S1867 is making it's way through the house

While nobody is paying attention.

S.1867 is titled HR 1540 in the House.

And the process to pass it through the house has begun today.

House Floor Activities
Legislative Day of December 07, 2011

12:49:04 P.M. H.R. 1540 DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on the Smith(WA) motion to instruct confeeres on H.R. 1540. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the managers on the part of the House to insist on the amendments contained in subtitle I of title V of the House bill (sections 581 through 587 relating to improved sexual assault prevention and response in the Armed Forces).

For now they are reviewing the amendments in the bill.

There's still a chance to wipe this bill clean of all the unconstitutional stuff in there.

It is my understanding that they are trying to merge the defense authorizations bills of (S1867) and (HR1540) then it will go back to the house and the senate for a vote and then be presented to the President...and that he has the power to veto it.

reply to post by caladonea

Look at this, and take a close look at the Senators that were 'appointed" to the reconciliation committee:

Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter.

thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.1540:

It does not look like sections 1031 and 1032 have a chance of being removed or modified.
The "fix" is in.
Obama a will NEVER veto this bill.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by caladonea

 

Look at this, and take a close look at the Senators that were 'appointed" to the reconciliation committee:

Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter.

thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.1540:

It does not look like sections 1031 and 1032 have a chance of being removed or modified.
The "fix" is in.
Obama a will NEVER veto this bill.

Well the Obama Administration has issued a policy statement to lawmakers saying he WILL veto the bill if the provisions are left intact.

www.whitehouse.gov...

reply to post by Indigo5


So you are telling us that Obama doesn't lie?

Obama is a LIAR. He has shown that time and time again. So come on.

And EVEN if he were to veto it, it has way enough votes to override a veto.

reply to post by Vitchilo


The bill dies if he veto's it. He has to sign it to make it into law.

obama feels he already has this power to detain CITIZENS in the extremest NAZI fashion.
executive power

they killed al walaki even though he was having lunch at the white house every other day
without trial...( hes living on a desert island somewhere )

remember ernst zundle?
" a defence is proof of guilt"
"the truth is no defence" Peirre Blais ex attourney General Canada

he was kidnapped in the states and then thrown into solitary in Canada
solitary for three years without charge
and then shipped of to a country where they have laws where even his lawyer was jailed for defending him

he was jailed for his wife's website which was never censured

this law is pretty much a mute point mostly just to rub some sheeple nose in some doo
while...I wonder what they are really up to...financially while every one is distracted

In ww 2 the second gen japanese were used to set a precident that allowed the revokation of NICOLA TESLA'S citizenship and the confiscation of everything he owned shortly afterwar

so......whats the fuss?
other than now its obvious who is running the show..and it aint the citizens

PS
they are manning up the fema camps as we speak it is being said
the hiring blitz is on baby!

go git that job!

reply to post by Indigo5


The issue is quite a bit more complex than most people realize. His THREAT of a veto is not because he believes that American citizens' rights are threatened, but that if the bill passes, then those citizens would be subject to the protection of the Geneva convention on prisoners, since the US is a signatory. This means he would not be able to torture those arrested, nor send them to other countries, where they have "ways" to get prisoners to talk.

In the end, though, Obama WILL sign the bill because not doing so, would be political suicide. Remember that the bill is actually an Appropriations bill, and giving the Republicans the issue of saying that Obama vetoed defense appropriations would be the final nail in Obama's election chances.

He WILL sign the bill.

Originally posted by js331975
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

The bill dies if he veto's it. He has to sign it to make it into law.

No it doesn't. You do know that congress can override his veto right? Learn basic politics and come back.

I've been busy with school and haven't heard much about this. But, I did just read Sec. 1031 & 1032 of S.1867, where I found these excerpts

From 1031

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.

From 1032

b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require- ment to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- ment 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.

www.gpo.gov...

The same wording is found in the same section numbers of the House bill. Do these address the concerns of the bill or is there something else I should be aware of?

