Be a Voice...Write to your Congressman before it's too late

ATSers...I believe we all have one thought when it comes to the future of America and the fact that our freedoms are being taken away before our eyes. The Senate is set to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act that will give the US government the power to indefinitely imprison anyone, including American citizens, without charge or trial. Here is an article from the ACLU explaining the National Defense Authorization Act:

NDAA

Yesterday I wrote my Congressman, Jim Himes (D-CT), about this bill and I would like to share it with you. I urge ALL of you to be a voice because the more we stay silent the more our freedoms will be stripped from our lives. Please read:

Dear Congressman Himes:

I am writing you today because of my deep concern regarding the National Defense Authorization Act which will be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week.

As you may know, this bill will give the government the power to indefintely imprison anyone, including American citizens, without charge or trial. To quote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill, “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield”. I ask you Mr. Himes, since when did "the land of the free and home of the brave" become a battlefield? What's even more disturbing is that our elected officials, in which we put our trust and faith in to protect and serve the PEOPLE, have the slightest thought to even come up with an anti-Constitutional bill as the National Defense Authorization Act.

Americans rights are being shredded before our own eyes and it's sad that there is a small percentage of us that are awake to the tyranny being displayed before our eyes. Congressman, I write to you today to stand up for those who are awake and those who are blind. I ask you as one man speaking for many to serve the people and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and vote AGAINST the National Defense Authorization Act. I ask you to speak with your constituents who represent Americans in different states to do the same.

I would like to end with a quote from the great Thomas Jefferson, a man who served the People with diginity and respect, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Great letter... I wonder if our congressmen actually read the letters addressed to them.

reply to post by tinker9917


Probably not.

Most likely read by a lackey and translated up the line in the most pleasing way they can contrive.

My guess anyway

Thank you OP for bringing this issue back up. A previous thread attempted to state that this piece of legislation exempted American citizens. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. The truth is in the fine print.

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

www.aclu.org...
Calling your Senator's office is a quick way to voice your opinion. Just do a quick web search for your Senator's website to obtain the correct phone number. I just did and the young lady at the office was very pleasant and just asked for my zip code.

I told her that I seriously objected to Sections 1031 and 1032 of National Defense Authorization Act as it gave the military the power to arrest and detain American citizens at home.

It took 15 seconds to make the call and I've heard that calls are even more effective than e mail.

Section 1032 clearly states:

(b) 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.

thomas.loc.gov...:1:./temp/~c112NTG7Z7:e464889:

If you can find a SECTION 1031 in this bill more power to you...I did a search and did not find it...

Good luck on getting them to listen to your calls or read letters or emails; I've been trying all three for years to no avail.

What you can do however, is to set your sights lower and try to influence the flunky who answers the phone or reads the correspondence.

It may not help much, but if you can get the flunkies to thinking and discussing the gap between what the citizens want and are concerned with and the agendas their bosses are pursuing....who knows? Maybe one will actually drop a clue on one of their bosses that actually breaks through the wall of indifference.

I've written my congressmen before. All I get is a form letter back which may or may not be germane to the topic I wrote about. If they are vested in a subjcet, say Global Warming as an example, they won't budge from their position even if you offer contrary evidence, Although they are happy to solicit campaign contributions from you no matter where you live, if you want to tell tthem your concerns and you live outside their district, they don't want to hear from you. Take a look at the official congress web site and you'll see that it is set up that way intentionally. Congressmen probably get a sample of letters received, but what they really get is a report from staffers that "We got 10,000 letters on this and 20,000 emails on that." They may react to evolving trends, but that's about all the influence you will have.

reply to post by jeichelberg

Here's a link to the bill.
thomas.loc.gov...:S.1867: Scroll down and click on "Subtitle D -- Detainee Matters" and VOILA, Section 1031.
As previously quoted:

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

www.aclu.org...

reply to post by robyn


AND as asked for PREVIOUSLY...Please find SECTION 1031 in the bill itself...IT IS NOT IN THERE!!!

Database name missing

Use the Browser Back button and select a database

reply to post by jeichelberg

ji aplologize. I don't understand why the link doesn't work when posted.

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).[quote/]

edit on 29-11-2011 by robyn because: add text

reply to post by robyn

Database name missing

Use the Browser Back button and select a database

It should be noted that my link does the exact same thing...Detainee matters in what section?

reply to post by robyn


I found the exact same thing...so what is it that concerns you again about this text?

reply to post by jeichelberg


What is alarming everybody about this?

