The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support

Can anyone confirm this report;

Geeeesh................


December 1, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – (Updated) The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

reply to post by xuenchen


Confirmed as being in S. 1867.

(d) REPEAL OF SODOMY ARTICLE.—Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed.

Here is Article 125 of the UCMJ: Article 125 UCMJ

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Now I understand the wanting of appealing this article -- as when I was in the military it was technically (but never enforced) to have sex only in one manner. Why they didn't revise the Article to take out just the sodomy portion is beyond me, but I guess they just want to rid the whole article.

EDIT TO ADD:

The whole the section that this deals with is dealing with incident acts committed by military members. I believe most of is it to reduce the proliferation of military members filming sexual acts and disseminating them on the Internet without consent of both parties. But it still stands that they wanted to just repeal all of Article 125 of the UCMJ and not bother with just amending it.

The repeal of it would have to be in place since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is no longer policy. Since same-sex relationships are allowed, it would only be natural to take out punitive measures that would punish members for engaging in sexual acts that they can only engage in.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by TheShovel
[In regard to the debate over whether or not S.1867 applies to U.S. Citizens]

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the ACLU, explains the problem.
“The exclusion on Section 1032 only applies to 1032. It doesn’t apply to 1031,” he says. “And that only makes it worse, because any judge is going to say, ‘Of course, members of Congress meant for American citizens to be detained because if they didn’t, they would have put in the exception they put in one section later.’ ”

I disagree with Mr. Anders' here. Section 1031 is specific on applicability.

Section 1031(b) Covered Persons:

(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.

Now I know the Government can trump up charges -- but that is where Section 1031(e) would step in and you would be able to defend yourself in a civilian court against the charges that try to paint you as any of the above covered persons.

Section 1031(e):

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

That portion right there clearly states that nothing in section 1031 can be construed to "affect existing law or authorities". So why is the ACLU still fanning the flames with this?

“I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention.” - Sen. Rand Paul in response to S.1867

I commend Sen Paul -- but can you tell me when that quotes you have used were said? Was it prior to or after the final bill that passed the Senate? If they are after, they are spinning it now for political points.

edit on 3-12-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

A citizen is not a combatant, but can be deem as one if pay close attention to this

COVERED PERSONS

; associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States

ones that take part in protesting, giving money food or aid to person(s)engaged in hostilities

and

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities

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

do you see it now???

reply to post by bekod


I have never not seen it. If one wants to find nefarious language and this is the tipping point than we can start scouring the thousands of pages of the U.S. Code to also provide a "what-if" or "gotcha" moment.

But the fact remains -- Section 1031(e) explicitly states that nothing in that section can be construed to override existing authority. You are chasing a ghost.

And may I ask...what are you quoting? S. 1867 doesn't have the following in it:

ones that take part in protesting, giving money food or aid to person(s) engaged in hostilities

reply to post by ownbestenemy
same this was said in 1942 when FDR passed his law on the US Japanese people, know the GOV, it is hard I know en.wikipedia.org... with out going to the link what does this mean?

The order authorized the Secretary of War and U.S. armed forces commanders to declare areas of the United States as military areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded,"

A that no one be allowed in ,
B no citizen can enter
C only authorized people may enter
D only meant for non US persons of Japanese descent

reply to post by bekod


(The section that is leading U.S. Citizens to believe that it will not apply to them.)

1031-(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

1032-(as to the requirement of military detention under (a)(1) AND (2)
(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States

(Note: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” meaning the mandate, which applies to foreign nationals, to take such measures against citizens is waived, not the right. It is at the discretion of the agency.)

1032 Section 4:

(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.

The "Requirement" of paragraph one references:
(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and
(B) a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(Note: Here you see that the Requirement noted in 1032-(b) is waived under certain circumstances.)

My argument is further validated by McCain's speech.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by bekod

 

I have never not seen it. If one wants to find nefarious language and this is the tipping point than we can start scouring the thousands of pages of the U.S. Code to also provide a "what-if" or "gotcha" moment.

But the fact remains -- Section 1031(e) explicitly states that nothing in that section can be construed to override existing authority. You are chasing a ghost.

