S-1867 and Is the War on Terror out of Control?

[CSolarstorm]

EDIT: Please notice this is a developing story, so facts may change and sources may expire. Check the latest post for up to date facts.
----------------------

The American Civil Liberties Union is opposed to a bill that would give the military new powers in the homeland of the United States, and redefine public land as a battlefield. The bill was drafted by Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, Republican.

Sen. Lindsey Graham explains that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 will, "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield."

According to the ACLU, this bill effectively expands the War on Terror to American soil and authorizes military forces the ability to treat American citizens as enemies in war, detaining them without trial, not only in the American public, but wherever they are in the world.

The Wikipedia entry with the same title identifies a bill with this name as a fiscal definition of how the Department of Defense spends its money that is updated every fiscal year.

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

I'm also curious - with Bin Laden dead, soldiers being pulled out of Iraq, and Al Qaeda being down to about 100 participants in Afghanistan that are being covered by predator drones, and we all hear about the Al Qaeda members they kill regularly...why do we need this?

Just in case?

 

[02939]

Originally posted by SunnyC
According to the ACLU, this bill effectively expands the War on Terror to American soil and authorizes military forces the ability to treat American citizens as enemies in war, detaining them without trial, not only in the American public, but wherever they are in the world.

Right... that's a violation of about three of the ammendments in the bill of rights: Ammendment 5, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law"
Amendment 6, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... a public trial." If you're an American citizen and you're being seized as an enemy in war, against your own country, that means that you're being called a traitor, and treason is a criminal prosecution.
Amendment 8. I'm quoting cruel and unusual punishment because I think it's cruel and unusual to sieze your own people and detain them without a trial. The event that springs to mind is the Japanese internment camps.

The war on terror is seriously out of control. The phobia is making an epic mess of things and this is taking it a step too far. The money we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan is insane. Please notice that I used 'we' instead of 'the American government.' You may call me an idiot and a fool and all that, but I think that there's some patriotism and the sense of unity that helped America pull through during hard times. When the military turns on its people, the 'we' is lost, replaced by 'the tryannical government,' resentment builds and then there's an issue. I just mean to point this out.

When we can't trust our own military and government to be somewhat civil ... well, who know's, but it's not good. We want to be able to feel somewhat safe on our own land.

 

[Sadib]

What's next? Are they going to repeal the third amendment so that the troops can stay at civilian houses?

 

[Gergovia]

Usually I think the ACLU is an absolutely bogus organization that deserves to be pissed on, but I'm taking their side here. Unless someone presents a damn good argument as to why I shouldn't.

I have no problem with the government combating terrorists within our own borders. After all, the hijackers of 9/11 lived in America for sometime and studied at American pilot schools. Combating terrorism within your own borders is completely justifiable and warranted. The measures they're using to do this is pretty ridiculous though. Are our elite counter terrorism groups, professionally trained by the CIA, the best espionage machine in the world, not good enough? I mean Christ. It's one thing to sacrifice little civil liberties here and there for the greater good, but to trample over one freedom so blatantly outlined in our constitution? Holy crap guys. Calm down.

The PATRIOT act at least demonstrated that it effectively did save lives, so the civil liberties lost were arguably worth the cost. This bill on the other hand? I highly doubt it. It would be different if they were hundreds of active terrorist camps scattered across the U.S. (They're are, but they're very few.) but there isn't. This bill is tantamount to putting out a match by blowing up the resevoir to hoover dam.

 

[Malanu]

I call it a smart move. IF/When terrorists actually start launching attacks, this puts in place laws that allow us to properly use our military forces on US soil.

Is it heavy handed? You bet it is. But to ensure peace you must prepare for war (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum).

Remember safety and security, is not free.

 

[7 tyranitars]

those people are paranoia.. we (members of the NATO) have basicly won the war on terror. There is no need for such law, neither does it agree with the civil rights in the usa.

 

[Malanu]

Do you really believe that 7? Terror has been around for centuries. The means of creating it have changed but the desire to scare a populace is very old and isn't going away any time soon.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

I would consider this bill to be a logical course of action if, say, terrorists managed to detonate a crude nuclear device in a major American city. Has that happened yet? Unless I've been completely oblivious to current events, no. Given the current situation as far as the War on Terror goes, it's a heavy-handed and overreaching bill. For once, I agree with the ACLU.

