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

reply to post by Xcathdra


Those of you who are claiming that we just don't know how to read a bill, and this can not apply to Americans~ arguing semantics aside, did you watch the video in the thread of Rand Paul asking McCain if this bill allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely if considered a threat without being convicted of a crime, and McCain said yes , we have to do whatever it takes. I am going to believe him, since he fathered this bill.

Sorry but it absolutely applies.

What I don't understand is why is this needed in the first place? If we catch a terrorist in our country ,from another country or not, he will be tried or sent to guantanamo, right?

Am I missing something here? We've got the patriot act, so they can spy on whoever they want, and supposedly catch said criminal.

Why do we need to bring the military into this at all? They have a job, ande the FBI has their job. This co-mingling of duties is a sure sign that this bill's authorizations will be used against the citizens.

No more Bills! We've got too many already!

Anyone that agrees with this is NOT American!

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

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

Probably the same reason the ACLU is stating it allows the detention of citizens. Apparetly they ahve not read the bill in its entirety to understand it.

The first part denotes those who are covered by the law. Section 1032 states how the process works and specifically notes US Citizens are NOT subject to military detention.

Even with the facts present, people want to seel it as something its not just for the fear factor.

This bill does NOT allow US citizens to be held indefinitely with no charge.

Originally posted by ladykenzie
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Those of you who are claiming that we just don't know how to read a bill, and this can not apply to Americans~ arguing semantics aside, did you watch the video in the thread of Rand Paul asking McCain if this bill allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely if considered a threat without being convicted of a crime, and McCain said yes , we have to do whatever it takes. I am going to believe him, since he fathered this bill.

Sorry but it absolutely applies.

So when Congress passed health care legislation without ever reading it..........

Also, McCain is not the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Levin out of michigan is and there are no co sponsors. Might it be possible Mccain was pulling a political move to make the bill something its not?

I think the precedence has already been set:

Transcript of Executive Order 9066: Resulting in the Relocation of Japanese (1942)
Executive Order No. 9066

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded there from, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

Seems to me it was all about “territory” and “restricted access” and was wonderfully ambiguous. I think the devil is in the details, actually and the declaration of the US Homeland as a battlefield allows a great deal of interpretation and also puts us firmly under martial law.

Let’s look at the meaning of the term battlefield in the recent war on terror.

law.shu.edu...

This classification is essentially instating martial law on US ground and, by association, subjecting us to discriminatory action by military leaders. That is essentially what Executive Order No. 9066 said way back in ’42. This line jumps out:

“I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.”

I believe this is slight of hand, as the definition of “enemy Combatant” and “terrorist” has expanded to include, well, almost everyone these days, even those who’s actions prevent people from going to work or making money under the pretense that work=taxes=government funding=military support.


What, Mr Obama, is a terrorist? (Note how the “extremist” meme creeps in here):

Human Events
www.humanevents.com...
“The bottom line: Islam and terrorism are intertwined. America will never understand its enemy, an enemy dedicated to its destruction, unless it comes to grips with that fact.
Yet, the Obama Administration is rewriting the official terrorism glossary to erase any Islam-terror connection.
"Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear," John Brennan, the President's closest adviser on counter-terrorism, told an audience at the prestigious Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
And Brennan added this: "The President's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
Then he listed an Obama national security priority: "This includes addressing the political, economic and social forces that can make some people fall victim to the cancer of violent extremism .... And I think there's more work we need to do to understand the psychology behind terrorism. But a lot of times, the psychology is affected by the environment that has those political, social, economic factors that contribute to that."

Sooooo…what’s an “extremist”?

www.fas.org...

Just about anybody that doesn’t believe in the status quo.

Is the Occupy crowd considered terroristic or extremist?
What about Christians, or Preppers, or Constitutionalists, or Libertarians, or Ron Paul supporters…yep. They are gonna use this to try and “disappear” all opposition in the coming months.

Here's a look behind the curtain:
From the previous law link...

“Returned to the battlefield” is unambiguous, and describes—clearly and without
qualification—an act of aggression or war against the United States, or at least against its
interests. In contrast, it is not clear on its face whether the use of the phrase “anti-coalition
militant activities” is intended to embrace only overt, military, hostile action taken by the former
detainee, or rather to extend to include activities that are political in nature. Further review of the
preamble and the news release as a whole reveals that it is this latter meaning that prevails—and
thus the shift from “return to the battlefield,” to “return to militant activities” reflects a wholesale
retreat from the claim that thirty (30) ex-detainees have taken up arms against the United States
or its coalition partners."

If anyone is interested and gets the Fox Business channel, Freedom Watch w/ Judge Napolitano just started and they will be going in-depth on the bill, and talking to Rand Paul about it.

Originally posted by PapaKrok
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.

