By Douglas V. Gibbs
It is not often when the ACLU and Fox News agree on something. The National Defense Authorization Act, however, made it happen. The cockroaches of Washington have proposed making all points within the United States a part of the battlefield in the War on Terror, which would allow the federal government to detain Americans without any questions asked, indefinitely.
A piece of legislation introduced by hard left liberal extraordinaire Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the California democrats we have yet to send packing, actually would work to counter the White House's determination to be able to hold American captured by the U.S. military in its war on terrorism from being held indefinitely without trial.
The legislation that aims to enable military custody for those detained on any battlefield, including inside the United States, was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
Bi-partisan opposition against the National Defense Authorization Act, along with Senator Feinstein, includes Senator Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Tea Party conservative Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Defending the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Lindsey Graham said, "We're fighting a war, not a crime. Here's what we decided to do as a body today. America is part of the battlefield. We firmly believe the war is coming back home, so we're no longer going to have an absurd result that if we capture you overseas where you're planning 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. That's an absurd result; never been known in war before."
I get what the proponents of the bill are trying to say, but from what I gather, the language is not specific enough. I agree that military combatants must be treated as such, but where is the fine line? Why can't the legislation differentiate in specific language those that come to America to harm us, and those that are ordinary citizens?
Final arguments, and potential passage of the $662 billion defense measure, could materialize by week's end.
If it passes, we will essentially be under martial law. Some arguments, however, state that Section 1032.b.1 of the bill is that stipulation that protects ordinary citizens.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Should Military Be Allowed to Detain Americans Indefinitely? - Fox News
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window - ACLU Blog of RightsSource URL: http://indahrahmadewi.blogspot.com/2011/12/federal-government-moves-against.html
Visit Indah Rahma Dewi for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
It is not often when the ACLU and Fox News agree on something. The National Defense Authorization Act, however, made it happen. The cockroaches of Washington have proposed making all points within the United States a part of the battlefield in the War on Terror, which would allow the federal government to detain Americans without any questions asked, indefinitely.
A piece of legislation introduced by hard left liberal extraordinaire Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the California democrats we have yet to send packing, actually would work to counter the White House's determination to be able to hold American captured by the U.S. military in its war on terrorism from being held indefinitely without trial.
The legislation that aims to enable military custody for those detained on any battlefield, including inside the United States, was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
Bi-partisan opposition against the National Defense Authorization Act, along with Senator Feinstein, includes Senator Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Tea Party conservative Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Defending the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Lindsey Graham said, "We're fighting a war, not a crime. Here's what we decided to do as a body today. America is part of the battlefield. We firmly believe the war is coming back home, so we're no longer going to have an absurd result that if we capture you overseas where you're planning 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. That's an absurd result; never been known in war before."
I get what the proponents of the bill are trying to say, but from what I gather, the language is not specific enough. I agree that military combatants must be treated as such, but where is the fine line? Why can't the legislation differentiate in specific language those that come to America to harm us, and those that are ordinary citizens?
Final arguments, and potential passage of the $662 billion defense measure, could materialize by week's end.
If it passes, we will essentially be under martial law. Some arguments, however, state that Section 1032.b.1 of the bill is that stipulation that protects ordinary citizens.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Should Military Be Allowed to Detain Americans Indefinitely? - Fox News
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window - ACLU Blog of RightsSource URL: http://indahrahmadewi.blogspot.com/2011/12/federal-government-moves-against.html
Visit Indah Rahma Dewi for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