 

[BigLutz]

Been thinking about this all day, so far with my research the bill automatically excludes U.S. citizens from the writing of it. And is only used to target illegal immigrants, and foreigners who are here on VISA, basically terrorists who are here to be suicide bombers instead of trying to integrate into society.

While the possibilities and dangers are there to be used against American Citizens, I do feel that the minute it is tried, the case would be quickly over turned by any Judge worth his/her salt.

As for the battlefield, I do think we could consider our country a battlefield. There has already been several terror attacks that have taken place on our soil, and numerous more attempted. I can't see how that doesn't make us a battlefield now.

 

[Gergovia]

Been thinking about this all day, so far with my research the bill automatically excludes U.S. citizens from the writing of it. And is only used to target illegal immigrants, and foreigners who are here on VISA, basically terrorists who are here to be suicide bombers instead of trying to integrate into society.

If that truly is the case, I don't have nearly as much a problem with this bill. Lmao.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Do you really believe that 7? Terror has been around for centuries. The means of creating it have changed but the desire to scare a populace is very old and isn't going away any time soon.

Mayby that wasn't the proper reason, but still i feel freedom is worth something aswell, isn't that what the usa is supposed to stand for?

Then again, think of the consequenses, let's say they accuse you would like the right of a fair trial don't you? You are basicly giving the government more controll of your life.

And considering terrorism is off all times.. why change it now? Ofcouse you could be put into jail for no reason in the past, but do you want to go back to the dark ages.. or have a similair judgicary system as a totalterian state?

 

[BigLutz]

Mayby that wasn't the proper reason, but still i feel freedom is worth something aswell, isn't that what the usa is supposed to stand for?

Then again, think of the consequenses, let's say they accuse you would like the right of a fair trial don't you? You are basicly giving the government more controll of your life.

And considering terrorism is off all times.. why change it now? Ofcouse you could be put into jail for no reason in the past, but do you want to go back to the dark ages.. or have a similair judgicary system as a totalterian state?

I guess the counter response would be why do we need to allow terrorists and suspected terrorists access to the court system and lawyer's right away?

The moment we captured KSM he turned to the soldiers and said "Take me to New York and my lawyer".

Al Qaeda basically trained their members on how to use the court system against us, to have their lawyers block any real interrogation, to tie the feds up in knots trying to even talk to him, etc etc etc. Because they knew that if they could use our own system against us, the greater the chance the terrorist would not talk, and the rest of the cell could continue on with their mission.

 

[Byzantine]

Except not everyone captured is a terrorists, more than a small number of innocent civilians have already gone through this. If you allow this on American citizens it not only violates our constitutional rights (PS, war time does NOT give congress the right to ignore the constitution) but opens up Pandora's box. Why stop with just terrorists? Why not start arresting and shipping off dissenters, and everyone else who doesn't agree.

But to ensure peace you must prepare for war (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum).

I seem to remember the Romans losing to "barbarians", after they managed to tear themselves apart internally. Wonder if that had anything to do with being too heavy handed.

and I see your quote and Raise you Ben Franklin: "Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither".

 

[Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy]

(PS, war time does NOT give congress the right to ignore the constitution)

There is a precedent for the president to ignore parts of the constitution during war time, however, if one of incredibly dodgy legality.

I don't imagine doing so would make Obama any more popular, to say the least.

 

[BigLutz]

Except not everyone captured is a terrorists, more than a small number of innocent civilians have already gone through this.

If you are on American Soil, and you are captured, and they are to the point they have to use this. More than likely the evidence against you is fairly overwhelming. This isn't Afghanistan, the set up needed to bring some one in would be fairly extensive.

(PS, war time does NOT give congress the right to ignore the constitution)

Lincoln and FDR would disagree with you.

but opens up Pandora's box. Why stop with just terrorists? Why not start arresting and shipping off dissenters, and everyone else who doesn't agree.

If the Government REALLY wanted to get rid of you for being a dissenter they would not really need a piece of legislation for it.

Ben Franklin: "Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither".

Wasn't Ben Franklin part of the group that was willing to sacrifice the liberty of the slaves for the security and stability of the Union?

 

[CSolarstorm]

Been thinking about this all day, so far with my research the bill automatically excludes U.S. citizens from the writing of it. And is only used to target illegal immigrants, and foreigners who are here on VISA, basically terrorists who are here to be suicide bombers instead of trying to integrate into society.

