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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

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.


Umm... Are you saying this doesn't happen?




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 

No. I'm only saying what I said.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
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.


I agree with that, and I was confused at first about why so many are upset. I guess it had the reverse effect and brought the old powers to be detained by the military back to light.
edit on 15-12-2011 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I have studied the Law of war, and the Bill's S 1867 HR 1540 SUB SEC D which is 1031 and part 2 1032, and how it pertains to protesters Unions that go on strike, and any one that who would not support the GOV, this is how it breaks down to this www.abovetopsecret.com... from the link

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.
is this clear enough?? now do you see how it could be interpreted? Not just by the TSA DHS FBI but by the National Guard (ARNG), MP Mil police or CID, Criminal Intel Div, CIC,Counter Intelligence Corps DOJ, Dep of Justice DoD, Dep of Defense CIA NSA and the Secret Service not to mention the State and Local PD.
edit on 15-12-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
here is the text of 1031 as worded in HR1540 www.abovetopsecret.com... from the link i was tried when I posted this

now let read it as one could use it on protesters (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: 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.
protesters shutting down docks for the use of shipping is what??Protesting
When supply's to troops are used by privet shipping crop are no longer able to ship because of protesters is what?? Giving aid to terrorist.
This adds up to what?? Protesting... Giving aid to terrorist
this[now let read] should read as[ now lets read it as...] but you do get the idea now this is the GOV and nothing the gov does... gets it right, there is room for abuse, misuse, and worst of all misinterpretation of the law. not that it will happen but could happen, I do find it odd that OWS comes into being when this is now becoming law, and that Arab spring, sprang when this was first created, and that McCain was the one to bring to life.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
If anyone is trying to relate the bill to OWS, it would be a futile attempt.

OWS are not mindless automatons. They do have a mind of their own, and a good one.

In the very first place, when they took to the streets, they knew full well what were the odds stack against them, for even though they had the constitutional law to protect them, those in power and their highly paid minions will use every trick in the book to get them out, and had tried, and failed.

It is an act of defiance, an act of sacrifice upon immense pain felt not only by themselves, but for those whom they cared about. It is a social act of civil disobedience against the man-made laws of a nation if unwisely or irrationally made. One incarcerated, another will take his place.

Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, etc, fellow human brothers and sisters there did it even far more courageously, for they had NO protection from laws, whom only plead for succor and reforms from their leaders, acts which are over and above ANY man-made laws devised. Americans - the beacons of democracy can justifiably do no less, more so face in the constant bailouts of banks and the casino stock exchange that left many behind and an entire middle class wiped out.

Leaders can make all the laws they want, but at the end of the day, it must be acceptable to society so that all within it fully agrees to abide by them. Laws thus must be rational and honest, or in the end, protests will only reign the day, affecting the life blood of nations - trade.

Therefore, politicians best be wise and ensure that their laws made can stand the test of time and reality always or only chaos will reign. Is the current bill detrimental to OWS aims? None. There are far more important tasks such as assuaging hunger than to piddle over another set of man-made laws.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
It means the end of the Constitution which means the end of the Republic. As soon as the Bill is signed into law all three branches of government will in effect be illegitimate. Illegitimate governments have proven throughout history to maintain their rule by only one means: through violence, terror, murder, torture, arbitrary detention and fear. This Bill gives them the self-authorization to do all of these things to Americans and anyone else on the earth.


Is it only a coincidence that just as this Bill is about to pass, this Bill which according to Ron Paul yesterday on Alex Jones’ Infowars “legalizes martial law”, a Halliburton subsidiary KBR is taking tenders for companies to operate services at the FEMA camps which have been established all over the country? Oh, that’s right, these FEMA camps don’t actually exist. They’re putting out tenders for services and are hiring 100,000 “internment specialists” to staff camps that apparently don’t exist.


Are they expecting some disaster which will make the use of the camps necessary for everyone’s good? Are they simply planning for resistance to their newly illegitimate, non-Constitutional government once this Bill is passed? Are they expecting a collapse of the monetary and financial system and the subsequent chaos which will ensue when the trucks cease to deliver food to millions of people trapped in the death traps which the cities will become? No one knows, but everyone is on edge – and should be.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

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.