And may I ask...what are you quoting? S. 1867 doesn't have the following in it:

ones that take part in protesting, giving money food or aid to person(s) engaged in hostilities

edit on 4-12-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

did you not see this part?

or aided the terrorist

this is how it could be interpreted, you protest the war , your giving aid to the terrorist ,
you protest with the use of bull horns and with signs this is a Belligerent act
you pay money to an aid group, that is thought to have connections to terrorist,
you send food care packs to an aid fund , that is thought to have terrorist links. Now do you see how this 1031 and 1032 could run muck , you have seen how TSA DHS act have you not? they have had their fair share of gotcha,
speaking of "Gotcha" "gotcha" moments you do know about the one gotcha lately? The TSA and the teen with the hand bag "beaded" gun ???

reply to post by TheShovel
yes thank you for seen it as it is, any one that says Boo down with, or OWS needs food,[ ok that is extreme at this point] but if this passes Obama's desk then it will be a different story it is better to water on a smoking spot than to see fire, by then it is to late, the fire will spread.

reply to post by bekod


"The U.S constitution gives a 2/3 majority Congress the power to override the Presidential veto." With the immense support of the 93-7 vote, he is powerless to even veto it.

Originally posted by TheShovel
(The section that is leading U.S. Citizens to believe that it will not apply to them.)

1031-(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Let me see that source -- That clause isn't in the bill that passed the Senate. So either you are getting your information from somewhere that is trying to push an agenda -or- you are purposefully pushing false information.

Here is a link to the Engrossed Bill that passed the Senate: S. 1867

Section 1031(d) reads:

(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.

Not what you posted now is it?

Section 1031(e) reads:

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Whoops -- seems you are pushing false information.

As for Section 1032 -- again you are posting false information. But I guess whatever fits ones agenda...

You posted:

1032-(as to the requirement of military detention under (a)(1) AND (2)
(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States

When in actuality Section 1032(b) 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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(Note: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” meaning the mandate, which applies to foreign nationals, to take such measures against citizens is waived, not the right. It is at the discretion of the agency.)

False. Period.

Then you continue the false information.

1032 Section 4:

(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 clause does not supersede 1032(b). United States Citizens are excluded.

reply to post by TheShovel
well thanks for the water bucket, now that I am all wet, for got about that, so yea it will pass, no matter what it is a death nail for Obama any way, he sign's it... he is out, he does not sign it... he's out, just can not win this one. S1867 will become law.

reply to post by bekod


Well, actually, it has to survive the next 60 days without opposition before it becomes law. The only legal actions we can take is to contact our representatives. (Because, you know how much they give a sh*t.)

The biggest issue with this bill is that it grants the government and military the power to indefinitely detain anyone so much as suspected of being a terrorist without charge or trail.

Aside from simply being incredibly unconstitutional, anyone who understands how corrupt the government is understands how easily this power can and most likely will be abused.
I'm not imaging them rounding up protesters or anything, but it grant's the more leverage and it's just one step closer to police state.

Something very well expressed by Rand Paul in this video.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by TheShovel


Interesting that I called you out on your quoted passages and you ignored them.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


The link you provided is dead. Additionally I can not find any of these supposed "actual" excerpts in the bill. And further more if the point of your argument is that the additional military powers are not dangerous to U.S. Citizens then why have their been debates between elected official regarding exactly that?

Originally posted by TheShovel
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

The link you provided is dead. Additionally I can not find any of these supposed "actual" excerpts in the bill. And further more if the point of your argument is that the additional military powers are not dangerous to U.S. Citizens then why have their been debates between elected official regarding exactly that?

Forgive me, I didn't realize it made it a temporary link -- Here...S 1867 ..... if that doesn't work .... S. 1867 -- You have to click "Text of Legislation"

The point still stands -- can you link your source that you are quoting from? It is outdated and no longer applies.

Originally posted by TheShovel
And further more if the point of your argument is that the additional military powers are not dangerous to U.S. Citizens then why have their been debates between elected official regarding exactly that?

I never made this my arugment. I have been pointing out the false information only -- as you have been spreading.

Just because I have done so does not make me a proponent of expanded military powers nor a supporter of such. Interestingly your little tag line of a signature expresses the desire to cut through the BS yet here you are spreading BS...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Even so, you've provided me with no evidence to support your statement and I can not regard it as anything more than a misinformed baseless accusation.

Originally posted by TheShovel
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Even so, you've provided me with no evidence to support your statement and I can not regard it as anything more than a misinformed baseless accusation.

Sadly I have -- you posted and quoted outdated information and I have pointed out otherwise. I gave you the engrossed bill, that which passed the Senate and you are continuing to deny it? Sad; very sad.

Show me the bill, that has passed the Senate that includes the language you have quoted and posted. You cannot because that is not what has passed. Own up to your signature and cut through the BS and stop relying on others to think for you.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Excuse me one moment while I cram my foot in my mouth.

S.1867 is the revised version of S.1245 which was the bill that denied U.S. citizens their constitutional rights if suspected of terrorism. My information is in fact outdated.

In conclusion, I'm a sheep, John McCain is insane, and this bill changes nothing that concerns me.