Posts Tagged ‘Carl Levin’

De Facto Martial Law is Imminent in the USA

December 29, 2011

As of this posting the Bill has not been signed by President Barack Obama.  There is an online petition on the White House website.  It may seem hopeless to petition the president on his own webpage, but this is the most popular petition there.

http://wh.gov/jeY

One last try.

On the night of Tuesday November 29th I participated in a Senatorial Debate hosted by the Brighton TEA Party, Rattle With Us, RetakeOurGov, Lakes Area TEA Party and the West Oakland County TEA Party Patriots.  Thank you to all of them for hosting a fair and balanced forum.  On the way home I found myself dwelling on differences I had with some of the other candidates.  I was starting to think that even Debbie Stabenow might be better than one or two of them.

Then I got home and went online.

To my disbelief and horror I learned that Michigan’s own Carl Levin, and former Presidential nominee John McCain had introduced an amendment to a bill (S. 1867) that would give the President the authority to order troops to  arrest and indefinite detention of people in the United States without any due process.  A casual reader of this Bill (it’s long so search for “Subtitle D—Detainee Matters”) might point out that this bill only applies to people who are supporters of al-Qaeda or related groups, but this language begs the question.  Since there is no due process, this qualification need only be claimed, not proven.

So the bottom line is that this bill would give the president the authority to send troops into US streets, round up innocent civilians, load them into box cars, and store them in detention camps for the remainder of their lives.  President Obama originally said he didn’t want that power and would veto this bill.  Later he retracted the veto offer and is now threatening to sign it.

So what does all of this have to do with Stabenow and the Senatorial debates?  Senator Debbie Stabenow is among the Senators who voted “Yea” on this bill

(Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1867).  Well, none of the disagreements I have with any of my Republican opponents is this bad.  As much as I have opposed Pete Hoekstra’s bailout vote, or Gary Glenn’s anti-LGBT policies, I can’t compare their folly on these issues to the outright fascism that Debbie Stabenow approves of.

The people who voted in favor of this bill have attempted to do more harm to America than any act of terror.  Rather than a specific tragedy on a specific day, we face the prospect of continuous terror in a prison nation where  any one of us could disappear on any given day.

This was an act of treason, and the 88 traitors who have taken this action deserve no more respect or mercy than any one who is correctly called a terrorist.  A later vote was even more disturbing: 93 in favor and only seven against.

The mainstream media has completely ignored this travesty.  Only a few Television personalities such as Judge Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on the Fox Business Network dared touch it.  Since this time, the Bill has moved through the House of Representatives and up to the President’s desk.  On December 14th  H.R. 1540 was made compatible with S. 1867.   283 Representatives supported the final version and 136 opposed it.  My representative, Hansen Clarke, did the right thing and voted “Nay.”

Finally, it went back through the Senate with the offending clauses still intact.

Some have argued that this is a false alarm, but  a careful reading of the Bill shows all concerns to be justified.  In response to emails and phone calls, Senator Stabenow defended her actions claiming, “The National Defense Authorization Act only codifies into law what is currently U.S. policy.” The implication being that unconstitutional policies are somehow better if made law.  The opposite it true.  It is much easier to contest a wrongful government action in court if there is not a law legitimizing it.

Stabenow further claims,

“I voted to ensure that only terrorists who are members of al-Qaeda and who commit an act of war against the United States can be detained. For the first time, detainees now have the right to a hearing before a judge with a defense lawyer present. The bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 93-7, also protects the right of habeas corpus. In addition, I voted for an amendment, which passed, explicitly stating that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affect existing law related to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured in the U.S.”

The relevant portions (Subtitle D—Counterterrorism) can be found in the final version, and do not support the Senator’s claim:

Section 1031a. Reads, “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.”  Part 2 of that subsection identifies possible “covered persons” to include, “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.” Note the use of wedge phrases like “associated forces,” “belligerent act,” and “substantially supported.”  It is also noteworthy that this makes people who oppose governments of coalition partners into “covered persons” even if they are not part of al-Qaeda (which is more of a movement than an organization).

Another critical phrase here is “Disposition under law of war.” This is spelled out in Subsection b:

“1 (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 111–10 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.”

So it may include, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”  This is the smoking gun that shoots down the Senator’s claim.  Yes it may also include trials, but not necessarily.  This allows for detention WITHOUT TRIAL.  This can be a life sentence, since the “…end of the hostilities…” is an arbitrary moment when the enemy is a loosely knit movement like al-Qaeda (or “associated forces”), and the “hostilities” take the form of sporadic acts of homicide against a variety of people at a variety of locations.

