John McCain Is Furious That He Can't Lock Up Americans Under The NDAA
 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
After Obama capitulated and signed the bill into law January 1, we identified the additions everyone was freaking out about:
- Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
- Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
- Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
This power was apparently much anticipated by Senator McCain because he's now doing everything in his power to get the legislation enforced, including tying up defense appointments made by the president.
McCain pledged yesterday that until the Pentagon and the White House meet his demands to enforce certain provisions of the NDAA, including indefinite detention, he won't participate in voting on nominees and will do all he can to see the process grinds to a halt.
The Senator even put his ire to paper and sent off a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta referring to a series of bullet-pointed NDAA grievances, one-by-one.
The list is filled with concerns over force assessment and budgetary priorities, but in the second to last bullet-point McCain lashes out directly at Obama for undermining the indefinite detention clause in the 2012 NDAA.
From McCain's letter to Panetta:
Following a lengthy and intense debate on provisions in the FY 2012 NDAA regarding detention in military custody of suspected terrorists, Congress and the Administration reached a bipartisan agreement that is reflected in Public Law 112-81 enacted on December 31, 2011. However, on February 28, 2012, the President issued a Presidential Policy Directive that effectively eviscerated major sections of that law, clearly contradicting the letter and spirit of the law.
McCain concludes his letter, drafted on Senate stationary from the Committee On Armed Forces, by saying he hopes his grievances are "simple misinterpretations of the law or inadvertent oversights, rather than willful disregard."He looks forward to working with Panetta to resolve the matters.
GOP weighs changes to indefinite detention law
By Donna Cassata
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders.
Republicans and Democratic lawmakers said this week that the GOP majority on the House Armed Services Committee was weighing several proposals to revise the provision on indefinite detention that was part of the far-reaching defense bill that Congress passed in December and President Barack Obama signed into law.
Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups. The anger still lingers, and GOP leaders are under pressure from a number of rank-and-file members, tea partyers and libertarians to change the law.
"I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible," said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., whose staff has spoken to the Armed Services panel. "I intend to spend a lot of time - and I already have been doing so - making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it."
Officials for the committee led by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., had no comment on the possible changes to be included in a defense bill, which could be completed this summer. The discussions are preliminary, but one possibility is greater review for those detained indefinitely, said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the committee's top Democrat.
Conservatives fear that the detention provision could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that's later linked to terrorism. They argue that would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by Democrat Obama.
Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration's war against terrorism, creating an unusual political coalition in Congress.
In the months since the bill became law, some Republicans who backed the legislation have been challenged at town halls and other meetings with constituents, a turn of events that unnerves the GOP.
"There clearly has been some blowback and that's what the Republicans are trying to address," Smith said.
The indefinite detention provision denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. In hopes of quelling the furor, lawmakers added language that said nothing in the law may 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."
When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
In February, the Obama administration outlined new rules on when the FBI, rather than the military, could be allowed to retain custody of al-Qaida terrorism suspects who aren't U.S. citizens but are arrested by federal law enforcement officers. The new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a waiver when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual's cooperation or confession.
But that's not sufficient for some lawmakers.
Smith and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., have introduced legislation that would repeal the provision on indefinite detention and reverse the mandatory military custody for foreign terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or attacking the United States.
"I will continue to push that bill," Smith said in an interview. "I know the majority is also putting together some ideas. They're very process-focused. ... I have not seen specifics of that proposal yet and we'll talk to them about it, but obviously I have a much stronger position on that and think that we don't need to have indefinite detention or military custody for the people in the U.S."
Amash is determined to change the law, using town halls in his district and the long reach of Facebook to get his message out. He said many Republicans voted for the defense bill in December after they were promised that legislation fixing the provision would be introduced after Christmas. He's still waiting.
"What I've seen from members of Armed Services Committee is basically an attempt to justify the language as it stands," Amash said. "And considering the extent to which they've dug in their heels on this issue, I'd be surprised if they're actually going to make a real and credible change to the language."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders.