The same wording is found in the same section numbers of the House bill. Do these address the concerns of the bill or is there something else I should be aware of?

reply to post by WTFover


Your uncertainty is completely understandable.
The problem with the watered-down amendment 1456 of the SB 1867 (which is the wording you posted) is that this bill leaves the current status and definition of who is covered unchanged. In other words, there is NO DEFINITIVE bill that specifically defines who it applies to.
This means that it is left to the courts to decide who is covered.
Sounds logical, right?
Well, here is the rub. The courts, in separate rulings, issued contradictory rulings on this very issue. The Supreme Court Hamdi ruling left untouched the true meaning in question here. In fact, McCain and Levin draw the conclusion that the ruling supports their claim that American Citizens are included, while other Senators and Congresspersons take the opposite view.
As is the case with our economic mess, the rather meaningless 1456 amendment, "kicks the can down the road", and leaves it up to further court rulings. Of course, the Supreme Court could issue a completely definitive ruling, which would put an end to this debate, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such.
If you wish to see the confusion which ensued from the Hamdi case, take a look at:
en.wikipedia.org...
which discusses, in layman's terms, the issues and the utter confusion resulting from this case. To the best of my knowledge, this confusion exists to this day, as exhibited by proponents and opponents, who have used the case, and ensuing cases to support their views.
As always, Congress refuses to take a firm stand one way or the other, fearing that the result, whichever way it goes, would definitely kill their position.

BTW, good to see you. I took a vacation from ATS, as the trolls were getting quite nasty, and the moderators seemed to be rather absent. I've returned to see if things have changed at all.

People are speculating as to why obama will veto this, some say because it would actually give prisoners more rights under the geneva convention, but let's remember that obama is a liar so he is probably just saying he will veto it so people will stop worrying, then have a last minute change of heart and sign it.

There's word going around that the vote in the house is today.

But I don't know if it's on a modified house bill or the senate bill.

We better watch out.

Originally posted by js331975
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

The bill dies if he veto's it. He has to sign it to make it into law.

Hit the civics books JS and learn the legislative process.

After a bill passes Congress and is presented to the president, the president either can sign the bill, veto the bill or if he doesn't sign it within 10 days the bill becomes law.

If the president does veto a bill, it then is returned back to the Congress and if they wish to override the president's veto, they must obtain a 2/3rds majority in each House respectively. If such a vote passes, that bill becomes law regardless of the presidential veto.

Does anyone believe they are trying to pass this bill for a future military draft?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by strafgod
Does anyone believe they are trying to pass this bill for a future military draft?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

In what manner and section do you think that this is a purpose? The overall bill is required constitutionally to fund the military and justify actions -- the sections in question and of much confusion relate to detainee matters and the applicability towards United States citizens.

I am unaware of any back-door draft language but I could scour the two versions to find some if there are any (highly unlikely in my opinion though).

Here is a link to all Congressional actions taken on H.R. 1540 -- H.R. 1540.


-- As of December 7th, the Speaker presented a motion to appoint conferees for the bill and its Senate amendments.

-- The senate is insisting that its amendments (naturally and common) that their amendments are needed and necessary.

-- The House had a debate on sections 581 through 587 - "relating to improved sexual assault prevention and response in the Armed Forces"

Today's digest will be available tomorrow. Further information can probably be found by researching the Committee on Armed Forces.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--Motion to go to Conference:

The House agreed by unanimous consent to disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to a conference on H.R. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, and to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year.

That is from the Congressional Record -- Though, Sections 1031-33 were assigned to Foreign Affairs sub-committee, I believe it is the first step saying that there are differences that are not easily reconcilable.


ETA: The committee that will be conferring on the sections in question requested and obtained a closed conference due to "national security" (they are dealing with other sections of the Senate Amendments that do relate to such).

Finding any information about how the House views sections 1031, 1032 will be sparse and might have to wait until the committee adjourns.

reply to post by strafgod

Does anyone believe they are trying to pass this bill for a future military draft?

I very seriously doubt that they will institute a draft. The general mood in this country today is so volatile, and there are so many people against what is going on, that I don't believe that they would risk drafting people, when many of them would oppose what they are doing. It would be the equivalent of having a "Fifth Column" within the military. Right now, those that sign up are pro-military, or they wouldn't sign up(I realize some do it for financial reasons, but many do not). The last thing they need is an army of people that refuse to fight.

Thanks for your replys ownbestenemy and ProfEmeritus. I dont believe the bill has anything to do with a draft I just think it would be convenient to have this bill passed if there were to be a draft. It wouldnt be so convenient for those fleeing a draft. I think reading to much ats has me searching for a more sinister purpose.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Latest from today :

Mr. Rogers (AL) asked unanimous consent that managers on the part of the House have until midnight on Dec. 12 to file a conference report on H.R. 1540. Agreed to without objection.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

So this ain't the republicans ALONE doing this, it was coming directly from OBAMA...

Anyone still out there supporting this POS Obama?