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: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Not "required" to hold them.
This has little to do with the arrest and detention of citizens, and merely makes clear that those detained will not be held by Military if other means are more appropriate.

Look at the title of the bill, you're reading and analyzing the wrong section. You're looking at the handling of those arrested and the administration of those detained, not the legal grounds for indefinite detention.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Look at the title of the bill, you're reading and analyzing the wrong section. You're looking at the handling of those arrested and the administration of those detained, not the legal grounds for indefinite detention.


I am looking over the entire bill now, and I can't find any other mention of the word detention outside of the Detainees Guantanamo Bay Section which is Section 1035. Which section in this bill states that US citizens can be held indefinitely?

I think the big whoop over this was, when the bill was initially proposed, it did not have the waiver exempting US citizens from the Military Custody in Section 1031, but it was amended later:


S.AMDT.1126
Amends: S.1867
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (submitted 11/17/2011) (proposed 11/17/2011)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.


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


Interesting, that it is to "limit the authority" not exclude.
edit on 15-12-2011 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by majesticgent
I am looking over the entire bill now, and I can't find any other mention of the word detention outside of the Detainees Guantanamo Bay Section which is Section 1035. Which section in this bill states that US citizens can be held indefinitely?

It's not in this bill. It's in the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed ten years ago, as interpreted by the executive branch and the Supreme Court. And "indefinitely" is subject to a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or formal cessation of hostilities by repeal or modification of the AUMF. People are getting worked up because this bill elaborates upon what has been the law for a decade.

news.findlaw.com...

www.jenner.com...

There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own
citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the
detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized
United States citizen. 317 U. S., at 20. We held that
“[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm
of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and
direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are en-
emy belligerents within the meaning of . . . the law of
war.” Id., at 37–38. While Haupt was tried for violations
of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his
citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for
the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30–31.
See also Lieber Code, ¶153, Instructions for the Govern-
ment of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen.
Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 Lieber, Miscellaneous
Writings, p. 273 (contemplating, in code binding the Union
Army during the Civil War, that “captured rebels” would
be treated “as prisoners of war”). Nor can we see any
reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less
than an alien, can be “part of or supporting forces hostile
to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in
an armed conflict against the United States,” Brief for
Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the
same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing
conflict.

That's from 2004, and it quotes cases from World War II and the Civil War laws of war. There's really no excuse for people who think citizenship renders them immune from detention during a conflict.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
lol at op and others thinking us citizens are exempt. if they think you are a "threat". they will detain you without a trial as long as possible. do you think they will give you a pass because you are a us citizen? you are fooling yourselves.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
. . .
That's from 2004, and it quotes cases from World War II and the Civil War laws of war. There's really no excuse for people who think citizenship renders them immune from detention during a conflict.

Thank you, FurvusRexCaeli. That is exactly what the big deal is about this bill. This administration is not just at war with "Terrorism," they're at war with the own citizens because citizens are getting smart and calling them on it. Hillary's whine about "losing the information war" was not about losing the ability to effectively propagandize some vague populace 'way over there, across the world somewhere: it was about losing the propaganda advantage at home. Our citizens are getting fed up, and thanks to this amazing thing called the Internet, they're looking at other sources of news and information and starting to get scary ideas.

Those scary ideas are leading to other ideas--and the next thing you know, people will start getting ideas (if you know what I mean). WE THE PEOPLE are now the enemy. It's one thing for us to pay for their wars and sing happy songs while we work. It's quite another thing to start grousing and complaining about it and making noises as if we don't really care for their wars.

Personally, I don't really care for their wars....



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
so if the govts ability to arrest and detain indefinatly has been around for a while.....why is this bill getting so much attention? and it is in the MSM...that right there should tell us that something is wrong here.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodofWar411
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?????

You are correct. You can be picked up for anything at all, and "detained" forever without an issue - people get "lost" in the system all the time. There is nothing new on this front, but the wording is clear - they are clear to do as they please in their minds, as they don't really love breaking the laws they wrote (working around them yes, but breaking now).

What is really happening, as I see it, is the key intent behind naming the entire world as a battlefield. While people will focus on the "they can pick up all the bad guys and keep us safe part" what they will not focus on is the declaration of planetary war. WWIII, the war on the human populace, will state officially when the bill is signed by the President.

Little known fact. Number of people killed by terrorists in the US in last 10 years = 0. Number of people killed by vending machines = 100. If death, or potential death, was the real issue, then vending machines and their owners would be detained indefinitely without trial for murdering innocent dorito seeking lives.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
lol at op and others thinking us citizens are exempt. if they think you are a "threat". they will detain you without a trial as long as possible. do you think they will give you a pass because you are a us citizen? you are fooling yourselves.



clearly you do not understand what this thread is about .....



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by clearmind
 
for the first time it states what and how to deal with hostiles and belligerents does not define who or what they are, says it is not required to detain a US citizen , but does not say you can not detain one therefore you still can, www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Oh yes. I understand that perfectly and I think the Patriot Act was the beginning of the end of our civil liberties and it has been a slippery slope ever since. The Patriot Act paved the way for bills, such as the one you mentioned, to be passed.

What is more appalling is that the original bill didn't have the exemption, sub clause, or whatever you will and it only said "limits" and not excludes. I know this bill can be applied to US citizens, I'm just trying to find the exact section people were in an uproar over, and now it all ties together once I look at the bigger picture and put all of the pieces together.
edit on 15-12-2011 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
so if the govts ability to arrest and detain indefinatly has been around for a while.....why is this bill getting so much attention? and it is in the MSM...that right there should tell us that something is wrong here.