So the Bill is inferring that Citizens WILL be detained but that the bill does not apply to citizens? That does not make sense Am I the only one seeing this? So to be clear if the bill does not pertain to citizens then why would they be detained under it in the first place?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
I have studied the Law of war, and the Bill's S 1867 HR 1540 SUB SEC D which is 1031 and part 2 1032, and how it pertains to protesters Unions that go on strike, and any one that who would not support the GOV, this is how it breaks down to this www.abovetopsecret.com... from the link

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.
is this clear enough?? now do you see how it could be interpreted? Not just by the TSA DHS FBI but by the National Guard (ARNG), MP Mil police or CID, Criminal Intel Div, CIC,Counter Intelligence Corps DOJ, Dep of Justice DoD, Dep of Defense CIA NSA and the Secret Service not to mention the State and Local PD.
edit on 15-12-2011 by bekod because: editting


Ah thanks.
I believe you have answered my above question. Looking into the definition of belligerent. Being belligerent is now cause to have your US citizenship revoked. All you natural born Americans can have your citizenship taken away by being belligerent to whoever the current administration is. As a non citizen imagine what they can do to you. This bill is a treasonous act.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


The Military Commissions Act passed in 06' made it possible to designate US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants.

This bill (NDAA) gives Gov't the faux authority to detain unlawful enemy combatants indefinitely. Even IF Americans were/are technically exempt (which they are not according to judges, human rights activists, senators, lawmakers, generals, etc.,) they CAN be declared an enemy combatant ... presumably by magic (aka military tribunal), thus the point is mute.

This is treason.

Heck, I'm even starting to wonder how safe it is to post on ATS.


And besides, even IF it only applied to non-citizen "terrorists", that absolves us from our commitment to the Geneva Conventions. Equally horrifying.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I think the confusion people have on this bill is in the legal definitions listed in it. Please bear with me (this will be a long post) and I'll try to break it down the way I read it;



(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.


Belligerent;

Definition - adj
1 : waging war
: carrying on war
specif
: belonging to or recognized as an organized military power protected by and subject to the laws of war
2 : inclined to or exhibiting hostility or a combative temperament

lawyers.com




(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:


Anytime the phrase 'may include' is used in a bill or law you can interpret it as 'may include but not limited to'




(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


The end of hostilities could mean an indefinite end - such as the War on Terror (it will probably never end).




(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)).


Now this is where the Geneva Convention comes in. There are two types of Belligerents according to this law;



‘‘(6) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘privileged belligerent’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
‘‘(7) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
‘‘(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
‘‘(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.


Chapter 47A of Title 10, Subchapter I, Sec 948a

And according to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention a privileged belligerent would basically be any person of a military branch. A unprivileged belligerent would be anyone else - even a person who would arm themselves to defend his family and home against the enemy.




SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.




(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.

This is stating that the Disposition of this Bill is that the military can detain citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens, if it sees fit, but is not required to under this Bill. It does not exclude them from this Bill.

So...as I read this bill;

Any person who may be inclined to exhibit hostility towards the United States Government or any branch thereof (including States Government) can be treated as an unprivileged belligerent thus not fall under Geneva Convention, and can be detained under military custody until the end of such hostility (which may be forever) whether that person is a US citizen or not.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
(Please excuse any mistakes I made in quoting or linking, I hardly ever post on here)

edit on 12/15/2011 by Sostratus because: correct mistakes



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:36 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 thread is about how this is reads to each invidual and a open discussion to clear things up.... it's not about a belief its about the truth

i don't believe we can't be detained.... cause they have always had a way to do it.....
i am not here to let emotions and pure ignorance get in the way of clearing things up.....
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 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sostratus
I think the confusion people have on this bill is in the legal definitions listed in it. Please bear with me (this will be a long post) and I'll try to break it down the way I read it;



(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.


Belligerent;

Definition - adj
1 : waging war
: carrying on war
specif
: belonging to or recognized as an organized military power protected by and subject to the laws of war
2 : inclined to or exhibiting hostility or a combative temperament

lawyers.com




(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:


Anytime the phrase 'may include' is used in a bill or law you can interpret it as 'may include but not limited to'




(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


The end of hostilities could mean an indefinite end - such as the War on Terror (it will probably never end).




(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)).