But all of this knit-picking misses on major point which is that without a trial ANYONE becomes a covered person since a person is innocent until proven guilty and the trial is the means by which guilt is determined.  In other-words, the Senator’s claim that the law would, “…ensure that only terrorists who are members of al-Qaeda and who commit an act of war against the United States can be detained.” Completely begs the question.

As for other claims.  The phrases “habeas corpus” and “defense lawyer” are nowhere to be found in the document.  There are unrelated references to “attorneys who provide pro bono legal assistance to members of the Armed Forces.”  The only thing resembling such due process is a clause referring to MILITARY judges and MILITARY council under “PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.”  This is not the due process civilians are entitled to under the Bill of Rights, and remember this is not required since the law provides for, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

Finally there is the claim that, she, “… voted for an amendment, which passed, explicitly stating that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affect existing law related to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured in the U.S.”  OK.  It does say that, but then why have the other parts of the law there to begin with?  Any new law pertaining to “U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured in the U.S.” must affect existing law by adding to it.  All this really does is say that existing laws remain on the books and are not amended by this one.  It does not negate the fact that this additional law is also on the books and may be used on the aforementioned persons.  Furthermore, courts have routinely ruled in favor of laws that conflicted with the United States Constitution or “existing laws.”  So this doesn’t hold much weight, and if one is being held without trial, the opportunity to invoke existing law may not arise.

The bottom line is that Congress has passed a law that that puts dictatorial powers in the hands of the President.  It has been brazenly ignored by the establishment media. This, at a time when there is apparently no urgency or extraordinary circumstances.  This is not an accident. We are destined to live in interesting times.

Advertisements

Congratulations Senator Carl Levin

November 5, 2008

Honorable Senator Carl Levin:

 

I Congratulate you on your re-election to the United States Senate.  

 

As an opposition candidate turned constituent, I hope your future votes in the United States Senate make me happy you won.

 

Sincerely,

 

Scotty Boman

2008 Libertarian Candidate for United States Senate

313-247-2052

http://boman08.com

Mike Walenta diverts your tax dollars to his favorite politicians!

October 17, 2008

Mike Walenta is diverting your tax dollars to his favorite two Senate candidates.  He is doing so via an in-kind contribution in the form of an exclusive press conference.  He has dogmatically clung to his claim that he is applying certain “standards”  However, when I could show I met all verifiable standards, he regurgitated the same drivel.

For instance he claims I am not running a “visible campaign.”  Apparently he hasn’t driven past the billboard that is only a few miles from WGVU.   I haven’t seen any for the other candidates.

He uses statewide polling data as a criteria when there is no polling data that includes me as a choice.

Clearly he doesn’t care about these “standards”  he ignores them then uses them as a smokescrean for the real standard.

Here is the real standard:

You must be the candidate nominated by the Republican or Democratic Party.

That is the only standard he goes by….

Your tax dollars at work.  Here is the complete text of our Correspondence:

616-331-6737

walentam@gvsu.edu

Scotty Boman wishes to join in the DebateThursday, October 9, 2008 9:43 PM
From: “Scotty Boman” <scottyeducation@yahoo.com>View contact details To: walentam@gvsu.edu
Dear General Manage Mike Walenta:

It is my understanding that you are holding a Senatorial Debate on Sunday October 19th.  I will be pleased to participate, however you haven’t contacted me about this directly.  I am sure this was not intentional since WGVU is a non-partisan organization that would not organize a partisan activity to promote some candidates over others. Please contact me with important details such as arrival times, format, and rules.     Please feel free to call me at: 313-247-2052

Sincerely,

Scotty Boman

Libertarian for United States Senate

http://boman08.com

PS: Have any of the other United States Senate candidates accepted the invitation besides Carl Levin and Jack Hoogendyk?

————————————————————————————

– On Fri, 10/10/08, Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu> wrote:

From: Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Scotty Boman wishes to join in the Debate
To: scottyeducation@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 4:58 PM
Dear Mr. Bowman:

This email constitutes a formal response to your communication regarding the upcoming WGVU-sponsored debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates for the US Senate from Michigan. WGVU has hosted such programs for many years and has utilized these criteria when extending invitations to candidates.  Candidates must meet all three criteria:  

(1)  the person seeking to participate must have qualified for the ballot;
(2) the candidate must be running a visible and comprehensive campaign as determined by WGVU; and
(3) the candidate must show a certain fixed level of support — at least 5% — in professionally conducted  public opinion polls.

These criteria were adapted by WGVU from those developed by our broadcast partner, National Public Radio and have been used  by WGVU for U.S. Senate debates in 1996, 2000, 2002,  2006, and again this year. While you meet criterion one, it is WGVU’s judgment that you do not meet criterion two or three.  For that reason, we did not extend an invitation to you. We appreciate your interest in public television and thank you for your letter.

