Obama was who requested that Americans were ‘Fair Game’ in Detention, Torture Bill

Senator Levin revealed – It was Obama who required the Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens as part of the wording!

by SerriQuestioningAll
December 11, 2011

Well now we know, for those who have been holding out “hope” that Obama will veto the 1031 Indefinite Detainment Bill against holding U.S. Citizens without rights to a trial or lawyer or charges for the rest of their lives…. It was Obama who required the bill have the language of U.S. Citizens being held without rights in the bill!  The only reason he would veto it, is because it does not give him the absolute power as he wants!

Obama wants absolute Dictatorial Powers and the Senate gave it to him?  I posted some of his Lies during his campaign.  Especially the ones about the Rights of the People, closing Gitmo and standing up for the Constitution.

Here is Senator Levin on the floor of the Senate revealing it was Obama himself who Demanded U.S. Citizens be part of the Indefinite Detainment Bill!

Please send this video to your State Representatives, especially those Republican held states – maybe they will have morals and protect their state citizens from this.  I know…. it is doubtful – but we still have to try, in my opinion.

Video of Levin on Senate floor revealing it was Obama who demanded U.S. Citizens be part of the language of the Indefinite Detention in 1031 Bill:

U.S Government Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S.

by Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 7, 2011

Infowars.com has received a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements,” the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to us by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.

Internment Camp Services Bid Arrives After NDAA

KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrives soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.

A number of civil liberties groups have come out in strong opposition to the legislation, most notably the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the nation’s oldest and largest Asian American civil and human rights organization.

In a letter addressed to Congress, S. Floyd Mori, the national director of JACL, said the NDAA is the first time that Congress has scaled back on the protections provided by the Non-Detention Act of 1971. Mori said the legislation, if enacted and put into use, would be reminiscent of the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Read Full Article…

Senado de EE.UU. Aprueba Ley que permite secuestro, prisión, tortura y asesinato de Estadounidenses

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
30 de noviembre 2011

Un nuevo proyecto de ley presentado en el Senado de los EE.UU., (S.1867) La Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional, establece que el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, quienquiera que sea, puede detener por tiempo indefinido, encarcelar, torturar y asesinar a alguien si él o ella se considera un sospechoso de cualquier cosa que el gobierno de EE.UU. quiera decir. La detención, encarcelamiento, tortura y asesinato se produce sin que la persona haya sido acusada o llevada a juicio. Las personas podrán ser secuestradas en cualquier lugar dentro o fuera de los Estados Unidos.

La nueva ley amenaza tanto las libertades civiles y constitucionales de los ciudadanos, que sus autores supuestamente quieren proteger al darle al presidente la facultad antes citada, que sus colegas senadores han llevado al Senado enmiendas que eliminen la parte del texto que permitiría que cualquier presidente ejecute lo que antes era una detención ilegal, pero que ahora es perfectamente legal.

El senador Rand Paul es uno de los que tratan de preservar lo que muchos consideran las libertades fundamentales protegidas por la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. En el Senado, el Sr. Paul recordó a sus colegas que nunca es una buena idea cambiar libertad por seguridad. Asimismo, explicó que eliminar el derecho de los ciudadanos a ser formalmente acusados y declarados culpables en un tribunal de justicia, en lugar de simplemente ser designado como un sospechoso que puede ser secuestrado y llevado preso para siempre, sería como dejar que los terroristas ganen.

La parte más controvertida de la ley dice: “El Congreso afirma la autoridad del Presidente de utilizar toda la fuerza necesaria y apropiada de conformidad con la Autorización del Uso de Fuerza Militar, incluyendo la autoridad de las Fuerzas Armadas de los Estados Unidos para detener a las personas quedando pendiente declaraciones en el marco del derecho de la guerra. ” ¿Dónde está la parte jugosa? pueden pensar muchos de ustedes. No dice que las personas pueden ser torturadas o asesinadas! Bueno, lo de asesinar ya se habían aplicado antes, cuando el Presidente fue galardonado con el poder de secuestrar y matar a cualquiera que se encontrara luchando con un grupo terrorista, incluso si se trataba de un ciudadano estadounidense. Así es como el Sr. Anwar al-Awlaki, el ex-agente de la CIA y supuesto miembro de Al-Qaeda fue asesinado.

