In Sen. Lindsey Graham's Own Words: S. 1867 SEC. 1031 DOES Apply To US Citizens

Description under video:

In support of the bill S. 1867 SEC. 1031, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial "American citizen or not." Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because "America is part of the battlefield."

Here's the thing, we know that the language of the bill is meant to pertain to citizens that collaborate/conspire with al-Qaida or other such terrorist networks. What is concerning to me and a lot of other Americans is that the language is far too loose and lends itself to being broader. I know the importance of catching terrorists or terror supporters however this to me enables our government to become the terrorists. In my opinion, and I completely resent that I have to even say this, I would rather a terrorist be spared "the full scope of interrogation" than one innocent american detained without due process.

reply to post by Kali74


This bill was defeated, thanks in large part to Senator Rand Paul. It could always come back tho

1) An amendment may have failed, but the bill passed the Senate.

2) Kali74, maybe I can put your mind to rest. Here is an interesting portion of Section 1031, as it was passed by the Senate.

(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.

I hope everyone can stop worrying now (at least until we see what's in the reconciled version).

Yes it looks like that part of the legislation was defeated here is a link to that story:
www.dailypaul.com...

Here's a very informative video by Sen. Rand Paul..AND I have to admit..I had never even thought of the Ron or Rand Paul until I joined ATS..as a life long Democrat who now rejects both parties..I am now taking a hard look at Ron Paul..thanks ATS for educating me..Cheers Coco

reply to post by Kali74
you know this and I know this but how to have others see the smoke when they are blind???? By the time they feel the heat it will be to late, I made a post lats night that deal with the white house statement on bill 1867, I would like to make a link to the post and thread with your permission, it is important to know why the WH does not accept 1867.

Obmber has to veto this one or the legal precident is there to try him as a war criminal.

second

couugh aww bull#. now its time to say.. oh yeah it already said that. and now teh ppl are just bending over and taking it and letting all this happen

Tyranny here we come.

Of course it does.

But eh, the people want to bury their heads so deep in the sand, it's pathetic really.

reply to post by Shadowalker

Like that matters. Even if Obama vetoes, the senate/house has way enough votes to override.

And that SOB talking first is Ayotte... the witch who introduced an amendment to that bill to allow TORTURE... it was never brought in for a vote thank god but still. That scum need to be kicked out of office in 2012. I still can't believe NEW HAMPSHIRE of all states elected that witch...

reply to post by Shadowalker
no for the laws that exist are Equal to, or exceed the Bill 1867 the only thing Bill 1867 does is in sub sec D 1031 1032 is the wording, the laws are are on the books, and the wording "Hostile and Belligerent" are not "specificity that they be held by Mil custody is not".

reply to post by bekod


You don't need my persmission to post anything in a thread lol, but thanks for your courtesy, please post away.

reply to post by derst1988


It wasn't defeated, it went back to committe for revision (which we haven't seen yet).

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks I wish it did put me at ease but it doesn't and I'm not one to see conspiracy behind every corner.

affect existing law or authorities

As per the video, Sen. Graham refers to a case of an American Citizen detained in military custody for years and how that decision was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which then stated a citizen can be held as an enemy combatant and he describes it as the law of the land. This particular section just happens to put it in writing for the first time.

I am all for capturing terrorists even homegrown ones within our borders, but I cannot tolerate this no due process BS. Prove the charges in a court of law then by all means haul them away if found guilty. I am also extremely concerned about what acts render a person an enemy combatant, that definition does not seem very clear either. This is why I post this because we need to wake up.

reply to post by Kali74
here is the post part one Sub Sec D 1031 1032 www.abovetopsecret.com... yes it is a 2 part'er and here is part 2 www.abovetopsecret.com... the part that was left off deals with Sub sec D 1033 transferring of prisoners

reply to post by Kali74


Dear Kali74,

I apologize for my failure in setting your mind at ease, but I do see one good thing coming from this. We have identified the problem as an existing law. Now there is something that can be done. We can find the law, agitate for its repeal, fight it in courts, do the whole "public opinion and protest" thing.

But, at least we can stop fighting this bill. Since the Democrat Senate passed it 93-7, Obama won't veto it. (It will just be overridden and he'll look weak.) Are people seriously thinking the Republican House will listen to ATS or OWS or RT?