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

This is not me...I do not think anyone here falls under this heading...OH....AHA!!! THIS IS WHAT THE ACLU IS CONCERNED ABOUT!!! AN AMERICAN CITIZEN MAY HAVE AIDED in the commission of the 9/11 attacks...if an American Citizen did that, then YES...LOCK THEM UP and detain them...must prove it though...

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Again, this is not me...I do not know about anyone else here...BUT THE ACLU MUST BE CONCERNED because an American Citizen MAY BE PART of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, engaged in hostilities against the United States of America...Well, sorry again, but if an American Citizen actively engaged in open hostilities against the United States of America, engaged in a belligerent act against the United States of America, or directly supported such hostilities in the aid of such enemy forces, then YES...LOCK THEM UP and detain them...must prove it though...

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Describing a Prisoner of War...

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

Covers the trial for detainees...

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Release and transportation of detainees who are found innocent...

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Establishing boundaries and controls...

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Reporting and transparency...

Again, what is the problem?

reply to post by jeichelberg

The language is far too broad and could be abused as desired. It's a very slippery slope.

Section 1031 Would Be the First Time in More than 60 Years that Congress
Explicitly Authorizes Indefinite Imprisonment of Civilians Within the United States, and
Would Be the First Exception to a 40-Year Old Statute Prohibiting the Detention of
American Citizens Unless Authorized by Congress. Section 1031 would be a sharp and
extraordinarily harmful break from decades of Congress refraining from enacting laws for the
indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial of American citizens, of persons apprehended
within the United States, and of civilians who had no role in actual hostilities.

The last time that Congress authorized the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens
and legal residents without charge or trial within the United States itself was during the
McCarthy era. In 1950, Congress overrode the veto of President Harry Truman and enacted the
Internal Security Act, which included the Emergency Detention Act that authorized the federal
government to imprison without charge or trial Americans and non-citizens in the United States
considered likely to commit espionage or sabotage. The Emergency Detention Act was never
used, but after concerns that it could be used to imprison civil rights activists during the 1960’s
and as the result of a campaign by the Japanese American Citizens League for its repeal, Senator
Daniel Inouye led the Senate effort for repeal—with the strong support of President Richard
Nixon.

www.aclu.org...

reply to post by robyn


That language is not broad...there are very defined sections and reporting requirements...Please see my revised post...right above yours...

Again, the AMERICAN CITIZEN would need to be a part of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated body, (or actively supporting them) in order to be detained...

reply to post by jeichelberg


I believe what is alarming is this is America and no matter what the allegations you are entitled to a fair trial. This bill will give the US government the "freedom" to snatch you and imprison you as long as they deem fit which can be until your last breath without a trial. No phone call...no attorney...NOTHING!

Now if that doesn't open your eyes and piss you off then I don't know what to tell you. BUT I feel it is our obligation to tell our families, our friends, our neighbors.. I know some people will blow it off...but at least you warned them!!

reply to post by jeichelberg


I forgot one rebuttal to your reply to Robyn...actually more of a question...can't the US government portray you as an Al Qaeda operative or terrorist by lying? All they need to do is post your photo on the MSM and sell their story about your terrorist plots to the zombies and POOF you're a terrorist!

Originally posted by schuyler
I've written my congressmen before. All I get is a form letter back which may or may not be germane to the topic I wrote about. If they are vested in a subjcet, say Global Warming as an example, they won't budge from their position even if you offer contrary evidence...

Schuyler, I've had exactly the same experience.

I wrote to my congresswoman (Nancy Pelosi, I'm sorry to say) about the effects of flouride in our drinking water, and the form letter reply I received could be best used for the bottom lining of a birdcage if, indeed, I had a bird.

I agree with the poster who said that, if we can enlighten the lackeys who deal with the e-mails and phone calls, we stand a better chance of effecting change than just adding to the numbers of dissenters.That said, I still believe it's important to voice your objections, no matter who hears them or acts upon them.

reply to post by jeichelberg

What is the problem??? The problem is your faith in our government to treat us fairly, after they pass a bill implying
they can pick us up and hold us indefinitely for committing a belligerent act. Giving our rights away does not make us patriotic, it makes us pathetic to have been fooled so easily. The Bill of Rights were put in place to protect us from an authoritarian government. We shouldn't give them up without a fight.

Please notice this portion of the section:

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The President (Commander-in-Chief) GETS NO NEW AUTHORITY beyond the Authorization for Use of Military Force. That Authorization was passed as Public Law 107-40 back in September of 2001.

Fine, you might not like the bill that was passed 10 years ago (No, I'm not talking about the Patriot Act.), but Section 1031 isn't changing the rules of the game. This is no sudden loss of freedom.