December 11, 2011Posted by kudzu in Uncategorized, Society, war.
Tags: terrorism, congress, military, s1867, senate bill 1867, section 1032,politics
Obviously, I’m not a liberal and now I hope you understand I’m not a shoot myself in the foot liberaltarian. I’m not a “neo conservative”. I am simply put, a Constitutional American. I’ll be frank, the idea that a terrorist has the same rights as you or I enjoy, as Americans under suspicion, is ludicrous.
Senate Bill 1867 has caused quite the stir up. Why not? Its an important piece of legislation that has gone through the Senate and currently sits before the House of Representatives. It should be debated, as every bill in Congress. However, S1867 is not the Marshal Law mandate that the uncanny alliance of libertarians, the ACLU, several tea party groups, and the refreshing Senator Rand Paul claim it to be. The reasons? Its in the bill itself:
S1867, Sec. 1031, para (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
This is so important that it was reiterated once again
S1867, Sec 1032, para (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.
Waiver? Yes. But only for the requirement to detain individuals in military custody and only if those individuals were first covered under this bill. You can see that in S1867, Sec. 1032, para (a), subpara 4.
Why do we need this? Because we have been in an undeclared war with the radical forces of Islam since 1996 to be specific but the hostilities go back to the time even before Iranian revolutionaries invaded sovereign American soil in Tehran. We finally took the offensive in October 2001… but it took the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11th to do so. We did it again in Iraq 2003 because of the alarming signs that Saddam Hussein’s regime were inching towards more and more materials support to Islamic terrorists. I know its not accepted but I’m not ashamed to have invaded Iraq, they were in violation of UN resolutions for over a decade and we did nothing. They attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States of America and we did nothing.
My rant aside this is about the global battlefield that the war on terror…err “violent extremist organizations” and the fact that a good bit of that battlefield exists between the territorial confines of the United States of America. Now, my oath of service requires me to do many things: defend the Constitution, obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me, and defend this nation against all enemies- foreign AND domestic.
I could talk about the Whiskey Rebellion and how federal troops took on a militia in order to force a tax code. But I won’t go there since S1867 expressly prohibits such activities. Lets go more recent, World War II. I point to German saboteurs who came ashore in Long Island, New York and Jacksonville, Florida. What came of them when caught? Were they transferred to civilian custody? No. They were held by the military and tried by military tribunal:
[On 13 June 1942, 4 agents were landed from U-584 on Amagansett, Long Island, New York; and on 17 June 1942, 4 agents from U-202 were landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, south of Jacksonville, Florida. A subsequent military trial of the 8 captured agents resulted in 6 death sentences, one life imprisonment and one 30-year sentence.
Much like the Military Detention Act of 2009, this practice ensured that the enemies of the United States of America would not be privy to the same rights as you or I. So Senate Bill 1867 follows through with ensuring the popular support (Quinnipiac University Poll, Feb 2-8, 2010) for military control over terrorists and not allowing them access to our civilian courts. Currently, if a non-US citizen terrorist suspect is captured within the United States the person is held in federal custody. You saw this happen with the “Underwear Bomber” who only changed his plea in October 2011. His act of war happened in December 2009, justice at the speed of Eric Holder’s Justice Department. They were quicker in initiating Operation FAST AND FURIOUS/ GUNWALKER than they were in prosecuting this case.
- A terrorist group linked to the Haqqani Network has established a financing pipeline to a population within a major US city. They now encourage that its local networks begin spotting and assessing targets within the United States for attack in order to strike back for US successes in Afghanistan. Intelligence picks up on this and identifies several US citizens who may be involved and that information is shared with the Joint Terrorism Task Force. However, they also discover that a strike team will be coming across the southern border and will set up locations in order to conduct attacks. Because of the sensitive nature of the information and the requirement for military detention, members of the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment are dispatch to quickly take the locations under control and detain all personnel. US citizens will be handed over to the FBI for civilian prosecution while others will go on a nice plane ride to a tropical island and never see the light of day nor risk the exposure of intelligence sources and methods in open trials.
That is the potential use of S1867 and how it would play out with US citizens. Now… if there are abuses then they need to be stopped and those personnel need to be handled swiftly. America’s military is a very powerful tool and the idea of roaming patrols on American cities is not something we want to consider nor do. But I leave you with this; we have a requirement to protect this nation and that includes within its own borders if the threat to her security is there.