Indefinite Detention Coming for You
De facto martial law is imminent in the USA
Scotty Boman

An excerpt from his blog, located here:

On the night of Tuesday November 29th I participated in a Senatorial Debate hosted by the Brighton TEA Party, Rattle With Us, RetakeOurGov, Lakes Area TEA Party and the West Oakland County TEA Party Patriots. Thank you to all of them for hosting a fair and balanced forum. On the way home I found myself dwelling on differences I had with some of the other candidates. I was starting to think that even Debbie Stabenow might be better than one or two of them.

Then I got home and went online.

To my disbelief and horror I learned that Michigan's own Carl Levin, and former Presidential nominee John McCain had introduced an amendment to a bill (S. 1867) that would give the President the authority to order troops to arrest and indefinite detention of people in the United States without any due process. A casual reader of this Bill (it's long so search for "Subtitle D-Detainee Matters") might point out that this bill only applies to people who are supporters of al-Qaeda or related groups, but this language begs the question. Since there is no due process, this qualification need only be claimed, not proven.

So the bottom line is that this bill would give the president the authority to send troops into US streets, round up innocent civilians, load them into box cars, and store them in detention camps for the remainder of their lives. President Obama originally said he didn't want that power and would veto this bill. Later he retracted the veto offer and is now threatening to sign it. [signed on Dec. 31, 2011.]

So what does all of this have to do with Stabenow and the Senatorial debates? Senator Debbie Stabenow is among the Senators who voted "Yea" on this bill

(Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1867). Well, none of the disagreements I have with any of my Republican opponents is this bad. As much as I have opposed Pete Hoekstra's bailout vote, or Gary Glenn's anti-LGBT policies, I can't compare their folly on these issues to the outright fascism that Debbie Stabenow approves of.

• The people who voted in favor of this bill have attempted to do more harm to America than any act of terror. Rather than a specific tragedy on a specific day, we face the prospect of continuous terror in a prison nation where any one of us could disappear on any given day.


• This was an act of treason, and the 88 traitors who have taken this action deserve no more respect or mercy than any one who is correctly called a terrorist. A later vote was even more disturbing: 93 in favor and only seven against.

The mainstream media has completely ignored this travesty. Only a few Television personalities such as Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on the Fox Business Network dared touch it. Since this time, the Bill has moved through the House of Representatives and up to the President's desk. On December 14th H.R. 1540 was made compatible with S. 1867. 283 Representatives supported the final version and 136 opposed it. My representative, Hansen Clarke, did the right thing and voted "Nay."

Finally, it went back through the Senate with the offending clauses still intact.

Some have argued that this is a false alarm, but a careful reading of the Bill shows all concerns to be justified. In response to emails and phone calls, Senator Stabenow defended her actions claiming, "The National Defense Authorization Act only codifies into law what is currently U.S. policy." The implication being that unconstitutional policies are somehow better if made law. The opposite it true. It is much easier to contest a wrongful government action in court if there is not a law legitimizing it.

Stabenow further claims...

###

... but all of this knit-picking misses on major point which is that without a trial ANYONE becomes a covered person since a person is innocent until proven guilty and the trial is the means by which guilt is determined. In other-words, the Senator's claim that the law would, ".ensure that only terrorists who are members of al-Qaeda and who commit an act of war against the United States can be detained." Completely begs the question. Full blog entry.

###
2012 January 02
Excerpt by The Coffee Coaster™ Copyright Scotty Boman
NDAA | Indefinite Detention | Civil Liberties | Constitution | Obamaking