By fighting the correct bill, we look smarter and focus our energies where needed. I hope this helps a little.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Kali74
if you read the WH statement you will see that we have the laws in place, as to state just this, as far as due proses, Guilty til found innocent or did you miss that memo ???
The part of S1867 has me going is the wording "Hostile and or Belligerent acts" how they could and mostly be misused and or abused for it would take the civil law authority's out and put the Mil in charge thus becoming as Mil state, if you read the text of 1031 1032 it does not say or state, civil authority's!; but Mil thus Dod JAG CID CIA as NSA DHS TSA and UCMJ will determine if you are or are not a combatant and the laws gov this are here www.au.af.mil...

reply to post by charles1952
But Obama said he would with letter of intent to do so as seen here www.whitehouse.gov... from the link

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 17, 2011
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012
(Sen. Levin, D-MI)
The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee's continued support of our national defense, including its support for both the base budget and for overseas contingency operations and for most of the Administration's initiatives to control spiraling health costs of the Department of Defense (DoD).
The Administration appreciates the support of the Committee for authorities that assist the ability of the warfighter to operate in unconventional and irregular warfare, authorities that are important to field commanders, such as the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, Global Train and Equip Authority, and other programs that provide commanders with the resources and

goes on to say and it seems there is a 2 headed snake

While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense's ability to make and implement decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in the President's FY 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail below.
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about

see my post above Sec D 1031 1032 that covers this

reply to post by bekod

Dear bekod,

Thanks for your response. I'm sure you've got something important here, but I've got a block in my brain that's preventing me from seeing it. If you want to take the time to clear it up for me I'd be grateful, but if not, I'd understand. Sometimes it's just too much effort to bring the slow ones along.

My understanding is that 1031 doesn't expand the authority of the president, nor does it change existing law concerning detention in any way.

1032 seems to protect American citizens from the military's requirement to capture. And it requires that anyone detained has to be eligible for detention under 1031.

For those reasons, and my thick-headedness, I'm havving trouble seeing and understanding your point.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952
it is confusing and mindbogglingly complicated it will try to clear it up for you here is a link to a post of mine that try's to interpret the sec D 1031 1032 www.abovetopsecret.com... with the current laws already on the books for dealing with combatants from the post

add this in with 1031 and 1032 and it will read like this my version keep this in mind
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof on US soil or Against US force's or it allies anywhere, or commits the following: in aid of or comfort too hostile or the Belligerent shall, by the above listed acts, Give up US citizenship and will be held until time of trial, or until the US and its Allies say the hostility's(war) has ended.

now after rereading the laws this part needs to be added " Acting alone or part of a hostile act or in a belligerent manner" so in whole it would be read as this

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof on US soil or Against US force's or it allies anywhere, or commits the following: in aid of or comfort too hostile or the Belligerent Acting alone or part of a hostile act or in a belligerent manner shall, by the above listed acts, Give up US citizenship and will be held until time of trial, or until the US and its Allies say the hostility's(war) has ended.

the laws go in to the amount of time, fine, or what institutes the death penitently, covered by the UCMJ what the letter from the white house says, in my thinking is, "we have this law already do not mess things up by adding words or by laws to make things hard for the US Gov to go after the ones we want. The FBI and CIA DHS NSA and TSA can do what the DoD would like to do operate in the US with out being seen. does that help?

Dear bekod,

I am very grateful that you took the time to walk me through this. I especially appreciate the link to the policy letter on this bill. I wonder how valid that policy letter still is, since it was written three weeks ago and the bill has changed since then to address some of the president's concern.

In reading the policy letter with Obama's comments on the bill, I did not see any particular evidence that he was trying to protect citizens' rights, rather it seemed he wanted to make sure that he had all of the options in his hands and that none were closed off to him by being set aside for DoD.

If he expressed some concern over citizens' rights, I would have taken a second look to see where the rights were endangered. Maybe I'm stupid, but this one doesn't scare me much. Certainly not as much as Homeland Security and their pile of intrusive regulations.

With respect,
Charles1952

"assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection "

So in other words....the "occupy" protests are making the gov nervous.

reply to post by charles1952
the thing is one is not as scarey as the other , both have the words to say your a terrorists by actions but one says your one by saying something bad about he Gov, to see if your a terrorist in the Gov eyes www.fbi.gov... from the link

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

could the OWS and other protest movements fall under this??? 1031 1032 would say yes they do, as the law is now only if "force or violence" is used not by the action it self "protesting" that is. That falls under the terms of "Hostile and Belligerent acts", now do you know, if passed, how this could become terrifying to the gen population, If passed anyone giving aid or support to as in words or indirect acts to protestors, and or ones that would criticize the US Gov, would be listed and treated as terrorist.