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

reply to post by artfuldodger


It cant be applied to any US citizen, as stated in the bill. That is reinforced by all the info I posted above regarding legislation and case law. As far as the comment on law of the land, be careful using that phrase.

The Constitution does NOT prevent the use of federal military in civilian law enforcement functions. It is legislation that was passed after the civil war, and as such can be revoked by Congress.

A US citizen cannot be designated an enemy combatant - Jose Padilla case.
A US citizen is subject to US domestic law when it comes to crimes committed in this country.

US Citizens who go overseas and join Al Queida or Taliban still retain their citizenship and rights. However immigration laws come into play reference how a person can revoke their citizenship either by word or actions.

reply to post by bekod


First off - The war powers act is technically unconstitutional. The President is commander in chief, Congress gets control of the purse strings and the ability to declare war. The war powers act injures the separation of powers.

Secondly the bill does not apply to US citizens, and it clearly states it.

Third - All the protests we are seeing are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government - at all. The local and state government and law enforcement have jurisdiction. In order for the President to use the military in those situations would be to declare the city / state in a state of rebellion against the US Government. The states would not allow that action to occur.

Fourth - State guard units are not subject to posse commitatus - That applies only to active duty military units.

Dont get me wrong, I understand your side of the argument. Personally speaking though I dont think people are seeing the larger picture in terms of prior legislation and court rulings. Section 1031 defines who is subject and what actions are required. 1032 sets the exceptions and specifically references 1031. US Citizen is NOT listed in 1031. So when 1032 references 1031 it is saying US citizens are not a part of this because they arent listed. Then, in 1031 it actually states US citizens are exempt.

reply to post by TheRedneck


You are free to not take me seriously, though I am.

I disagree with your interpretation of the bill.

I think you're naive. I don't think you want to return to having a monarchy I was just illustrating my point.

I think it opens the door to run around the 6th amendment.

The US government has shown a proclivity for trying to get around the bill of rights - I for one do not trust them.

The threat of terrorist is nothing compared to the threat of tyranny.

edit: removed snide comment - getting a lil carried away I was.

reply to post by artfuldodger

The authority of the President and the military already is supreme over Constitutional law, if martial law is declared. It has been that way your entire life. It has to be that way. War is not capable of being won by establishing rules.

What you seem to be trying to say is that, in a battlefield situation, our soldiers should arrest the enemy, read them their rights, appoint them an attorney, house them in a civilian prison, and then release them if there are any paperwork errors or if things take longer than 24 hours. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? There would be no Constitution within a matter of days, because there would be no one left to defend it. The United States would be a territory under control of someone who thought little enough of us to attack us. All these rights you are so concerned about would no longer exist.

War is not a police action. It is an attempt to destroy the other side, any way you can.

TheRedneck

reply to post by XPLodER


Your opinions instead of law aside, please read up on the head money case.

Secondly, I am a citizen of the state i live in, as well as a citizen of the country I reside in.

I could care less how the rest of the world views this law. I could care less what the UN thinks of this law. Where is your moral argument when hamas / terrorist blow up civilians in Israel? When Israel launches an air strike? Iran executing anyone who doesn't agree with the government?

Please read up on the term war crime and review the UN definition and application of that term. Once done compare the info to domestic actions and civilian law enforcement.

Respects

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by artfuldodger

War is not a police action. It is an attempt to destroy the other side, any way you can.

TheRedneck

They are attempting to take a police action and call it a war - see?

war on drugs. war on terrorism.

The war on drugs has eroded the 4th amendment. The war on terrorism likewise (6th).

These are excuses to take freedoms.

Every tyranny became so under the guise of protecting its people.

reply to post by XPLodER


Xploder, it would be helpful if you explained what a "citizen" is. I know you are well versed on the particulars of the term. I think part of the problem here, especially for you and myself, is the constitutional argument fails since we are no longer governed by that document. The clear case in point is that document mentions nothing of a provision of "enemy combatant" as a designation that can be applied to anyone, at anytime, for any reason, which allows no due process at all. Nor does that document allow for the re-designation of what people "are."

The other problem with the discussion is the folks who oppose the act are opposing it on terms but also on trying to stop the endless lawmaking that is suffocating people under the guise of safety from a handful of "terrorists." Some here are aware that simply stating "well, this law is okay, we'll get upset when the real bad law comes to pass" is the problem. We have millions and millions of law worldwide, in fact the postings on this thread probably violate countless laws and no doubt could be easily interpreted as anti US and could easily subject all of is to detainment as terrorists - there is nothing to stop it. The point folks are making is, when do you simply say "enough" legislating laws to incarcerate people - when does it end? When are people going to stop accepting the endless legislation governing every single thing they do? There is not one single solitary thing a person can do in this country that is not governed by the government, not one, none, and they keep making laws to split each law in to smaller parts in a process that seems infinite.

Originally posted by MegaMind
I understand that the bill of rights are limits on government and that the 4th amendment is being violated at every turn.

Then you dont understand the 4th amendment and how it applies.