Republicans and Democratic lawmakers said this week that the GOP majority on the House Armed Services Committee was weighing several proposals to revise the provision on indefinite detention that was part of the far-reaching defense bill that Congress passed in December and President Barack Obama signed into law.
Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups. The anger still lingers, and GOP leaders are under pressure from a number of rank-and-file members, tea partyers and libertarians to change the law.
"I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible," said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., whose staff has spoken to the Armed Services panel. "I intend to spend a lot of time - and I already have been doing so - making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it."
Officials for the committee led by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., had no comment on the possible changes to be included in a defense bill, which could be completed this summer. The discussions are preliminary, but one possibility is greater review for those detained indefinitely, said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the committee's top Democrat.
Conservatives fear that the detention provision could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that's later linked to terrorism. They argue that would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by Democrat Obama.
Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration's war against terrorism, creating an unusual political coalition in Congress.
In the months since the bill became law, some Republicans who backed the legislation have been challenged at town halls and other meetings with constituents, a turn of events that unnerves the GOP.
"There clearly has been some blowback and that's what the Republicans are trying to address," Smith said.
The indefinite detention provision denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. In hopes of quelling the furor, lawmakers added language that said nothing in the law may 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."
When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
In February, the Obama administration outlined new rules on when the FBI, rather than the military, could be allowed to retain custody of al-Qaida terrorism suspects who aren't U.S. citizens but are arrested by federal law enforcement officers. The new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a waiver when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual's cooperation or confession.
But that's not sufficient for some lawmakers.
Smith and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., have introduced legislation that would repeal the provision on indefinite detention and reverse the mandatory military custody for foreign terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or attacking the United States.
"I will continue to push that bill," Smith said in an interview. "I know the majority is also putting together some ideas. They're very process-focused. ... I have not seen specifics of that proposal yet and we'll talk to them about it, but obviously I have a much stronger position on that and think that we don't need to have indefinite detention or military custody for the people in the U.S."
Amash is determined to change the law, using town halls in his district and the long reach of Facebook to get his message out. He said many Republicans voted for the defense bill in December after they were promised that legislation fixing the provision would be introduced after Christmas. He's still waiting.
"What I've seen from members of Armed Services Committee is basically an attempt to justify the language as it stands," Amash said. "And considering the extent to which they've dug in their heels on this issue, I'd be surprised if they're actually going to make a real and credible change to the language."
Court bars challenge to bundled cable channels
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday found that the plaintiffs - cable and satellite TV subscribers - failed to state an antitrust claim against Walt Disney, Fox Entertainment Group Inc, Comcast Corp and several other companies. The plaintiffs intended to seek class-action status.
Maxwell Blecher, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was very disappointed in the decision and that his clients will likely seek review before a larger 9th Circuit panel.
"It is so wrong," Blecher said of the ruling.
Glenn Pomerantz, an attorney for Fox, said the company was "extremely pleased" with the ruling.
"The agreements between television programmers and cable and satellite operators do not injure competition in any way," Pomerantz said. "They are totally legal and justifiable."
Representatives for Disney and Comcast could not immediately be reached.
The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, alleged that television programmers exploit their market power by requiring distributors to sell less desirable cable channels, along with select "must have" channels. Those business practices impair competition among distributors for consumer business, the plaintiffs alleged.
The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and on Friday, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel unanimously affirmed.
"The complaint does not allege that programmers' practice of selling 'must-have' and low-demand channels in packages excludes other sellers of low-demand channels from the market," the court wrote, "or that this practice raises barriers to entry into the programming market."
The case in the 9th Circuit is Rob Brantley et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NBC Universal Inc., Viacom Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Fox Entertainment Group Inc., Time Warner Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications LLC, CoxCom Inc., The DirecTV Group Inc., Echostar Satellite LLC, Cablevision Systems Corporation, 09-56785.
(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Gary Hill)
Inciting Riots: Chances Are There Will Be No Election This November
As you can see with NDAA and NDRP, the Government is preparing for Martial Law.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
It's all about race now: Inciting Riots
By Pat Buchanan If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.