People having been claiming martial law is coming and that the Posse Comitatus Act has been tossed in the trash for at least 20 years now. It was supposed to be Bush, Jr., I mean Clinton, I mean Bush, Sr., I mean Regan... Every president gets their turn at being accused of declaring martial law and rounding us all up, none have done it. I was frankly wondering when it would be Obama's turn. Turns out that Obama isn't getting the blame, Congress is. People finally start blaming the right people for things they don't like but they choose this of all things to start with. A non-issue that has apparently been in the works since the dawn of time. History tells me that the sky isn't actually falling and that it clearly states that it doesn't apply to US citizens because it doesn't, not because it's a trick meant to lull me into a false sense of security. I'll smuggle you an alcoholic drink of your choice into the FEMA camps if I'm wrong.

reply to post by Jenna


I'll take Peach Brandy

Originally posted by Xcathdra


So when Congress passed health care legislation without ever reading it..........

Also, McCain is not the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Levin out of michigan is and there are no co sponsors. Might it be possible Mccain was pulling a political move to make the bill something its not?

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

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

I just downloaded the .pdf of the press release of the U.S. Senate Committee of Armed Forces regarding this bill, which states that

WASHINGTON -- Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Senator John McCain (R-
Ariz.), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, announced today that the committee has completed markup of a
second National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.


You better believe he had a hand in this

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

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

Probably the same reason the ACLU is stating it allows the detention of citizens. Apparetly they ahve not read the bill in its entirety to understand it.

The first part denotes those who are covered by the law. Section 1032 states how the process works and specifically notes US Citizens are NOT subject to military detention.

Even with the facts present, people want to seel it as something its not just for the fear factor.

This bill does NOT allow US citizens to be held indefinitely with no charge.

YOU DONT HAVE ANY OUTRAGE that my country is also defined as a battle field,
and by this bill they claim the right to take people of the battle field (my country) and imprison them without trial?
and you support this?
on the basis of acusation?

are you mad?

i would not want the right to go into your country and find guilt for what ever reason then imprison without appeal.

by nature of this bill people become mearly pawns with no rights and no say.

and they extend that to the entire earth?
this is the behaviour of a congress gone mad and without popular public support, 8%
they are going to war on there own people to keep control, and this legislation lets them do it. and lets them attack other countries in the name of the never ending war called
the war on terror.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


All valid concerns, which is why the legislation specifically spells out / defines who is covered and why and how it works.

The US is not storming into norway and rounding people up. The legislation is already in place and has been since 2006, starting with the first military comission act, followed up the MCA of 2008 and 2009. This section of the defense authroization bill takes one sectio of the patirot act and ties it into the NDA.

Whats good about this? The NDa is required to be authorized every year by congress, which means this part of the legislation is not permanent and can be repealed at any point without jeopradizing the remainder of the spending bill.

As far as being outraged.. As I said, this is not new... The supreme court ruling on Jose Padilla ended any potential use of terrorism laws on Us citizens. Congress cant legislate around it, and they have not done so in this bill. The terminology used is already approved by the supreme Court from their earlier rulings.

People need to take a step back, read the entire bill and draw their own conclusion instead of piling on the band wagon and screaming about something that doesnt exist.

Politics when it comes to bills.... surely you jest.....

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra
where is your humanity?
xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Xcathdra
where is your humanity?
xploder

I still have it. I just opted to take the time to read the bill before jumping on the bandwagon of gloom and doom. For people who are so concerned about what our government is doing, we should take the time to do our own research instead of solely relying on politicians to tell us what we should think.

reply to post by Xcathdra


you do realize the decleration of war in any form or under any guise on your own population is in itself an war crime.
these colateral damage stats become more sickening when they are your neigbours.
and the war is on you in your country.

it is very smart to be vigalent aginst the form of tack over,
by stealth, a wide interpretation can be "missused" to convey power over all.
this makes a world wide war impossable to stop.

xploder

reply to post by PapaKrok


Wouldn't have been my first choice, but it's a deal.

reply to post by Xcathdra


1032 DOES NOT say that US citizens are exempt only that the REQUIREMENT to hold them is.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

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.

(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.

further more 1031 does not exempt US citizens

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.

(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.

where in that definition does it say except US citizens??

reply to post by Xcathdra


at the time when people seek to resrain the power of the govenment by popular consensus,
it seeks a power grab to allow "battle" on your people in your country,
on my people on my country,
on my neibours people and their country.

when a seceret police gets to thow people in jail forever without public knowledge you end up with a genoside on your hands.

do you want genoside on your hands?

where is your humanity?

xploder

Originally posted 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)

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

Just to clear this up,

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States..

...refers to...

The requirement in paragraph (1)

...and therefore,

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.

reply to post by rstregooski


No, the requirement is that they MUST/ SHALL hold such persons and that this REQUIREMENT is not extended to US citizens or people waived by paragraph (4). This DOES NOT mean that US citizens cannot be held it just means there is no requirement to hold them as others.

reply to post by Xcathdra


How does this bill define a "citizen?" The patriot act already states that a "citizen" can be deemed an "enemy combatant" and is not subject to the usual systemic checks and balances. So I'm confused as to how this doesn't apply to anyone they want it apply to.

What is so odd is even the intelligence agencies state there are very few "terrorists" on the planet - a planet of 7 billion. In America the number is probably less than 100 and most likely less than 25, so why does this bill need to be passed? What in the current system is so messed up, so flawed, so without function, that this bill addresses?