Sincerely,
Michael T. Walenta

General Manager

WGVU TV & Radio
———————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————–

My Reply on Oct 10


Dear Michael Walenta:

Thank you for responding promptly, and giving me the chance to educate you on some facts. I have met the first 2 criteria:
1. You agree on one.
As for # 2….  2. Define: ” visible and comprehensive campaign” I can’t think of anything my campaign isn’t doing that Jack Hoogendyk’s is doing.  The only way I am “less visible” is by being excluded from partisan media events.  Thus you have created the very outcome this condition addresses.
3.  As for the third, please provide me with the results of one state-wide poll in which I was included as one of the choices.  I have looked for such a poll and found none.  This again becomes a procedure that fixes the outcome in advance to not satisfy or fail this criterion.

Sincerely,

Scotty Boman

PS: It is B-O-M-A-N.  Say what you want about me but please spell my name right.

PPS:  I will be checking campaign finance reports after the election to see that the other candidates properly list this as an in-kind contribution.

———————————————————————————-

— On Mon, 10/13/08, Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu> wrote:

From: Michael Walenta <walentam@gvsu.edu>
Subject: Scotty Boman wishes to join in the Debate
To: scottyeducation@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, October 13, 2008, 1:20 PM

Dear Mr. Boman,
 
First I want to apologize for misspelling your name in my previous e-mail to you.  It was certainly not intentional and I regret the error.
 
Secondly I want to acknowledge your e-mail from October 10. 
 
As stated previously, the criteria we use were adapted by WGVU from those developed by our broadcast partner, National Public Radio and have been used  by WGVU for the past 4 U.S. Senate debates.  These criteria are again being used for this debate.
 
While you meet criterion one, it remains WGVU’s judgment that you do not meet criterion two or three.  For that reason, we did not extend an invitation to you.
 
We appreciate your interest in public television and thank you for your response.
 
Sincerely,
 
Michael T. Walenta
General Manager
WGVU TV & Radio

———————————————————————————-

My Final Reply (He did not respond after this)

Dear Michael Walenta:

How is it that I don’t meet criteria 2? My campaign is as visible as the Republican’s.  Google it.  I have a billboard up, I haven’t seen his.  We both have lawn-signs, bumper stickers and literature all over the state.  We have both been on radio.  He has been a no-show at three candidate forums (which I attended) that he did not show up to.  In some respects my campaign is more active than his.

Please identify the state-wide survey you used to determine I don’t meet criteria 3 (a scientific poll that included me as one of the choices).

Of course I already made these points, and you didn’t have an answer to rebut them. Since you can’t show that I don’t meet the criteria, I may can only assume that this is a simple matter of political bias on the part of yourself and WGVU.  

Can you at least drop the charade and admit that?

Sincerely,

Scotty Boman

Levin Sponsors Orwellian Survailance Laws

June 22, 2008

I wrote the following letter as a concerned Citizen, and published it in my Myspace blog on Sunday August 5th last year:

“Honorable Senators Levin and Stabinaw:

When I was growing up, our government always, contrasted itself with the Soviet Union, by claiming Soviet citizens were subject to electronic surveillance without warrants or cause.

In schools we were encouraged to read George Orwell’s “1984” to alert us to the evil of unrestricted government surveillance.

George W. Bush Sovietized the United States with his extensive surveillance program. Ironically, he claimed we needed this to protect our nation from terrorists, who don’t believe in freedom or privacy. I was relieved to learn that this program was over. Then, like a scene out of 1984, I learned the US House revived this beast from the abyss!

Clearly, many of your colleagues voted for it. What is the point in fighting Al-Qaida abroad, if our elected officials have no more respect for our Constitution, or our privacy, than they do? Why not just surrender and spare us the pretense?

Please vote against this measure in the Senate.”

Well little did I know, Levin sponsored this legislation, and he did it two days before I published the Blog:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2011/show

“8/3/2007–Introduced.
Protect America Act of 2007 – Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between persons who are not located within the United States for collectingforeign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States. Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court) for an order, or the extension of an order, authorizing for up to one year the electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes of persons outside the United States. Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the AG to authorize the immediate electronic surveillance (without prior Court order) of persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if:
(1)the DNI and AG determine that it is in the U.S. national security interest to begin such surveillance; and
(2) the AG submits to the Court, within five days after the commencement of the surveillance, a certification of and application for such surveillance. Authorizes the AG, with respect to an authorized surveillance, to issue a directive to a communications service provider, custodian, or other person to:
(1) furnish all appropriate information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance; and
(2) maintain under security procedures any surveillance records. Directs the Inspector General to report to the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees on surveillance conducted during the previous four-month period.”