S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act - Some Clarifictions - Does NOT allow US Citizen detenti, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

Topic started on 29-11-2011 @ 05:03 PM by Xcathdra

S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

The ACLU issued a warning, and several websites are claiming this act, for lack of better wording, removes the Posse Commitatus Act, allowing the Federal military the ability to arrest and detain American citizens without charge or trial.

The ACLU pointed out several sections in the bill that they claim does this.
Text of bill table of cotents
Section 1031 and 1032 - The text that people claim strips rights

In the first part below, it spells out who is covered under the section. In this case it is Al Queida and Taliban and those who provide material support. On the off chance one of those individuals is an American - move down to section 1032.

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) 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.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) 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.
(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 111-84)).
(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.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Section 1032 - pay attention because this is where the confusion is coming in.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(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.
............................

Emphesis added by me.

I am making a seperate post so it does not get lost in the ongoing discussion.

The sections people are talking about ONLY pertain to NON US CITIZENS.
The Military has NO ability to arrest, detain, hold etc a US citizen.

edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:12 PM by rstregooski

reply to post by Xcathdra

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:27 PM by Agent_USA_Supporter

reply to post by Xcathdra

Section 1032 - pay attention because this is where the confusion is coming in.

So in other words your for John McCain Bill S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act?

the bill states that he would allow the arrest of American People, even Rand, Paul and others are stating it.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:28 PM by jburg6

Xcathra, thanks for clearing this up. Anyone who knows how to apply the rules of statutory construction should be able to see it does not apply to U.S. citizens. The waiver mentioned in Section 1032 applies to section (a) of the bill, not to section (b)! Don't get me wrong, I certainly do not condone passing this bill because it is certainly morally wrong, but nowhere in the bill does it give the U.S. the right to indefinitely retain U.S. citizens.

edit on 29-11-2011 by jburg6 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:28 PM by ladykenzie

reply to post by rstregooski

Good catch, and keep in mind it doesn't say the SoD must submit said certificate for congress to approve, just that it must be submitted. No other specifications, pretty vague... intentional loophole if you ask me.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:41 PM by gladtobehere

It most definitely would allow Citizens to be imprisoned without rights, thats the point of the legislation. They've been trying to pass a similar bill for the past few years without success usually under a name similar to "defense and detention authorization act".

As usual, the government is trying to confuse the general public and obfuscate the issue.

McCain, in typical scum bag fashion, avoids the question altogether and instead makes a "patriotic" speech about how the government needs to do "whatever it takes" to "fight terrorism".

YouTube Link

edit on 29-11-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:47 PM by this_is_who_we_are

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by Xcathdra

That pretty much says it all: The Gestapo Act Of 2011. Secret arrests? Check. Indefinite detention? Check. Military execution? More than likely.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:53 PM by Corruption Exposed

reply to post by rstregooski

You beat me to it.

It's full of loop holes.

They can do whatever they want as long as they qualify you as an exception which is easy to do.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 05:56 PM by this_is_who_we_are

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by rstregooski

You beat me to it.

It's full of loop holes.

They can do whatever they want as long as they qualify you as an exception which is easy to do.

Check.

Edit To Add:
The long slippery slope is creeping up on us fast. Time to seriously check the blind spots and change lanes before we're doubledeckered.

edit on 11/29/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: ETA

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:00 PM by chrismicha77

RT had a write up about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:11 PM by FreedomKnight

You know you can rub peanut butter on $#!t and it's still gonna taste like $#!t...that's what this bill reminds me of. This bill is intended to detain ANYONE they feel is a terrorist!! It may say Al-CIA-da but the government can paint a pretty picture to the MSM and make you a sympathizer or an affiliate. And I truly believe it implies to ANYONE who does not sail in the same direction as they do.

You don't like the Patriot Act? You don't like the TSA molesting you or your family? You respect and honor the Constitution? You don't like going to war without a vote from Congress? Well you just might be a problem in their eyes!!! You may just be one of dem terrorists!! So they will probably have to detain you and shut your BIG mouth so you don't start spreading the truth about their lies!!

Be ready!! The brown stuff is gonna hit the fan quicker than you know it!!

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:19 PM by GoldenRuled

No it doesn't. That law went into effect in 2002 by order of GW Bush.
www.post-gazette.com...

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:24 PM by Jenna

Originally posted by jburg6
Anyone who knows how to apply the rules of statutory construction should be able to see it does not apply to U.S. citizens.

And therein lies the problem. Too many people who don't really understand how to read bills jump to conclusions based on what they think it says instead of what it actually says. Same thing happens with every bill that has a topic made about it here. It's not entirely their fault. They have people telling them that's what it says and bills/laws are written in the most unreadable format known to man it's no wonder they believe whoever they hear or see talking about it first.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:27 PM by this_is_who_we_are

The New and Improved Twilight Zone Version of America.

Turning the Amercan Dream from this:

Into this:

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:28 PM by Vitchilo

YouTube Link

Sorry but the fascists in Washington are going for it.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:31 PM by PapaKrok

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by jburg6
Anyone who knows how to apply the rules of statutory construction should be able to see it does not apply to U.S. citizens.

And therein lies the problem. Too many people who don't really understand how to read bills jump to conclusions based on what they think it says instead of what it actually says. Same thing happens with every bill that has a topic made about it here. It's not entirely their fault. They have people telling them that's what it says and bills/laws are written in the most unreadable format known to man it's no wonder they believe whoever they hear or see talking about it first.

Maybe not in its present form, but a great deal of lattitude is allowed for the Executive branch...we have recently seen them kill one American and detain another without legal recourse (maybe others that we are unaware of). I feel that its main push is to define a new battle ground. It is now in our front yards folks.

They already have an updated definition of "terrorist".

The rest WILL follow. Just wait for it. Legal or not, they are not concerned and will do exactly as they wish. Your logic is sound, but you should appeal to history and street smarts on this one. Semantics and debate skills are mute at this point. They mean to lock us up or kill us off.

This is an admission of contempt in the face of the law. Your interpretation is correct. Your trust in their word is a liability.

edit on 29-11-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:37 PM by SurrealisticPillow

.gov

This thread.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:41 PM by JiggyPotamus

The most horrific parts of bills like this one are usually only a sentence long. They just "slip" it in there and hope no one notices. This seems like these rules wouldn't apply to US citizens, but that isn't true if you read the entire thing. Citizens can be detained and held if deemed to be causing a security risk to the US. Who is to say what constitutes a security risk? Owning a gun maybe, lol.

You have to be extremely careful with the wording of these things, and as someone pointed out, it only says they have to submit to Congress, not that Congress can actually do anything or issue approval. Good job ACLU. If they are against it, most people who know that the government doesn't have their best interests at heart will be against it as well.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:41 PM by GoldenRuled

Apparently having 7 days or more of food makes you a suspected terrorist. 600+ pages. What other surprises does this bill hold?

YouTube Link

edit on 29-11-2011 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:48 PM by XPLodER

reply to post by Xcathdra

wtf?
why if it does not acually apply to americans did rand paul give this speach?

YouTube Link

if he is as worried as he sounded you americans better mobilize to occupy DC to ENSURE this bill and any like it fails to pass the house.

america the land of the free to be detained without trial?

xploder

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^