While the possibilities and dangers are there to be used against American Citizens, I do feel that the minute it is tried, the case would be quickly over turned by any Judge worth his/her salt.

As for the battlefield, I do think we could consider our country a battlefield. There has already been several terror attacks that have taken place on our soil, and numerous more attempted. I can't see how that doesn't make us a battlefield now.

This is reassuring, BigLutz. However after thinking about it a little more, what judge? Those affected by this bill won't be given a judge, they'd be captured.

I see American soil being a potential battlefield (especially given the fact that it has been before) but the War on Terror, given everything we know about it, should not be treated as an actual war. The War on Terror is an objective to defend ourselves from terrorism, which is a continuous risk.

Wasn't Ben Franklin part of the group that was willing to sacrifice the liberty of the slaves for the security and stability of the Union?

He was. It was a heavy-handed thing to say given the fact that he was involved in the approval of the Constitution. It doesn't belittle the wisdom of what he says.

 

[BigLutz]

This is reassuring, BigLutz. However after thinking about it a little more, what judge? Those affected by this bill won't be given a judge, they'd be captured.

I see American soil being a potential battlefield (especially given the fact that it has been before) but the War on Terror, given everything we know about it, should not be treated as an actual war. The War on Terror is an objective to defend ourselves from terrorism, which is a continuous risk.

With the Judge question, I have a feeling it would be either the family or friends of those involved. I mean when we hear of domestic terrorists, it is always followed by the family and friends saying "Oh I could never believe X would do such a thing". Really in this day and age unless you are a hermit, you are going to have some one notice you missing.

He was. It was a heavy-handed thing to say given the fact that he was involved in the approval of the Constitution. It doesn't belittle the wisdom of what he says.

I would say it skirts the line between naive and wise. In a perfect society, one in which the enemies of you and your nation exist half a world away in which communication can take months to get to them. And the rest of the nation lives in harmony. It is a very wise policy. As the world has shrunk, and enemies do not need to take months to transverse a ocean to attack, and intelligence can be sent in the blink of a eye through cell phones or the internet. We need to adapt.

And really as a society we have always given up a little bit of liberty in terms of security. A society uses courts to strip liberty of people, to send them to jail, because they are a security threat. We limit and even stop people from buying weapons to keep them from engaging in mass destruction. We even as a society strip the liberty to have a weapon from those that are psychologically unstable.

Mind you, Liberty only makes up one pillar of the Rights of Man in the Constitution. The other one is Life, and a society must also balance Liberty to preserve Life.

 

[CSolarstorm]

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html

I like how it made the front page of Yahoo news. And look at all those comments calling the entire Senate treasonous.

 

[7 tyranitars]

I guess the counter response would be why do we need to allow terrorists and suspected terrorists access to the court system and lawyer's right away?

The moment we captured KSM he turned to the soldiers and said "Take me to New York and my lawyer".

Al Qaeda basically trained their members on how to use the court system against us, to have their lawyers block any real interrogation, to tie the feds up in knots trying to even talk to him, etc etc etc. Because they knew that if they could use our own system against us, the greater the chance the terrorist would not talk, and the rest of the cell could continue on with their mission.

That would work well in theory, but that means you are already assuming the person is a terrrorist. Remember it is: everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise, not everyone is guilty unless proven otherwi.. oh wait they can't they will be locked up right away with no trial. In short: what if you get a trully innocent person?

 

[BigLutz]

That would work well in theory, but that means you are already assuming the person is a terrrorist. Remember it is: everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise, not everyone is guilty unless proven otherwi.. oh wait they can't they will be locked up right away with no trial.

Well lets be clear, for someone to be captured under this, and used, there needs to be a clear and present danger of a attack. Usually through wiretaps, surveillance, etc etc. The Government is not going to look at the evidence and kind of twist their head and say "Well you know he might be a terrorist, I dunno, lets lock him up for good".

The debate comes down to one thing. Should al Qaeda terrorists captured on U.S. soil in the mist of carrying out a terror attack, be sent to the civilian courts as if they were bank robbers, with all the rights and powers that gives them. Or into military custody, with military justice, and military courts.

That is the question, not if American Citizens will be picked up off the street, not if the Government is going to kind of, sort of look at people and take them. It is if al Qaeda terrorists deserve civilian or military courts.