Originally posted by MegaMind
The bill does not exempt citizens. It says, for the 100th time, THE REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIZENS. This mean only that they are not REQUIRED to detain citizens BUT the other section clearly states THEY CAN.

Patriot Act case law, Jose Padilla case law, Hamdi / Hamden vs. Rumsfeld Case law, Military commission act of 2006 / 2008 / 2009 legislation and case law. US Citizens are exempt from this law.

Originally posted by MegaMind
How about you explain why it says "THE REQUIREMENT." If what your saying is true US citizens would be exempted in the Covered Person section WHICH THEY ARE NOT.

ok, one last time

Section 1031 - Part B

(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.

The remainder of 1031 deals with military tribunals, and if you would take notice it specifically references the Military Commission Act of 2009. Please review the list of cases I cited to get from point A to excludes US citizens.

1032 sets forth the requirements for military detention -

(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.

As in 1031, we see a reference to the AUMF - 107-40. That specifically deals with the war on terror. Person described in paragraph 2 who are subject to this law -

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

Emphasis added by me. Any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 - terrorists.

Terrorist further defined -

(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.

The waiver requirement, again, has no application to US citizens. We know this because - ]

(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.

This is part of section 4 - The waiver portion above:

(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.

The waiver section specifically states this does NOT apply to US citizens.

Now, how about US Citizens who are overseas who engage US forces?
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

..........

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

......

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

This bill does NOT apply to US Citizens. I dont know how else to make it any clearer. The US Citizens who have gone overseas to engage in war against the US are specifically defined by both US law, as well as UN / International Law on classifications of people during times of war.

Even though the Taliban and Al Queida aren't part of the Geneva Conventions, which under UN law means they are not protected by it during combat, we still abide by those conventions when dealing with these tools.

For further understanding, review the Head Money Case which specifically deals with foreign treaties and how they become a part of the US Federal Body of Law. Geneva Conventions - III are built into the UCMJ and do NOT apply to domestic civilians.

reply to post by MegaMind

I will agree with you on the War on Drugs... it is nothing more than a focused law enforcement policy with an emotional name.

I will agree with you on the War on Terrorism to a point. So far as Domestic Terrorism goes, it is not a war but a specific focus by law enforcement. There is, however, an actual war going on as well, and the enemy is a consortium of terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas) and countries which support them (Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria). These enemies want to destroy the United States. Period. They do not care about your human rights. They want you to be dead. They want me to be dead. Understand that.

Guantanemo Bay is being used to house these enemy combatants. If they are released, they will do everything in their power to kill more Americans. They want to kill Americans, even if they die in the process. Because of this, they cannot be released until the war is over. So we have two options: keep them locked up, or kill them in cold blood. Which option would you prefer we use?

This bill makes it illegal to kill them in cold blood, or to release them outside of released for trial or incarceration elsewhere. Period. it is necessary in large part because some people cannot grasp the concept of war and think they are just ordinary criminals and deserve trial in common law courts. It specifically does not make it illegal to release citizens... understand that: citizens are exempt from the requirement to keep them locked up indefinitely... otherwise it would be an end run around the 6th Amendment.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by artfuldodger

War is not a police action. It is an attempt to destroy the other side, any way you can.

TheRedneck

They are attempting to take a police action and call it a war - see?

war on drugs. war on terrorism.

The war on drugs has eroded the 4th amendment. The war on terrorism likewise (6th).

These are excuses to take freedoms.

Every tyranny became so under the guise of protecting its people.

edit on 30-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

Actually no they are not. This bill (amendment actually) is specific to the war on terror ONLY. The Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is listed in the bill making it applicable ONLY to the war on terror. It cannot be used for any other conflict, war on drugs, protests etc.

(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.

Emphasis added by me. Its only applicable to the war on terror under Public Law 107-40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force

Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Specifically 9/11

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by artfuldodger

The authority of the President and the military already is supreme over Constitutional law, if martial law is declared. It has been that way your entire life. It has to be that way. War is not capable of being won by establishing rules.

What you seem to be trying to say is that, in a battlefield situation, our soldiers should arrest the enemy, read them their rights, appoint them an attorney, house them in a civilian prison, and then release them if there are any paperwork errors or if things take longer than 24 hours. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? There would be no Constitution within a matter of days, because there would be no one left to defend it. The United States would be a territory under control of someone who thought little enough of us to attack us. All these rights you are so concerned about would no longer exist.

War is not a police action. It is an attempt to destroy the other side, any way you can.

