Senator Rand Paul Worried About Move To Make ALL U.S. Citizens Potential Enemy Combatants

[someguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ONj1GNEpJQ

[Hotspring 44]

I think this is referring to "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" (S. 1253). If so here is something more to add to this discussion as an FYI:

Here is the e mail I received from Senator Dianne Feinstein:

Thank you for writing regarding the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I appreciate hearing your perspective on this legislation, and I welcome the opportunity to share my thoughts.

On June 2, 2011, Senator Carl Levin introduced the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" (S. 1253), which would authorize funding for the U.S. Department of Defense. I understand you are opposed to sections 1031, 1032, and 1036 of S. 1253. Section 1031 would authorize the federal government to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists. Section 1032 would require that certain suspected terrorists connected to al-Qaeda be automatically detained in military custody when apprehended. Finally, Section 1036 would establish procedures for how the Department of Defense will determine whether to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists

I believe that Congress should not pass legislation that would tie the hands of the President; he should have the flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis under what circumstances detentions should occur, and whether to use a Federal criminal court or military commission to prosecute terrorists. No tool of counterterrorism, including criminal prosecutions, should be ruled out. If you are interested, I have enclosed an op-ed I published in the Wall Street Journal in which I further explain my views about this subject.

Despite recent criticism of putting terrorists on trial in the Federal court system, Federal criminal courts have proven to be fully capable of dealing with extremely dangerous killers, classified intelligence, and other factors unique to national security prosecutions. In addition, Federal courts continue to deliver the punishment that terrorists deserve. For example, on January 25, 2011, a Federal judge sentenced Ahmed Ghailani to life in prison for conspiracy to destroy the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The life sentence he received is longer than many sentences given in the military commission system in recent years.

On June 22, 2011, S. 1253 was reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. It is currently awaiting action before the full Senate. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers this legislation.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Civilian Courts Can Prosecute Terrorists:

Military commissions are basically untried.
The Justice Department has all the experience.

The Wall Street Journal

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Anyone who says America's federal courts can't bring terrorists to justice is overlooking the facts. In the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago on March 18, David Headley pleaded guilty to a dozen terror-related felonies, including helping plan the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, that killed 164 people. He is also providing authorities with valuable intelligence about terrorist activities, according to the Justice Department.

Wearing leg shackles and heavily guarded by U.S. marshals, Headley admitted to scouting sites in Mumbai for the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar -e- Tayyiba , and to plotting to attack a Danish newspaper. He faces life imprisonment when he is eventually sentenced for his crimes.

His guilty plea and his cooperation are significant victories for justice and our intelligence agencies. They demonstrate that federal criminal courts -- also called Article III courts in reference to the article of the Constitution establishing the federal judiciary -- can effectively prosecute terrorists and gather intelligence.

Some of the most well-known terrorists of the past decade -- "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid, "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and the "20th Hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui -- are serving life sentences after being tried in Article III criminal courts. Military commissions have prosecuted just three Guantanamo detainees since 9/11. Two of these terrorists served light sentences and are free.

This contrast between life sentences and light sentences leaves no doubt that federal criminal courts effectively punish terrorists.

There may be times when a military commission is the best venue for a trial. But the president should have the flexibility to choose which system in which to prosecute. The decision should hinge on which system is most likely to produce actionable intelligence, protect our national security, bring terrorists to justice quickly, and keep them behind bars for good. Prosecutions in Article III courts can achieve all of these objectives.

For example, Najibullah Zazi , accused of plotting to bomb New York City's subway system, pleaded guilty in federal court on Feb. 22 and is reported to be cooperating. In the case of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the attorney general is confident that prosecutors can secure a conviction and a death sentence in federal court.

Hundreds of international terrorists have been convicted in our federal courts since 9/11 and are locked away in heavily fortified federal prisons. Federal courts are tried, tested and capable of dealing with extremely dangerous defendants and classified intelligence. In contrast, military commissions are slow, untested and have not yet overseen a death penalty trial since 9/11.

President Obama's fear-mongering critics make three false accusations in their bid to discredit America's federal courts:

-- First, they claim terrorists will have access to classified evidence. But the Classified Information Procedures Act sets up a process for federal judges to protect classified information during terrorist trials. The rules for how military commissions treat classified information are based on the rules used in federal criminal courts.


-- Second, they claim federal prosecutors can't properly try terrorists. Yet federal prosecutors have more experience handling terrorists than anyone else. According to a Bush-era Department of Justice document , "Since September 11, 2001, the Department has charged 512 individuals with terrorism or terrorism-related crimes and convicted or obtained guilty pleas in 319 terrorism-related and anti-terrorism cases." That's far more than the three convictions in military commissions.

-- Finally, they claim federal courts allow terrorists to take advantage of constitutional requirements for Miranda warnings and search warrants. But it is simply wrong to claim that a search warrant is required to obtain physical evidence from overseas, or that a criminal prosecution requires that detainees be immediately given Miranda warnings.

The record speaks for itself: Our criminal justice system is very effective at punishing terrorists. Headley's guilty plea in an Article III court has provided the most recent evidence of this. Headley admitted his crimes, is providing intelligence, and is likely to spend the rest of his life in federal prison. Case closed.


Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov

. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up.
Feel free to checkout my YouTube Page.

I did small bit of research and came up with:

"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" (S. 1253), on SEC. 1031 titled:
3“Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY
5 BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO
6 THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
7 FORCE.” on Page 359 starting @ Paragraph 4, going to Page 361 Paragraph 2.

SEC. 1032 titled:
“3 SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS
4 OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.
5 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
6 WAR.” on Page 361 starting @ Paragraph 3, going to Page 362 Paragraph 19.

SEC. 1036 titled: “19 SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATION OF
20 UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.” on Page 372 starting @ Paragraph 19, going to Page 374 Paragraph 5.

The document is 666 pages so I had to do a search of the terms Senator Dianne Feinstein and the internet “petition” I signed to find this much in the document.
If you want the complete 666 pages the page is:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...112s1253rs.pdf