Pero específicamente en esta ley, el concepto de dar al Presidente facultades para decidir cuándo utilizar las Fuerzas Armadas para secuestrar y mantener en prisión a alguien en el territorio de los EE.UU. o en el extranjero es claramente un concepto renovado. Pero no sin antes tratar de ocultarlo de la vista del público. A principios de esta semana, el senador Lindsey Graham llegó al pleno del Senado para aclarar las cosas con respecto a lo que el entonces nuevo proyecto de ley permitiría hacer al presidente. “… La sección sobre la custodia militar, tiene muchas salidas e excepciones; una gran flexibilidad, y no se aplica a los ciudadanos estadounidenses. El Artículo 1031 sí se aplica a los ciudadanos estadounidenses, y en este se designa el mundo como el campo de batalla, lo cual incluye el territorio estadounidense”. En otras palabras, cualquier persona puede ser detenida en los EE.UU. o en el extranjero, según lo determine el Presidente, ser detenido sin cargos por un período indefinido de tiempo. Este tratamiento se ha aplicado hasta ahora sólo a los prisioneros de guerra (POW) muchos de los cuales fueron enviados a la prisión de Abu Ghraib y la Bahía de Guantamo en Cuba.

Otros senadores como Kelly Ayotte, republicana de New Hampshire, también defendió el entonces proyecto de ley diciendo que en S.1867 “Simplemente estamos diciendo que usted tiene la opción de asegurarse de que podamos juntar datos de inteligencia como la principal prioridad.” Además de Lindsey Graham y la señora Ayotte, otros patrocinadores incluyen al senador John McCain, republicano de Arizona, y Carl Levin, un Senador demócrata. Aunque el presidente Obama ha amenazado con vetar la ley si la sección de la detención indefinida no se quita, una enmienda para hacer exactamente eso fracasó anoche en el Senado, y el proyecto de ley, con la condición de detención ilegal y todo, fue aprobado ayer por la noche en Washington .

La situación jurídica de los ciudadanos en los Estados Unidos y en el extranjero es aún más grave cuando se pone en perspectiva. Es decir, cuando se revisan las últimas leyes, disposiciones, poderes presidenciales y la literatura dada a las diferentes agencias de ley. De hecho, ha hay un plan abierto para utilizar a los militares de EE.UU. en las calles de los Estados Unidos, y el ejército ya está en las calles. Se les ha visto en las carreteras locales y caminos acompañados por la policía local deteniendo vehículos y solicitando de manera ilegal que los conductores les permitan registrar sus autos. Junto con estas acciones, informes como el del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y el MIAC indican que la actual tendencia a colocar a los militares en las calles y carreteras no tiene nada que ver con el terrorismo, sino que todo es para los ciudadanos estadounidenses. Estos incluyen pero no se limitan a soldados retirados, propietarios de armas, los libertarios, la gente que protesta contra el gobierno y sus políticas, activistas contra la guerra y así sucesivamente.

“Sólo hace unos años me dijeron, bueno, eso es absurdo. No queremos usar a los marines y el ejército contra el pueblo estadounidense. Esto sería una tiranía, que solo se ve en un país del tercer mundo. Es como imponer la ley marcial. Pero ahora sí quieren hacerlo para supuestamente mantenernos a salvo de Al-Qaeda “, explica el periodista de radio Alex Jones, que ha pasado la mayor parte de los últimos 16 años hablando del acaparamiento de poder sin control del gobierno y la forma en que el poder es por lo general empleado para oprimir a los ciudadanos. Jones declaró en la televisión Russia Today que la ley tiene una sección que dice que los estadounidenses están exentos de la detención, el encarcelamiento, la tortura y el asesinato, pero que luego tiene otra sección en la que establece claramente que la exención llega tan lejos como el Presidente y el Ejército lo digan. En otras palabras, la exención se puede eliminar en cualquier momento. La observación de Alex Jones es apoyada por el congresista Justin Amash, quien dijo que “esta ley fue cuidadosamente diseñada para engañar al público “.

La aprobación de este proyecto de ley en el Senado, literalmente significa el fin del Estado de Derecho, así como el fin de Posse Comitatus, que prohíbe el uso del Ejército de Estados Unidos en territorio de EE.UU..

Citando a James Madison, el senador Rand Paul advirtió al Senado anoche que “Los medios de defensa contra los peligros exteriores históricamente se han convertido en instrumentos de tiranía en casa”, y luego añadió el parecer de Abraham Lincoln sobre la importancia de la verdadera libertad: “Estados Unidos nunca será destruido de afuera hacia dentro. Si fallamos y perdemos nuestras libertades, será porque lo destruimos nosotros mismos. ”

El joven senador de Kentucky dijo que siempre ha sido durante los conflictos que han habido luchas por mantener y proteger las libertades civiles, como el habeas corpus y la libertad de prensa. El Sr. Paul advirtió de que los derechos y libertades que se regalen ahora no volverán como sucedió en el pasado por la sencilla razón que el propio Estado ha logrado mantener un estado constante de guerra y conflicto. “Estos derechos a los que renunciemos ahora nunca se podrán restaurar.” , dijo el senador Paul.

