Clever.

And we all can say: "I wuz there when it happened!" Thanks again, Jack!

I've got a little Christmas Carol here inspired by the new detention powers buried in the 2012 Defense Authorization Act that was just passed by the Senate.

It would allow the government to detain any American citizens it wants, indefinitely without trial. They should call it the "End of America" act but I guess that would be counterproductive. So for now they're just calling it....

S. 1867

It came upon the midnight fear
A treacherous bill of hate
The Senate has sold out our rights
and freedom knows its fate
"Control the land, arrest the men
who criticize the King!"

America in ruins lay
To hear these traitors sing.

Hey, WTH? I thought they were going to be occupying Mill Ends Park, not the Portland Farmer's Market!

Bill,

A lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth is going on, mostly by folks who have no clue as to what the Senate bill actually permits and what it specifically forbids:

Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens -

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

The bill, addressing military dentention without trial, is actually far less odious than what is already occurring with progressive frequency across the country: you get your trial, followed by life in prison. Your crime? Felony filming of police.

Welcome to the real world - as it actually is, this very day.

These OccupyGripers seem more like a 1% type crowd. If most of us acted like them, we'd all be at 0%, too!

Max,
You sound like quite a legal scholar. And thanks for reading the bill.
But tell me, how come there's such a debate about what the language means? How come there's an outcry about it by people who do have a clue?
I'm not a legal scholar but I can see a way to interpret these paragraphs that still could lead to trouble: If something isn't required that still doesn't mean it's forbidden. Here's a paragraph from one article:

During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Paul confronted John McCain, asking, “Would it be possible that an American citizen can then be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “As long as that individual, no matter who they are, poses a threat to the security of the United States of America, (they) should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

Max, you could argue that McCain doesn't have a clue about the bill either but it's his bill so good luck with that.

There's also your snarky description of this as "wailing and gnashing of teeth" when it's really just being ever vigilant. I'm curious how you remain so damn trusting of the authorities?

You are aware that this isn't final version and that we had better keep an eye out for it? We've seen an incremental erosion of our liberties so your "relax, everything is okay" attitude seems clueless to me.

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson

This is in a one-year defense spending bill of $662 billion. Isn't that a clue to you about who's powerful in this country and who's losing their freedoms? Isn't it likely that any major bill from now on will contain some sort of codification of the new power of the elite? This whole bill is a symptom of the problem.

Wasn't trying to be snarky, Bill - just pointing out some facts.

The Senate has sold out our rights
and freedom knows its fate
"Control the land, arrest the men
who criticize the King!"

Funny...to me, that seemed a lot like wailing and gnashing of teeth, especially in view of the fact that - as you noted - it is not law; it is not final, and there's apparently not a lot of support for it in anyplace other than the Senate. Although I suppose it all hinges on what the definition of "is" is.

Personally, as I noted previously, I'm much more concerned with what is already happening: with progressive frequency across the country: you get your trial, followed by life in prison. Your crime? Felony filming of police.

While I agree with the need for continued vigilance I reserve my deepest concern for the abuses which are already occurring.

Max- the exceptions you note above refer only to the requirement that an accused terrorist not be charged in civilian court; military detention is now optional for U.S. citizens. Which, as Glen Greenwald spells it out, flies directly in the face of "the Constitutional requirement in Art. III, Sec. 3 that 'No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.'"

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/?mobile.html

From the article:

The Levin/McCain bill would require that all accused Terrorists be held in military detention and not be charged in a civilian court — including those apprehended on U.S. soil — with two caveats: (1) it exempts U.S. citizens and legal residents from this mandate, for whom military detention would still be optional (i.e., in the discretion of the Executive Branch); and (2) it allows the Executive Branch to issue a waiver if it wants to charge an accused Terrorist in the civilian system.

One of the nation’s most stalwart war cheerleaders and one of the bill’s most vocal proponents, Sen. Lindsey Graham, made clear what the provision’s intent is: “If you’re an American citizen and you betray your country, you’re not going to be given a lawyer . . . I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home or abroad.” As Graham made chillingly clear, one key effect of the provision is that the U.S. military — rather than domestic law enforcement agencies — will be used to apprehend and imprison accused Terrorists on American soil, including U.S. citizens.

Sorry, that should be: "military detention would be optional for U.S. citizens."

The eroding of our liberties, such as being criminally charged for filming police, stem from such fundamental abuses of our basic rights such as we are seeing in the Levin/McCain bill.

From the Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The War on Terror was conceived partly so that we're always in a time of war and public danger, and the whole world is the battleground, thereby nullifying the intent of the Constitution and canceling our basic rights.

Meanwhile, the role of our lawmakers is to find out where illegal activity has occurred and then legalize it so it can never happen again.

Meanwhile, the role of our lawmakers is to find out where illegal activity has occurred and then legalize it so it can never happen again.

On that much, we can agree. You've still got it.