So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
And they may be right.
Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been "murdered and martyred."
Maxine Waters would not be screaming "hate crime."
Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been "executed." And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.
Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.
It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.
It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.
And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.
Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.
But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?
He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.
Why would this raise Zimmerman’s antennae?
Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.
In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.
Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.
For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.
Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp is often a black male wearing a hoodie.
Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers – about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes – one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.
The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.
Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.
That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?
As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.
Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.
Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.
Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, “Profile your passengers” for your own protection. “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics.”
Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.
To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”
Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon’s body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.
But, to Florida Congresswoman Federica Wilson, “this sweet young boy … was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large.”
Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.
But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?
As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.
Is this our idea of justice?
No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.
Click here to read Pat Buchanan's full column.
Click here to learn more about WorldNetWeekly.
Response from Senator Casey RE: House Concurrent Resolution (H.C.R.) 107
On March 7, 2012, the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a hearing to discuss the situation in Syria. During his testimony, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was asked whether the administration planned to consult with Congress about U.S. options for addressing the ongoing violence in Syria. Secretary Panetta replied that “our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.” According to a Department of Defense official, Secretary Panetta’s comments were intended to “emphasize the need for an international mandate,” and that the administration was “not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body.”
The same day, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina introduced H.C.R. 107, Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. This legislation has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No corresponding legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Should similar legislation come before the Senate for consideration, please be assured that I will have your concerns in mind.
The United States Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. In addition, the War Powers Resolution is intended to ensure that Congress is directly involved in decisions to commit U.S. military resources around the world. It stipulates that the President can only exercise his or her powers as Commander in Chief “to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances… pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” As your United States Senator, I take very seriously my responsibility to oversee U.S. military operations and executive branch activities related to our national security.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
Ron Paul: "Give Me Liberty" Money Bomb
Tomorrow marks the end for the first fundraising quarter for 2012.
The national media and their pals in the Washington, D.C. political establishment can hardly wait.
They want more than anything to crown Mitt Romney the nominee - so they're preparing to scour these reports and declare all other campaigns dead in the water!
But with states just beginning to select their delegates to the Republican National Convention, now is our chance to show them this race is anything but over!
So won't you please agree to an IMMEDIATE contribution to my campaign before the end of quarter deadline?
The great news is, we raised over $1 million during my "Give Me Liberty" Money Bomb, but with the 1st quarter deadline fast approaching, now is the time for a final push!
Even if all you can give right now is $10 or $25, your contribution will make a tremendous difference.
Right now, my campaign's delegate strategy is being put to the full test.
Tomorrow, Minnesota and North Dakota will begin selecting their delegates to the Republican National Convention.
Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, and Washington State will follow not long after.
If my campaign has strong showings there - which I'm very hopeful it will - it could turn this entire presidential race on its head.
And if we do get to a brokered convention, all bets will be off.
But if we're going to succeed, I'm going to need to run a full-scale GOTV program, including targeted mail, email, and phone banks.
My staff also needs to stay prepared to fight back against any "funny business" my opponents' supporters or "old guard" establishment hacks might try to pull.
You've heard the stories. You know what we're up against.
I just wish you could watch the "old guard's" jaws drop when my supporters beat them at their own game!
So can I count on you for a generous and IMMEDIATE contribution before the end of quarter deadline?
I hope I can.
As I mentioned, any amount you can give will be a tremendous help - even if it's just $10 or $25.
Of course, I hope you'll be even more generous.
With your financial support, we can show the national media and the Washington, D.C. political establishment that this race for the presidency has become a whole new ballgame!
Please act IMMEDIATELY!
For Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. With the end of quarter deadline coming tomorrow, the national media is preparing to scour the reports of every presidential campaign and declare all other campaigns but Mitt Romney's dead in the water!
Now is our chance to show them this race is anything but over!
So won't you please agree to an IMMEDIATE contribution to my campaign before the end of quarter deadline?
The truth is, my campaign's delegate strategy is being put to the true test right now. So your IMMEDIATE support is critical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)