Toda la base de la ley es, según las directrices del Presidente, dar a los militares el poder de arrestar a personas sospechosas de estar vinculados a un determinado grupo terrorista. La detención y las nuevas medidas impuestas por las autoridades a los sospechosos automáticamente violan el debido proceso, uno de los pilares más importantes de cualquier nación democrática, el derecho a ser formalmente acusado y juzgado en un tribunal de justicia, ya sea por un juez o un jurado y el derecho a defenderse en ese órgano jurisdiccional. La nueva ley establece claramente que esto se aplica a los ciudadanos estadounidenses en el país y el extranjero. “Esta propuesta es una reminiscencia de lo que hizo Egipto con su ley de emergencia permanente”, destacó el senador Paul.

Como la ley funciona ahora en los Estados Unidos, la legislación aprobada por el Congreso de los EE.UU. ya define como un crimen el ayudar a un terrorista o una organización terrorista de cualquier ninguna manera. “José Padilla fue condenado y sentencias a 17 años de prisión por conspirar para proveer apoyo material a Al-Qaeda”, afirmó el Senador Paul. La ley S.1867 ahora sólo podría ser detenida en la Cámara de Representantes, porque aunque el presidente Obama ha dicho que la vetaría, la verdad es que el propio Obama ha aprobado gran parte de lo que está escrito en la Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional, es decir, las detenciones secretas y torturas de los detenidos. Estas medidas han sido aprobadas bajo la Ley de Comisiones Militares y la Ley Patriota, cuyos poderes se han aumentado desde que George W. Bush la aprobó por primera vez. Por lo tanto, no, no podemos contar con el actual Presidente de los EE.UU. para detener la implementación de prácticas como la detención, encarcelamiento, tortura y asesinato de ciudadanos estadounidenses ni en casa ni en el extranjero.

“Usted puede ser secuestrado y nadie sabe a dónde lo llevaron nunca más”, advirtió Alex Jones en Russia Today.

Tal vez uno de los hechos más reveladores acerca de la ley S.1867, es que nadie en la prensa estadounidense está hablando de ello. Sólo los llamados medios alternativos de prensa y medios de comunicación extranjeros se ocupan de que la gente en el Congreso quieran permitan a los militares gobernar el país. Sin embargo, este comportamiento de los medios tradicionales no es una sorpresa, pues han hecho lo mismo con respecto a otras noticias que afectan directamente a los estadounidenses en el país y el extranjero. Por ejemplo, mientras que los medios de comunicación extranjeros, o medios de comunicación estadounidenses publicados y distribuidos en el extranjero describen las protestas de los ciudadanos del mundo contra las medidas de austeridad, los rescates bancarios, la inconformidad de los afganos de Pakistán, y los sirios contra los estadounidenses y los bombardeos de la OTAN en sus países, las ediciones locales de la prensa estadounidense se concentra en temas que distraen, como el número de mujeres que acusan al pre-candidato presidencial republicano Herman Cain de acoso sexual, cuándo empezaremos la temporada en la NBA o el número de años de cárcel que el médico de Michael Jackson obtiene después de haber sido encontrado culpable. La gran prensa ni siquiera ha hablado mucho acerca de algunos casos de congresistas que con información privilegiada, han sacado provecho de los desfalques bancários, invirtiendo su dinero con éxito con la ayuda de información privilegiada dada a ellos por gente en Wall Street. Tampoco han informado el hecho de que John Corzine, ni siquiera ha sido llamado a declarar por el escándalo financiero de MF Global.

“Ellos son ladrones que quieren que los militares protejan sus crímenes”, afirmó Alex Jones. Hace mucho tiempo, los estadounidenses eran las personas mejor informadas en el mundo desarrollado, pero en las últimas décadas se han convertido en los menos informado de todos. Esto es debido al hecho de que los medios han asumido la responsabilidad de alimentar únicamente información que los mantenga ignorantes del hecho que su país y su gobierno están cada vez más dominados por las corporaciones y los bancos.