TheRedneck

If martial law can be declared so easily to avert perceived clear and present dangers, then why did we go to the trouble of even mentioning the Constitution? (It seems as if we have never left martial law ever since the dictatorship of Woodrow Wilson.) The trouble with having the President declare martial law at his will is that the mere threat of his declaring martial law is as powerful as the overt declaration of it. The current batch of codes being considered by Congress promises an eternal state of war. As to the fear of the nation being under control and invasion of a terrorist group like Al Qaeda(laughable), we are using bazooka against a fly when a swatter would work better. I do not want the military to fight criminal problems. And yes I do want to see people like Bin Laden get their day in court. The unfortunate disadvantage of using the military against suspected criminals is that dead men tell no tales. And no, soldiers should not be reading Miranda rights to suspects. That is the job of policemen and federal marshals. I would enjoy nothing more than to see the henchman of bin Laden in open court serving subpoenas on the various intelligence agencies for exculpatory evidence in regard to 9-11. What could be better than Larry Silverstein and Melvin Bush getting subpoenas from the defense lawyers for the bin Laden gang? The problem is that by declaring bin Laden and the Taliban military targets is that we have destroyed a chain of evidence that could have given us a larger picture of 9-11. I feel that martial law is just a shield to cover for criminals in power, our current government.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Pure Evil.What bill will be next after this?It's basically a front to threaten it's own people who speak up about the despots running the world.The key is finding a way using this bill that will brand a U.S. citizen as a terrorist or enciting terrorism.
Expect Alex Jones to be the first to be detained.Again it's pure Evil,the upper echelons of power are psychopathic to the core.When severe austerity is brought in and you protest then this bill will be twisted in such a way that you can detained as an enemy of the state.And yet there are many people who are connected to politics that sit on mountains of gold beyond the imagination and crave for more,this is a fallen world and the most insane and depraved run it and puppets like Mcain are doing their dirty work.
Remember this though,you are responsible for your actions and it's better to spend a lifetime in jail than an instant in hell-these people are marked forever.

Martial Law- Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.[citation needed] Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities.[13]

The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.[14] This was changed briefly: Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allowed the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."[15] The President signed the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 on January 13, 2008. However, Section 1068 in the enacted 2008 defense authorization bill (H.R. 4986: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008") repealed this section of PL 109-364.[16]

Its not as simple as the President stating I'm declaring Martial Law. Also as much as people like to think the Government is evil, please note the government was also the body who repealed it.

Again we have conversation about a government action that is not completely understood. As I stated about the Defense Authorization bill 1031/1032, prior legislation and case law define the parameters. Just because its not spelled out in the new legislation doesn't mean the new legislation is not defined by it.

reply to post by southbeach


It does nothing of the sort. Please read the bill - Section 1031 and 1032.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Thanks for clarifying the real meaning and purpose of this Bill. Without people like us, the real Patriots, the pussies of America would start wearing skirts!

They are plain and simple too scared to admit that "the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" is a mirror image of Hitler's "Enabling Act" rushed through right AFTER Hitler's boys burned down the Reichstag ( German Parliament Bldg ) .

Sound familiar? We are following the NAZI Blueprint step by goose step.

Check out " Rule By Secrecy" on YT , the lecture on Jim Marrs NY Times Best Seller.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by TheRedneck
I will,try to find the part that says yes the USA is now a Battlefield we have been invaded by the enemy, this is one listing USA as a Battlefield readersupportednews.org... this is an other americanvisionnews.com... from the link and best describes this bill as

The bill, according to Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC), would define America as part of the “battlefield.” It authorizes the military to detain American citizens without warrant, without court order, without due process, without trial, without access to an attorney, indefinitely—based purely on the military’s suspicion.

some will still say no this Bill does not say this, say that when your off to Git Mo for saying "The Gov has no right too" that right there is Belligerent speak... learn how to avoid it, fro the freedom of speech will not help you now, your a combatant in there eyes.

reply to post by Xcathdra
yes it does for all are a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY Drugs, Terrorist, Terrorism,and Belligerent , the US has now been listed as a Battlefield, if Obama lets this becomes law... what was left of the Constitution, is no more, we the Citizen's of the US will be under Military rule and law, Obama could say...for any reason " For reasons of National Security there will be no elections in Nov 2012" thus staying power as POTUS.
Belligerent the definition of the word, pay close attention to this
www.thefreedictionary.com... one used as the meaning of belligerent from the link,( OWS hold on to your hats)

Synonyms: belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome
These adjectives mean having or showing an eagerness to fight. Belligerent refers to a tendency to hostile behavior: A belligerent reporter badgered the politician.

Off to Git Mo he will be, under the terms of Bill S1867
Now do you get it???? probably not

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo
how true yet so sad that a bill like this must come to pass, to realize just how messed up the USA has become, the P act came and no one did a thing TSA DHS here to stay, S1867 off to Git Mo bay, goes I for saying boo about Bo in the White House.

and as said in one of the post about this bill, It will pass the latest www.opencongress.org... from the link

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1867)
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 3/5 (60%)
Percentage of 'aye' votes: 88%

this means the bill will be voted on in the next 30 hours or new amendments can be added so far all but a few, like Mr. Udall's amendments have passed the muster to be added in the bill. I find it fitting that this be added By By Miss American pie www.youtube.com...

This argument between Xcathdra and MegaMind is going nowhere, because one of them is listening to absolutely nothing. One of you just keeps offering up the exact same, already debunked argument, without even listening to the other. I'll let everyone else figure out which one I'm talking about. It doesn't take more than a couple of paragraphs up there to see...

(cough) Xcathdra (cough)