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

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...

listen to what is said

extend the battle field onto the entire world!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

OK, so some DC buffoon said so. Here's a little insight into Washington DC mentality: we have people saying completely stupid things there all the time. It doesn't matter. What matters is what the bill itself says. Here is the official version of the bill (subtitle D starts on page 359).

I do agree on the definition of "battlefield" and "battle", but I was not aware that battlefields were officially designated by one party. I thought it took two or more opposing forces to make a battle.

TheRedneck

ETA: That is the same link Phage gave... it worked fine for me, but you will need a .pdf file reader to open it.

reply to post by TheRedneck


you deflect again,
retirered generals and high ranking officials oppose this law,
they signed their name to a letter,

are you more trust worthy than a ret general?



watch the video and see what a democractic law comentator says about it<

do you pretend to be more of an authority than the woman in the utube?

if she is an expert on civil liberties and she is outraged are you the one who is wrong?

or will you stick to the myth of its all for your own good?

xploder

reply to post by TheRedneck


your first sentence was to attack her credability?
comon i can see her expresions and hear her words i can read her body language,
i can beleive her,

you are still debating weather or not battlefield has been expanded,

you are deflecting

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

are you more trust worthy than a ret general?

No. But the bill is.

What is so hard about simply pointing to the section of the bill that you find to be so terrible? All the links you have given have been opinions by people... opinions are not laws. I gave you the link directly to the official copy of S.1867. You can read it for yourself. Why would you want others to tell you what to think?

No matter what anyone says on TV, this bill, if passed, will be enforced according to the words in it, not according to anyone's opinion.

Now, can you please at least tell me what section in this bill declares the entire world a battlefield?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


again you try to discredit what i say by attacking the source,


i have made some very good points in this debate and you have always come to the conclusion that this law is just.
my conclusion is you are either deluded or have an ajenda
i have clearly stated my position and you have not adressed my concerns.



i back up my claims and fears,
you just keep saying
its not a bad law
i ask for who?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

again you try to discredit what i say by attacking the source

No, I do not try to discredit you. I agree she said what you said she said. I just don't care.

You evade my question: what section of the bill S.1867 says the US battlefield is global? What section of S.1867 makes New Zealand a battlefield?

If your entire debate is that some Senator said it expanded the battlefield, fine... it was said. But that does not make it law! Get angry with her... or him... or whoever said the thing you don't like. Don't get angry with the bill that didn't say it.

Sheesh...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Redneck,
Admit it. Ultimately, when you really get down to it, there is NO written law.
It is the law of the jungle. The powerful over the powerless.
You should be advocating that we all unite into a powerful bloc.
But, no, you are convinced that there is still hope????
PLEASE, convince me.
Trust me the world has gone ape # crazy, and I know some really powerful people.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I just don't care

you just dont care that i am not the only one upset by this law?

another highly qualified person articulated what i had been saying and you dont care?

you lose this debate outright
xploder

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.

reply to post by XPLodER

you just dont care that i am not the only one upset by this law?

I do not care what some pundit in Washington says about this bill. I care what this bill says. And apparently it does not say what you want others to think it says.

Now please stop trying to twist my words. They are all there in black and white for anyone else to see. Just as S.1867 is. Let me know when you have a relevant argument.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


here is more comentary, but i doubt you will listen to the larger discussion being held atm

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.

why would these important people stand up in protest if this bill was just?

do you know more than them?

xploder

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)

why is it that these high ranking officials are speaking out aginst this bill?

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.

answers?

xploder

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.

reply to post by Phage

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.”

these two know more than i do but my understanding is this bill is up to no good
xploder

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)

this to is my concern,
in my country we are in close alience with our police.
we work them as a comunity,
to undermine this is very dangerous.
the language in the bill is ambiguous,
and be interpreted from a global perspective

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Well yes, they probably do know more than you do because they have read the bill.
But because they are both politicians they want to tell people what to think.

well the Senate passed it, now it goes onto Obama's desk where it should get the words VETO on it, but sadly my itchy toe says no this will not happen, and will become law ok so it is from CNN do not shoot the messenger www.cnn.com... Senate passes defense bill with detainee policy compromise now this is good news sort of from the link

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.

Congress Decides Constitution is a Threat to National Security by KrisAnne Hall

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!

That woman is no idiot... She was Florida Assistant State Attorney...fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies.

KrisAnne Hall bio

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.

And Paul Craig Roberts :


And Obama vetoing it... come on... it won't happen. Even if he did, the senate passed it at 93-7... way over the 2/3 needed to override a veto.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
[URL=http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2011/12/02/congress-decides-constitution-is-a-threat-to-national-
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!

Awesome!! This is exactly what I have been saying in this thread - ONLY an idiot couldn't see that ...

and if you're not an idiot you're a paid shill trying to manipulate people around this dangerous issue.