El problema con leyes como S.1867 es que se hace usa términos peligrosamente indefinidos y amplios, dando poderes igualmente amplios y abiertos a aquellos que buscan tenerlos. Por ejemplo, una década después de 9/11, ninguna autoridad ha definido con precisión el concepto de pertenencia o afiliación a cualquier organización terrorista. En estos momentos, la policía utiliza simples acusaciones como la base para ejecutar el tipo de esquemas que se imponen a través de legislación como S.1867. Esto es así, porque la mayoría de las acusaciones hechas por las agencias policiales son casi imposibles de probar. La consecuencia de esto es que la nueva legislación se hace a mano de lenguaje vago en cuanto sea posible para que más y más personas (sospechosos) puedan ser incluidas bajo el paraguas de tal legislación.

En este momento, sólo las personas detenidas en el campo de batalla pueden ser enviadas a prisión en lugares secretos y por tiempos indefinidos. Es por eso que S.1867 efectivamente etiqueta el territorio estadounidense como parte del campo de batalla, de modo que cualquiera que viva o en cualquier momento se movilice en el territorio de los EE.UU. pueda ser legalmente secuestrado para siempre sin ninguna repercusión legal. La disposición que busca detener indefinidamente a cualquier sospechoso de hecho implica un perpetuo estado de guerra, porque como ha sucedido con legislación anterior, este no explica o establece ningún límite o meta clara para los conflictos en los que Estados Unidos está involucrado. La disposición dice que no hay nada en ella contenida que implica ninguna restricción en el uso de la fuerza militar. La legislación no prevé la revisión del Congreso o de cualquier definición de lo que es “victoria” o cuándo las disposiciones adoptadas en virtud de la ley S.1867 serían anuladas.

“El uso de la fuerza militar debe comenzar en el Congreso. El Congreso tiene el poder de declarar guerra, y no debemos dar ese poder al Presidente. No debemos permitir que el Presidente participe de manera unilateral en decisiones de guerra. El Congreso debe recuperar sus funciones constitucionales “, concluyó el Senador Paul.

Senate Gives Power to Military to Detain, Imprison, Torture and Kill Americans

Washington Times
November 30, 2011

Defying a veto threat by President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military first crack at holding al Qaeda operatives, even if they are captured in the U.S. and are American citizens, and also reaffirmed the policy of indefinite detention.

“We’re no longer going to have an absurd result that if we capture you overseas where you’re planning an attack on the United States, we can blow you up or put you in a military prison indefinitely, but if you make it to America, all of a sudden you get Miranda rights and you go to federal court,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has fought the Bush and Obama administrations on treatment of suspected terrorist detainees.

Tuesday’s 61-37 vote to buck Mr. Obama and grant the military dibs exposed a deep rift within the Democratic Party. Sixteen Democrats and one independent who caucuses with them defied the veto threat and joined 44 Republicans.

The vote was the latest chapter in a debate that has raged since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks plunged the U.S. into the war on terrorism and created the problem of how to handle self-professed enemies who belong to shadowy terrorist groups when they are caught far from traditional battlefields.

In a deal between Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the military is given custody of anyone who has planned or carried out an attack against the U.S. and its allies, or who is deemed to be a member of al Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The compromise gives the administration the authority to waive military custody but only if top Cabinet officials certify that national security dictates civilian control.

Mr. Obama and his top advisers fought the provisions, arguing that it amounted to micromanaging the war on terrorism. The administration said it should be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the military or civilian law enforcement is better able to handle a situation.

“The best method for securing vital intelligence from suspected terrorists varies depending on the facts and circumstances of each case,” Director of National IntelligenceJames R. Clapper wrote in a letter to senators detailing the administration’s objections.

He said the national security waiver given to the administration still doesn’t allow enough flexibility.

The White House this month threatened to veto the legislation if it “challenges or constrains the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.” An official on Tuesday said that threat still stands.

The bill also recodifies existing law on indefinite detention and the right of the administration to try suspected terrorists in military commissions rather than civilian courts — authority that the Bush and Obama administrations have exercised, but which Mr. Levin said he wanted to reiterate. Mr. Levin said the administration thought the restatement unnecessary, but didn’t object to the language.

Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, tried to strip the detention and the military custody provisions from the bill and replace them with a call for further study of the issue.

“We’re ignoring the advice and the input of the director of the FBI, the director of our intelligence community, the attorney general of the United States,” Mr. Udall said.

His effort won the support of two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Kirk of Illinois, both of whom won their seats in last year’s elections.

