It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S.1867 Sec 1031/sec 1032 Get down to the Brass

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
ok i read and search for people posting the facts. i ran searches and i am sorry for creating a new thread but this is not to be a sensational post to get stars and flags... here's the facts and if this gets dumped fine... now that i have said what i said.

here it is the actual bill that passed senate. We will be reviewing Sec. 1031 and 1032.


S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)
Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

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.

(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.
(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.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(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.
(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.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(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.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(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.
(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.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.


ok now that we have read this .... look at Sec 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.


ok now look at Sec 1032 (b) (1)


(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.


you can view the bill here people thomas.loc.gov... just type in the bill number and review
the one passed by the senate

edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: spelling




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Ok from what i read here. i may be wrong i am not a law pro . it seems that we may be getting caught up in sensationalism. i understand that our government is not out for best interest as they would lead us to believe. from what i read the the facts are right there. i think that we are being distracted from another factor that is going on. what this may be who knows.

i don't know everything and i don't think i know better . i wanted to create this thread to get educated point of views.. i understand many here research , i for one try too. but sometimes the hype and videos and blah blah get in the way of what is actually being said.

the fact the matter;look i am an American and as much as i may dissagree with what is coming of this country. i am simply an American . I will die for my country even if we are in the wrong. i will die for my nieghbor even if i am in the wrong. and i will protect my family at the cost of my blood tear and suffering and/or death. I AM A AMERICAN!!!
edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: spell correction



great post very similiar responses thought this was a good break down.... what does everyone think
STAR HIS POSTING

Originally posted by Konah
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


Sec 1031(e) explicitly states that the NDAA will not affect current laws regarding the detention of Americans; currently, the Federal government is able to label any one of a us a terrorist and detain us, torture us, and kill us without trial. This doesn't change a thing.

Sec 1032(b)(1) says "the requirement to detain ...", not, "at no point shall an Americn be detained..." - catch my drift? Sec 1032 removes the requirement only, the option to do still remains.

I'm just pointing out how this can, and will be read. All-in-all, the NDAA is moot because our government can already do this thanks to post-9/11 legislation.

edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GodofWar411
 





I will die for my country even if we are in the wrong.


I will die for my country, and try to right it's wrongs.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Finally! Thanks for posting this!

I am so sick and tired of people hearing something second or third hand, does not fully investigate what he/she has heard, and flies off the handle half cocked! And, just because you heard something, even in the MSM, you still need to investigate it yourself. As we all know, or should by now, the MSM has their own agenda as well that is usually solely based on getting ratings.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


What was left out? I know that there are not that many reading the entire bill saying something totally different. I will believe their interpretation over pieces pulled out in an attempt to white wash this thing. Of course people will continue to act like ostriches until it comes to their door with. While they are being carted off or killed their denial of reality will still be in full effect.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


What was left out? I know that there are not that many reading the entire bill saying something totally different. I will believe their interpretation over pieces pulled out in an attempt to white wash this thing. Of course people will continue to act like ostriches until it comes to their door with. While they are being carted off or killed their denial of reality will still be in full effect.


Actually this is a huge bill i shall provide you with a link if go here you can view it.....thomas.loc.gov... and type bill number and review senate version that was passed

anyway you will read that the sections that i showed you are the ones in question that are creating all the discussion that are going on..

this about fact not trying to white wash anything ..... this a discussion about what the bill actually says not what MSM says
edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Sorry Vitch, but it seems THIS is the OP we need to be paying attention to about this bill. The passed bill expressly includes writing exempting American citizens from such detainment.

S&F OP, and thanks for the clarification, which we desperately needed before the shots rang out.


So let's go people, do the right thing and flag this so more people see it.
edit on Thu Dec 15th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
It says that arrested US Citizens are not *required* to be held by the military. That's not the same as *cannot* be held by the military. Presumably, it's up to someone's discretion to make that decision: to hold American citizens or transfer them to civilian (that is, federal) authorities.
edit on 12/15/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


Sec 1031(e) explicitly states that the NDAA will not affect current laws regarding the detention of Americans; currently, the Federal government is able to label any one of a us a terrorist and detain us, torture us, and kill us without trial. This doesn't change a thing.

Sec 1032(b)(1) says "the requirement to detain ...", not, "at no point shall an Americn be detained..." - catch my drift? Sec 1032 removes the requirement only, the option to do still remains.

I'm just pointing out how this can, and will be read. All-in-all, the NDAA is moot because our government can already do this thanks to post-9/11 legislation.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Read it again, word for word.

Read it slowly and don't glance over it.

It does NOT apply to US CITIZENS.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Submarines
 

The *requirement* does not apply to US Citizens.
edit on 12/15/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by Submarines
 

The *requirement* does not apply to US Citizens.
edit on 12/15/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)


The *requirement* DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by Submarines
 

The *requirement* does not apply to US Citizens.
edit on 12/15/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)


this is a title to that section it's section a section B
(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

there are no words between the lines here


this is becoming a very interesting thread on a side note...
edit on 15-12-2011 by GodofWar411 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by Submarines
 

The *requirement* does not apply to US Citizens.
edit on 12/15/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)


The *requirement* DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS.

Yes. The Armed Forces are required to hold non-citizens. They are not required to hold US citizens, but they may. Apparently at State's discretion.

ETA: Gotta go to work. Can't continue this....
edit on 12/15/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


I am going to assume you are unaware of how the law is commonly played with and misused due to wording. I would ask you to read my post above, there really isn't many ways to explain this without repeating what was already said.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Where do you see that?

2nd



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
all this legaleze confuses me.what does this really mean.




(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 requirement doesn't extend, but doesn't that just mean they can if they want to?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Where do you see that?

2nd

Re-read it. The State Department has to make periodic reports of disposition. Detained citizens are not required to be held by the Armed Forces--which would mean that it's at the discretion of State to either turn them over to the federal prison system for detainment--or, at their discretion, continue to have them held by the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are not *required* to hold them.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
we can not be certain of what we read until we have read all there is to be read about such said topic with full understanding of such.that has been and will be the deceit of justice to all avarage citizen that for what ever reasson,and many times not his fault, does not understand.examples of this ;(JOHN DOE,John Doe,john doe),example 2;(one will be construde as all in all parragraphs of this seccion and should not be construde as such in all other seccions of this tittle). are we short for words?are we applying the correct meanings?people many times are robbed by this simple fact.we should never asume to know until we are certain of knowing.comprehension is vital.langauge and its gramma and the comprehension is a danger zone,similar to giving a gun to a child.by this i do not claim to be knowledgeable on the subject,just aware of such.
edit on 15-12-2011 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 

As you said it doesn't change anything ...... so what is this bill actually taking away????
and why is it hyped up so much?????



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join