Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
Graham may say that but I can't find it. Can you help me?
Here's the bill. Section 1031 starts on page 359.
www.gpo.gov...
are you more trust worthy than a ret general?
again you try to discredit what i say by attacking the source
I just don't care
you just dont care that i am not the only one upset by this law?
It would be one thing if the military was clamoring for the authority to become the nation’s jailer. But to the contrary: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opposes the maneuver. So does CIA Director David Petraeus, who usually commands deference from senators in both parties. Pretty much every security official has lined up against the Senate detention provisions, from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who worry that they’ll get in the way of FBI investigations of domestic terrorists. President Obama has promised to veto the bill.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
The context was a request to find where in the bill the world is turned into a battlefield. Instead of listening to politicians talking about the bill why not read the bill yourself? Politicians don't expect people to do that. You are playing into their hands.
edit on 12/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)
It would be one thing if the military was clamoring for the authority to become the nation’s jailer. But to the contrary: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opposes the maneuver. So does CIA Director David Petraeus, who usually commands deference from senators in both parties. Pretty much every security official has lined up against the Senate detention provisions, from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who worry that they’ll get in the way of FBI investigations of domestic terrorists. President Obama has promised to veto the bill.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: The provisions restrain "the Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available." And it may "needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States."
Civil libertarians aren’t. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said it “denigrates the very foundations of this country.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “it puts every single American citizen at risk.”
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
It would be helpful (not to mention required by the T&C) if you provided links so we could see the context.
Panetta's concern is not that the bill is a threat to US citizens rights.
He thinks it interferes with existing counterterrorism measures. He, like many, thinks that law enforcement authorities (FBI, etc.) can do a better job than the Armed Forces.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: The provisions restrain "the Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available." And it may "needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States."
www.nsnetwork.org...
Many agree. The concern is that the bill requires the armed forces to do something they were never meant to do.
edit on 12/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.but they can still detain you
"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.we have to determine your a combatant first as the law is now, see below
"It supports present law," Feinstein added.same old same old OWS you can breath easy now, get the picket signs ready "OBAMA VETO S 1867 NOW" like that will happen, back too cookies and coffee.
Senate Bill 1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, is the means by which Congress funds the military and is therefore a “must pass bill.” No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are a so-called conservative. Those who would be disposed to usurp the Liberties of this land take these must pass bills and convert them into Trojan horses. This particular Trojan horse puts the due process rights of American citizens in serious jeopardy through sections 1031 and 1032.
Sections 1031 and 1032 of this bill are completely unrelated to the funding of the military. These sections, we are told, will ‘save us from terrorists’. The plan is to remove the Constitutional right of habeas corpus and persons deemed to be terrorists will be detained indefinitely, out of the country. The built-in premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security.
2. Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citzens.
False. Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be “a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Sounds pretty limiting right? Well, here’s Door No. 2, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements 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.”
There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a “national security interest”. But those that planted these loopholes are not finished.
The next argument alleges:
3. Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens
False. Section 1032(b)(1) states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Is this the part that is supposed to stop the government from detaining US Citizens? Any decent attorney would tell you that the “prohibitive language” in this statement is a bit ambiguous. What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn’t extend to US Citizens. That means they don’t have to detain them, but what if they want to! Door No. 3, let all who enter beware!
KrisAnne Hall is a Constitutional attorney and former state prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups - she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. Awarded the Freedom Fighter award by Americans for Prosperity, and the Certificate of Achievement from the Sons of the Revolution for her defense of Constitutional principles, Congressman James Blair Award for Defense of the Constitution. Author of "Not a Living Breathing Document: Reclaiming Our Constitution, and the DVD series The Roots of Liberty: The Historic Foundations of The Bill of Rights. Two books that inspired KrisAnne's love for our history were Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis and 1776 by David McCollough.