Among the Democrats who bucked the administration were members of the Armed Services Committee, and also a host of lawmakers who hold politically vulnerable seats up for election next year. Among them were Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

The fight was part of a broader debate over the annual defense policy bill, which is considered one of the few must-pass pieces of legislation Congress considers each year.

Read Full Article…

S.1867: The Power to Detain, Imprison, Torture and Kill American Citizens Anywhere

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
November 30, 2011

A new bill presented in the US Senate (S.1867) The National Defense Authorization Act, states that the President of the United States, whomever it is, can indefinitely detain, imprison, torture and murder anyone if he or she is considered a suspect of anything the US government wants to make up. The detention, imprisonment, torture and murder will occur without the person having been charged and without a trial. People can be picked up anywhere inside or outside the United States.

The recently approved law  is such a threat to the liberties and freedoms of the people, which its authors supposedly intend to protect by giving the president the power cited above, that fellow senators have taken to the Senate floor to seek support for amendments that eliminate the portion of the text that allows any president to detain anyone in the manner explained above.

Senator Rand Paul is one of those trying to preserve what many consider key liberties and freedoms protected by the Unites States Constitution. On the Senate floor, Mr. Paul reminded his colleagues that it is never a good idea to exchange liberty for security.  He also explained that taking the citizens’ right to be formally accused and found guilty in a court of law, as supposed to simply be designated as a suspect who can be abducted and taken away forever, would be equal to having let the terrorists win.

The most controversial part of the law reads “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending depositions under the law of war.” Where is the beef many of you may think. It doesn’t say people can be tortured or killed! Well, the killing part had already been implemented earlier, when the President was awarded the power to take on and kill anyone who was found fighting with a terrorist group; even if it was an American citizen. That is how Mr. Anwar al-Awlaki, the CIA agent and supposed Al-Qaeda member was taken down.

But specifically in this newly approved law, the concept of giving the President power to decide when to use the Armed Forces to abduct and keep anyone within the US territory or abroad is clearly renewed. But not before trying to hide it from the public view. Earlier this month, Senator Lindsey Graham took to the floor of the Senate to clear the air regarding what the new bill would allow the President to do. “…the military custody provision, which has wavers and a lot of flexibility, doesn’t apply to American citizens. Section 1031 does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.” In other words, anyone can now be detained in the US or abroad, as determined by the President, and be held without charges for an indefinite period of time. This treatment was only applied to prisoners of war (POW) many of which were sent to the Abu Ghraib prison and to Guantamo Bay in Cuba.

Other Senators like Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, also defended S.1867 saying that “We are simply saying that you have the option to make sure you can put together intelligence gathering as the top priority.” Besides Lindsey Graham and Mrs. Ayotte, Bill sponsors included Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, and Carl Levin, a democrat Senior Senator. Although President Obama has threatened to veto the new law if the indefinite detention section is not removed, an amendment to do exactly that failed last night on the Senate floor, and the Bill, with the illegal detention provision and all,  was approved in its original form.

The legal situation for citizens in the United States and abroad gets even more serious when put into perspective. That is, when revising recent laws, provisions, presidential powers and law enforcement training literature. In fact, there has been an open plan to use the US military on the streets of the United States, and the military has already been put on the streets indeed. They have been seen on local roads and highways accompanied by local police stopping vehicles and requesting that drivers let them illegally search their cars. Along with these actions, the MIAC and Homeland Security reports state that the current drive to putting the military on the streets and highways has nothing to do with terrorism, but that it is all for American citizens themselves. It’s all about retired veterans, gun owners, libertarians, people who protests against government and its policies, war activists and so on.

“Just a few years ago they said, well that’s preposterous. We don’t want to use the marines and army against the American people. That’s tyranny, it’s a third world country, that is Martial Law.  Now they are well yes, we want to keep you safe from Al-Qaeda,” explains radio talk show host Alex Jones, who has spent the best part of the past 16 years talking about governments grabbing power uncontrollably and how that power is usually then employed to oppress the citizens. Jones stated on Russia Today television that the new law has a section that says that Americans are exempted from the detention, imprisonment, torture and murder, but that later it has another section that clearly states that the exemption goes as far as the President and the Army say so. In other words, the exemption can be waived at any point in time. Alex Jones’ observation is supported by Congressman Justin Amash, who said “It is carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

The passage of this Bill on the Senate floor spells the end of the Rule of Law as well as the end of Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the use of the United States Army on US soil. Quoting James Madison, Senator Rand Paul warned the Senate last night that “The means to defense against foreign dangers historically have become instruments of tyranny at home,” and then added Abraham Lincoln’s take on the importance of true liberty and freedom: “America will never be destroyed form the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed it ourselves.”

