!!!

  151. All of you who have spoken about a revolution have been listed. We will find you and take full advantage of our new powers once this bill passes. Enjoy your freedom while you can, it will not last much longer.

  152. List away I got a feeling that the American government can’t control everybody if we all decide to uprise at once short of destroying this country all together. It is this corrupt government that needs to be destroyed. The American citizens are tired of being used abused and stolen from lied to and taken advantage of by the so called government of this country. So Remember gman the government is “listed” also.


  1. […] authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus 61 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus […]

  2. […] Posted by rstones199 61 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus We are becoming a police state right before our eyes. 60 Senators voted to suspend habeus […]

  3. […] Posted by rstones199 61 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus We are becoming a police state right before our eyes. 60 Senators voted to suspend habeus […]

  4. […] Americans, we are living in a police state. 60 senators betrayed you today, they authorized the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus (UPDATED) […]

  5. […] This is serious.  This is America is about to cross the line dividing it from being rough on peaceful protestors to an out-and-out police state serious.  Any senator worth his weight in salt is opposing this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.  Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took a stand, saying it “denigrates the very foundations of this country” (the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment), while Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) later added, “it puts every single American citizen at risk.” […]

  6. […] Het zal een ieder dus verbazen dat zo’n wet deze week in de USA door de senaat is goedgekeurd. […]

Speak Your Mind