My theory, it's this part of section 1032:

(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.

Until now, the White House has had a pretty free hand in determining who is covered under the AUMF. They do whatever they want, and are only occasionally called to account by the courts. This bill requires them to explain their procedures to Congress. It would establish Congressional oversight over a secretive function of the executive branch. They object to that. With a few planted stories, some misinformation and misdirection, they have gotten their enemies striving to maintain executive power in the face of attempted Congressional oversight. It's really quite brilliant.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
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.


How many different ways can they state it?

In addition to the phrase about it not being applicable to US citizens, they also included language saying that the bill does not over-rule existing laws protecting US citizens from military detainment.



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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Originally posted by Indigo5
How many different ways can they state it?

In addition to the phrase about it not being applicable to US citizens, they also included language saying that the bill does not over-rule existing laws protecting US citizens from military detainment.


Exactly and if you refer to this post on the thread, you will see the loophole where it could be applied to U.S. citizens. Those protections protecting US citizens can be done away with; If they have not been already.



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

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
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)



I think this is an important distinction to be made, particularly in light of this admins attempt to release detainees at Gitmo and have their trials held in civilian courts instead. Perhaps the real point of this is to change the laws requiring detainees be held in military quarters. I'm not certain if this is to allow for citizens to be detained but not necessarily by military, or just to let known terrorists out of Gitmo....personally, I doubt seriously Obama cares about US citizens in any way shape or form. They merely exist to give him power and control, which is in keeping with his narcissistic profile.


Another thought I had is that perhaps the admin feels they would have a greater ability to manipulate civilians in an ordinary court of law and even stack the jury than it would be to circumvent military tribunals where there would be a lot of oversight or scrutiny by whistleblowers.


And this purpose could be either to convict ordinary citizens or to let go known terrorists working for them. I believe this POTUS would take out any citizen who opposes his agenda if he could get away with it. We know Clinton "disappeared" people. Anyone remember the Clinton Chronicles?
edit on 15-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

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

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

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

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by majesticgent
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Originally posted by Indigo5
How many different ways can they state it?

In addition to the phrase about it not being applicable to US citizens, they also included language saying that the bill does not over-rule existing laws protecting US citizens from military detainment.


Exactly and if you refer to this post on the thread, you will see the loophole where it could be applied to U.S. citizens.



If you are saying that this bill does not create a new law absolutely forbidding the military detention of US Citizens..sure.


But this bill gives absolutely no NEW powers for the US Military to detain US Citizens and went to great lengths to make sure it wouldn't.

So the claims about it doing so are false.

As recently as the months/years following 9-11 the Bush administration arrested US Citizens and help them in "Special Detention" without trials...and they were challenged legally on those detentions....as our legal system rightly affords us to.

Here is a US citizen/Qatar native that was arrested under the Bush administration and held in a Navy Brig.

His detention was challenged and case was filed with the SCOTUS, the Obama administration moved him to a civilian court and detention before the case was heard.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodofWar411

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
lol at op and others thinking us citizens are exempt. if they think you are a "threat". they will detain you without a trial as long as possible. do you think they will give you a pass because you are a us citizen? you are fooling yourselves.



clearly you do not understand what this thread is about .....


Why don't you explain to us what this thread is about cause I'm confused? If they think I'm a terrorist and a threat but since I'm a U.S. citizen, they will not detain me without a trial or are they? Please do explain.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by GodofWar411

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
lol at op and others thinking us citizens are exempt. if they think you are a "threat". they will detain you without a trial as long as possible. do you think they will give you a pass because you are a us citizen? you are fooling yourselves.



clearly you do not understand what this thread is about .....


Why don't you explain to us what this thread is about cause I'm confused? If they think I'm a terrorist and a threat but since I'm a U.S. citizen, they will not detain me without a trial or are they? Please do explain.



The bill does specify those who participated in planning 9-11 and/or members of Al Qaida. The problem here is in determining who is Al Qaida. Can the govt detain someone without genuine proof? Could they plant materials in a citizen's home and then arrest him? Then detain him, but it wouldn't have to be in a military prison, that is not Gitmo or some other military facility.
Maybe it would be easier for a known terrorist to get lost in the prison system. Wouldn't it be much easier to track such people if they are always held at Gitmo? DIdn't this President promise to shut down Gitmo? Maybe people should be more careful what they ask for. Now it seems that people can be held in lower profile detention centers,and who knows, maybe a FEMA camp. I think that is what the Judge might be hinting at.
edit on 15-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I thought this bill was passed so that they can detain anyone without having proof as long as they feel as though you are a terrorist or a threat to the U.S. My question is, if you are an American citizen, can they still detain you without proof? I personally think their ambiguous distinction was meant to be interpreted however they see as fit.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The logical operator in the bill is OR. They can say you are belligerent for protesting in a meaningful way, call you a terrorist, and detain you indefinitely. They can decide when or IF they will release you to civilian trial systems. They know what is coming.
edit on 15-12-2011 by eywadevotee because: more details



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The bill does specify those who participated in planning 9-11 and/or members of Al Qaida. The problem here is in determining who is Al Qaida. Can the govt detain someone without genuine proof? Could they plant materials in a citizen's home and then arrest him?

If they're going to plant evidence and arrest someone, they can do it without the NDAA, or even the AUMF. Once you start considering a government that will break the law, you have a government that doesn't need a law to authorize anything.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join