by Scott Creighton
UPDATE: working link to congressional record page S7728 which details Udall’s SA1107 and SA1112
Sen. Udall is attempting to provide the act of congress needed to by-pass the Posse Comitatus Act
and the ACLU wants you to help him do it
In direct contradiction to the bill as written, one of Udall’s amendments to s. 1867 will include language that makes it clear that military detentions “extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States“
In the original NDAA of 2012, the text clearly states in the disputed sections 1031 and 1032 that the modifications do not seek to extend the powers of the executive branch and that the mandated military detention of terrorism suspects DOES NOT extend to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. I have shown this to be true of the bill in two separate articles, here and here.
This morning I wrote about a Mr. Anders from the ACLU who is apparently misleading the American public in an effort to get the Udall amendment passed which will, as I clearly showed, provide the Obama administration the opportunity to submit their own version of that section of the bill allowing for them to expand the powers of the executive branch to do exactly what Anders mistakenly claims the bill already does.
I found on this official website (please see update for a link to where you can read the amendments yourself) yet another amendment submitted by Mark Udall, SA 1112. SA 1112 is a direct attempt to defuse the original language of the bill which states clearly that military detentions will NOT apply to U.S. citizens. Below is the actual text of SA 1112 submitted by Mark Udall:
SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 1031, add the following:
(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
It’s not the Constitution of the United States that keeps the military from arresting and detaining citizens, it’s Posse Comitatus, which isn’t mentioned by Sen. Udall at all.
“Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order“; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.” Wikipedia
Sen. Udall’s amendment would do just that, provide an act of congress that sets forth the ability for the military to police, arrest, and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, something that is strictly prohibited by Posse Comitatus except in the event of an act of congress.
This makes Sen. Udall’s intentions perfectly clear; he intends, one way or the other, to provide the opportunity for the executive branch of government to extend it’s powers to include the ability to use military resources to detain U.S. citizens. This also makes Mr. Anders’ letter from the ACLU a complete and total fraud.
UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the link to the congressional record site where Udall’s senate amendment 1112 is published timed out. I don’t know why that site does that, but if you go to this link and scroll down to page S7728 and click on that link, it will take you to the congressional site which published Udall’s amendments.
Filed under: S. 1867, Scott Creighton
I’m glad someoone else smelled a rat.
The entire bill should be vetoed outright. Instead, it will now bear the imprimatur of the ACLU. What a victory for critical thinking.
Oh well. “Ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery”, blah, blah, blah…
… saecula saeculorum.
[...] http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011…ry-detentions/ That link pretty much says the opposite of the text that Far posted. Sen. Udall’s amendment would do just that, provide an act of congress that sets forth the ability for the military to police, arrest, and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, something that is strictly prohibited by Posse Comitatus except in the event of an act of congress. Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread « Caps sack Boudreau, replace him with Dale Hunter | – » [...]
[...] Nog ser det ut som en ”controlled demolition”, ”skräm dom”, resonerar universums härskare, ”låt det svida riktigt ett tag. Sen kommer dom snällt att svälja vår världsregeringslösning”, som kommer att snyggt förpackas och presenteras som något helt nytt och som något som ska ”hålla de förhatliga bankerna i strama tyglar”. Och de som inte begåvats med mental hälsa nog för att uppskatta den geniala och välmenande lösningen erbjuds plats på en sluten anstalt! Orealistiskt, osannolikt? javisst, men vad är inte det av det som sker i världen och beslutas av ”politikerna” nu? Som det här! – Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial – ACLU Lens: Senate Takes Up New Detention Authorities Again Tonight – We Need Your Help! – Udall Amendment SA 1112 To INCLUDE U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens in Military Detentions [...]
“An act of [corrupted] Congress”
So Scott, what’s you opinion on the ACLU now? Why are they doing this? Controlled oppostion? The always entertaining Skolnick had this to say http://www.skolnicksreport.com/carnivore.html see also this http://www.aclu-il.org/about/the-aclu-of-illinois-and-the-roger-baldwin-foundation/
Looks to me like it’s this one guy who wrote the article. I don’t know how much it reflects the ACLU, but actually they have been doing some rather questionable things over the past 10 years or so here and there.
SA 1112 clearly extends the bill to include citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens, but what about proposed amendment SA 1113?
SA 1113 simply requests:
“Strike subtitle D of title X.”
This could potentially do more damage than SA 1112 by opening up many loopholes and gray areas. It would no longer explicitly include US citizens but at the same time it wouldn’t protect us either. It would also remove Sec. 1034 which, as written, prevents the use of funds to build detention centers on US soil for Guantanamo detainees.
What impact, if any, does this proposed amendment have on the discussion?
They are different amendments. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. If SA1112 is accepted, the SA1113 is rejected.
Very true, but what if that amendment is there as a fail safe? Thinking SA 1113 is a safer option, that amendment is chosen over SA 1112. Granted neither of the proposed amendments are good choices, wouldn’t SA 1113 have the potential to be worse than SA 1112? If you were to removing Subtitle D, now there are no clear definitions or restrictions for detainees which opens up the door for more power to be given?
It just seems that SA 1112 is too blatant in its intentions which may make SA 1113 seem like the “safer” way to go if questioned.
Thanks for the excellent site!
I think that is exactly what is happening with the Udall amendments. Once is there as a failsafe for the other. One way or another it seems, these people are determined to expand the powers of what Cheney used to call the “unitary executive” and remember how Swanson and all of the others yelled and screamed as Cheney did it. Now… nothing.
It seems to me you have misstated or misread the content.
Sect 1031 “confirms” the ability to hold any “covered persons” indefinitely without trial, to try them, or to transfer them basically anywhere. “Covered persons” appears to be a broad definition of “anyone we can link to 9/11, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban”.
Sect 1032 describes a requirement for military custody, and yes this section explicitly excludes US citizens from the requirement; however, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” does not exclude US citizens from authorizations confirmed in section 1031.
S7728 addresses section 1031, but does nothing to change section 1032. The verbage of S1178 section 1031 appears to me to outline a process for clarifying our position and status on detainees, transfers, etc as well as a legal justification for the ability to do so (“ (2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.”) It essentially maintains the status quo and requires the various committees to review/report/draft new legislation for changing the status quo if warranted (“(c) Congressional Action.–Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.”)
Personally, I don’t agree with any of the nonsense in this bill. Section 1031 seems to be largely aimed at legitimizing after the fact the illegal behavior of the last 10 years and section 1032 seems like an entirely unnecessary complication to matters. The Udall amendment, at least as far as 1031 is concerned, seems like an improvement to me.
I am certainly no expert, but it seems you are stomping all around the issue here. SA1112 Udall’s amendment is definitely trying to legalize the ability of the executive branch’s ‘right’ to detain American citizens. It is an amendment that is required by our Constitution to have a bill, that allows such detainment,to be passed by Congress.
In other words, only Congress can give the President the right to detain Americans (as worded by SA1112) and it has to be done through a law making process by Congress…. the Constitution makes it clear that we are protected unless our very own Congress votes against us. And Udall wants our Congress to do that…. and so does Obama
[...] Udall Amendment SA 1112 To INCLUDE U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens in Military Detentions Posted on November 27, 2011 by willyloman [...]
[...] Udall Amendment SA 1112 To INCLUDE U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens in Military Detentions Posted on November 27, 2011 by willyloman [...]