The American Spectator

Jack in Wi| 12.1.11 @ 6:39PM

Obama has threatened to veto this bill because his liberal base is outraged by this clear violation of the Constitution and basic civil liberties. The Vast majority of the Republican idiots who voted for his will now make Obama look good while they look bad. Good for Kirk, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. This bill is nothing but an attempt to silence dissent in this country. It would be more at home in Israel, South Africa, during Apartheid, in Mussolini's Italy, or in Nazi Germany.

Mrs. Vito| 12.1.11 @ 8:09PM

No wonder Dianne Feinstein is called the 'bird-brain of Alcatraz'!

Nite| 12.1.11 @ 8:24PM

Oh Pleassssssse! Obama and the Democrats care nothing for the Constitution and civil liberties.

DRed| 12.1.11 @ 8:45PM

On this evidence, neither do Republicans.

shipley130| 12.2.11 @ 1:18PM

Diane Feinstein should not be any where near a national security committee. Her lips are certainly loose.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 12.3.11 @ 10:29AM

This bill has been lied about so often, by so many ignorant people, including so many conservatives and libertarians, that I believe I need to step in and set the record straight.

NOTHING in S. 1867, repeat, NOTHING in S. 1867 applies to US citizens or to legal residents (with the caveat for non-citizen legal residents that they're protected to the extent permitted by the Constitution). If this bill becomes law, neither the military nor any other agency of the federal government will have any prerogative to detain ANY citizen or legal resident arbitrarily. Any claim to the contrary is a BLATANT LIE.

Read the bill, folks, before you comment on it.

Page 362 of the NDAA clearly states: "UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
Page 362 also says: "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 NDAA contains a national security waiver. This allows the Secretary of Defense to determine if certain situations necessitate a criminal/civil path, rather than a military one.

The bill deservedly passed the Congress by a bipartisan 93-6 margin. Only a few strident liberals (like Tom Harkin and Ron Wyden) and a few loony libertarians like Tom Coburn and Rand "America is a police state" Paul voted against it.

The only people who denounce and oppose this bill are anti-defense liberals and libertarians who are desperate to paint the US military as an oppressive, dangerous institution that breaks American citizens' civil liberties. The vast majority of Americans reject their vehemently anti-military Blame America First rhetoric and their proposals of deep defense cuts, so they are desperately trying to smear the honorable US military.