Monday 01-16-12

The new defense bill… R.I.P. due process

By Rebecca DiFede — On Dec. 1 the Senate passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act; a $662 billion Defense bill.

That’s typical. But what’s not is that one portion of the bill may take tyranny and governmental control to a whole new level. Critics have said the legislation would give the military the power to lock up any and all suspected terrorists, whether captured here or abroad, citizen or not, and hold them indefinitely.

If your face is frozen in terror, don’t worry. That’s totally normal.

In an attempt to save the rights of United States citizens, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) insisted on an amendment that stated that the current laws on the detention of citizens would stand, and in extreme cases the Supreme Court can decide if a waiver (as allowed by the bill) would be granted. It passed easily 99 to 1.

Feinstein even attempted to introduce a provision into the bill that the military indefinite hold only be applied to those captured outside the U.S., but the vote was denied. The majority of the Senate, it seems, didn’t really want to outright prohibit the military from being able to lock up citizens left and right.

The Obama Administration, for its part, has threatened to veto the legislation, saying the provisions don’t go far enough and will hamper law enforcement. Despite Obama’s veto threats, the bill passed 93-7 and is now being reviewed by the House.

But with waivers, there are so many loopholes in this bill that if the government suspects that you were involved in somehow supporting something related to an Al-Qaeda-esque organization, they can find a way to get the Secretary of Defense to write a waiver for you, sending you off to prison before the ink dries on your arraignment — and then perhaps the Supreme Court might save you.

As Senator Dick Durbin put it, “The Supreme Court will decide who can be detained; the United States Senate will not,” Durbin said.

If this bill passes the House and the President fails to veto it as promised, it will create a situation where at any moment, martial law can be invoked — putting every person’s freedom in jeopardy.

If there is even the smallest inkling that someone is connected to some form of terrorism they can be arrested, detained without being Mirandized, and not let out until the military decides to release them (or charge them).

As any student of American History can tell you, our founding fathers drafted the Constitution to protect us from the tyrannical grip of English rule. They wanted to make sure that in America, soldiers wouldn’t be able to come after the general population and round up everyone they think seems guilty without just cause.

The Fifth Amendment was designed to do just that; give us the right to due process so that we are guaranteed to be treated fairly when we are arrested. The rights of the accused are a cornerstone in the foundation of our country, and one of the things that separates us from the rest of the uncivilized world.

If this bill is passed, it could render the Fifth Amendment and all its protections completely irrelevant.

This idea unravels some of the basic tenets of our Constitution, and goes back on the very ideas our country was founded upon. It then comes as no surprise that Congress only sustains a 12 percent approval rating, while 82.5 percent disapprove of the way they’re handling the country. And I suspect trampling the constitution will only further diminish the faith of Americans in our men and women in Congress.

Hopefully Obama does what he said (for once) and vetoes this bill, lest it pass both houses and become one of the most terrifying laws this side of Nazi Germany.

http://netrightdaily.com/2011/12/the-new-defense-bill-rip-due-process/#ixzz1jQlsn600

Looks like things could be moving in the right direction, at least in GA.

Senate proposes ending ban on silencers in hunting

ATLANTA — A Georgia Senate proposal would end the ban on silencers for hunting firearms.

Senate Bill 301 is sponsored by Sen. John Bulloch, who says allowing hunters to use silencers would keep them from disturbing their neighbors. The Ochlocknee Republican says hunters would still have to have a federal permit to possess a silencer and argues this does not create an unfair advantage for hunters.

"As our growth patterns have changed and we're having more and more residential properties infringing on hunting properties," Bulloch said. "If you have a silencer on your hunting gun, the noise would not disturb neighbors as bad. This doesn't really have anything to do with fair chase. It's about trying to be respectful to people in residential areas."

The bill has been assigned to the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which Bulloch co-chairs. Sen. Ross Tolleson, a Republican from Perry who is one of the bill's co-sponsors, is the committee's chairman.

Bulloch said the legislation was brought to him by the National Rifle Association. Reached by telephone, NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said the organization does support the use of silencers, which she referred to as suppressors.

"There are several benefits to hunting with suppressed firearms," Samford said. "Suppressors decrease the gunfire noise, which is important because a lot of hunters don't always wear hearing protection. Suppressors also reduce recoil and muzzle rise. That allows the shooter to get into position for a follow up shot much more quickly and accurately."

Samford said that silencers do not allow hunters to sneak up on animals because a sound is still emitted.

The NRA successfully pushed for similar legislation last year in Kansas, Louisiana and Washington, and supports legalizing silencers in all 50 states. Silencers are legal to possess and use for lawful purposes in most states, but require a federal permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The permit costs $200.

http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2012-01-12/senate-proposes-ending-ban-silencers-hunting