The Junior Senator from Kentucky said that during conflicts there have always been struggles to keep and protect civil liberties, such as Habeas Corpus and Freedom of the Press. Mr. Paul warned that rights and liberties being given away now would hardly come back as it happened in the past for the simple reason that the State itself has managed to maintain a constant state of war and conflict. “These rights we may give up now, may never be restores.” said Senator Paul.

The whole basis of the law is to, under the President’s directive, give the military the power to arrest people suspected of being associated with a determined terrorist group. The detention and further police actions imposed on the suspects would waive the due process, one of the most important pillars of any democratic nation; the right to be formally accused and tried in a court of law, in the presence of a judge and a jury of peers and the right to defend oneself in that court of law. Again, the law clearly states that this applies to American citizens at home and abroad. “This proposal is reminiscent of what Egypt did with its permanent emergency law,”  highlighted Senator Paul.

As the law stands now in the United States, legislation passed by the US Congress already declares it a crime to aid a terrorist or a terrorist organization in any way, shape or form. Anyone who is detained, prosecuted and found guilty for violating the Material Assistance Prohibition. “Jose Padilla was convicted and sentences to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to Al-Qaeda,” asserted congressman Paul. S.1867 will only have the House of Representatives as the last hope to vote it down, because although President Obama has said he would veto it, the truth is Obama himself has approved much of what is written on the National Defense Authorization Act, that is, secret arrests and torture of detainees. These measures are approved under the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act, whose powers have been enhanced since George W. Bush first approved it. So no, we cannot count on the current US President to stop the implementation of practices such as the detainment, imprisonment, torture and murder of American citizens neither at home nor abroad.

You can be grabbed and no one ever even knows where you go forever“, warned Alex Jones on Russia Today.

Perhaps one of the most telling facts about S.1867, is that no one on the American press is talking about it. Only so called alternative news media and foreign media are addressing the fact that people in Congress want to enable the military to run the country. But this behavior by the main stream media is not a surprise, as it has done the same regarding other news that directly affect Americans at home and abroad. For example, while foreign media, or American media published and distributed overseas describes the rise of the citizenry of the world against austerity measures, banker bailouts, the conflict in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria against American and NATO bombings in their countries, local American media concentrates on diversions such as how many women accuse Herman Cain of sexual harassment, when will the NBA season start or how many years in prison did Michael Jackson’s get after being found guilty.  The mainstream press hasn’t even talked much about some Congressmen and Congresswomen insider trading corruption cases, where they and their relatives have taken advantage of information to invest and divest their monies successfully with the help of insiders from Wall Street. Neither has the main stream media pounded on the fact that John Corzine hasn’t even been called to declare in the financial scandal at MF Global.

They are crooks who want the military to protect their crimes, asserted Alex Jones. A long time ago, the Americans were the best informed people in the developed world, but in recent decades they have become the least informed of all. That is due to the fact that the media has taken it upon themselves to feed only information that makes people play along with an ever more corporate-dominated Washington, DC.

The problems with S.1867 is that it was crafted with dangerously vague terms, giving vague and open-ended powers to those who seek to have them. For example, a decade after 9/11, no one in law enforcement has precisely defined the concept of membership or affiliation to any supposed terrorist organization. As of now, law enforcement uses accusations as the base to run the kind of schemes sought to be imposed through legislation like S.1867. That is so, because most of the accusations made by law enforcement agencies are almost impossible to prove. The consequence of this is that new legislation is crafted with as vague language as possible so that more and more people (suspects) can be included under the new umbrella.

Right now, only people detained in the battlefield can be kept in undisclosed locations for indefinite times. That is why S.1867 seeks to legally label the homeland as part of the battlefield, so that anyone who lives or at any point in time moves around the US territory can be legally abducted and taken away forever without any legal repercussion. The provision that seeks to indefinitely detain any suspect in fact implies a perpetual state of war, because as it has happened with earlier legislation, it does not set limits or goals for conflicts the United States is involved in. The provision says that nothing therein contained implies any restriction in the use of military force. The legislation does not provide for congressional review or any definition as to what victory would be or when would the provisions adopted under S.1867 would end.

“The use of military force must begin in Congress. Congress has the power to declare war, and we shouldn’t give that power to the President. We shouldn’t allow the President to unilaterally engage in war. Congress must reclaim its constitutional duties,” concluded congressman Paul.