Now this is where the Geneva Convention comes in. There are two types of Belligerents according to this law;



‘‘(6) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘privileged belligerent’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
‘‘(7) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
‘‘(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
‘‘(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.


Chapter 47A of Title 10, Subchapter I, Sec 948a

And according to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention a privileged belligerent would basically be any person of a military branch. A unprivileged belligerent would be anyone else - even a person who would arm themselves to defend his family and home against the enemy.




SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.




(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.

This is stating that the Disposition of this Bill is that the military can detain citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens, if it sees fit, but is not required to under this Bill. It does not exclude them from this Bill.

So...as I read this bill;

Any person who may be inclined to exhibit hostility towards the United States Government or any branch thereof (including States Government) can be treated as an unprivileged belligerent thus not fall under Geneva Convention, and can be detained under military custody until the end of such hostility (which may be forever) whether that person is a US citizen or not.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
(Please excuse any mistakes I made in quoting or linking, I hardly ever post on here)

edit on 12/15/2011 by Sostratus because: correct mistakes


great post good read with a very good break down..... makes sense;personally i think your right on mark...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by GodofWar411
 


I know that there are not that many reading the entire bill... I will believe their interpretation over pieces pulled out in an attempt to white wash this thing.


lol sorry for twisting your words, but the people who are interpreting as giving the authority to detain citizens indefinitely haven't read the bill. I'm just trying to make a point...I'm not saying you said that.

The people who are saying it are people with who are invested in the business of fear mongering, e.g. Alex Jones.

To the second part of what I quoted...you'll believe interpretations over the pieces that are being claimed to give the authority to detain citizens indefinitely, but not the actual document?
Instead of the first hand source, you'd rather listen to people tell you what it says?
That's a very bad habit of thinking.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
"This is stating that the Disposition of this Bill is that the military can detain citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens, if it sees fit, but is not required to under this Bill. It does not exclude them from this Bill."

That's not what it says...where does it say that they CAN do that?
Ugh, I saw this story on Alex Jones' site...it's B.S.

You guys are obsessing over the word requirement...jeez. In order for the government to be able to detain citizens indefinitely they would have to specifically state that they can do it.
They can't say "oh it says the requirement doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, it doesn't say they can't do it..."
that's so illogical it's ridiculous. Hello! We have a Constitution that says they can't do it. Just because this bill doesn't say they can't do something, doesn't mean they can...

Just drop it!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Sostratus
 
and i bet you do not have a law degree, congrats on figuring it out, just out of curiosity your not in the USA are you?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 
all i can say to you is when they come get you for saying no they cant, and you find your self in Git Mo, remember we told you so.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 
I bet you do not know nor have read the UCMJ www.au.af.mil... research this requirement to detain as seen here www.foreignaffairs.com... from the link

In times of war, law-enforcement rules are supplemented by a more permissive set of rules: namely, international humanitarian law, which governs conduct during armed conflict. Under such "war rules," unlike during peacetime, an enemy combatant can be shot without warning (unless he or she is incapacitated, in custody, or trying to surrender), regardless of any imminent threat. If a combatant is captured, he or she can be held in custody until the end of the conflict, without any trial.
remember a US citizen that takes up arms or has given aid to, or has become, Hostile or Belligerent has forfeited their rights as a citizen, a Citizen is a non combatant therefore exempt of the law.

edit on 16-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 16-12-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I believe this thread was intended to deal with how this bill reads, and by your own admission



Just because this bill doesn't say they can't do something

I think that you agree that this Bill states that it is left to the military's discretion.

Do I think this could ever happen to a US citizen - Only, and I repeat only under two conditions - Martial Law and State of Emergencies (which varies by state). I believe this for the exact same reason you brought up



Hello! We have a Constitution that says they can't do it.


Also I agree that everyone is obsessing over the word 'requirement' and they should be. Many, many times court cases are upheld or overturned by one word and one word only. If this bill did become law and if that law was ever brought before the Supreme Court, I guarantee that the hearing would revolve around the word 'requirement'.

My apologies to GodofWar411 if I get of on a tangent from this thread, but here is my take on how this Bill ties in with Martial Law and State of Emergencies;

Many will say that under Martial Law, the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended (and it can) so this part of this Bill is mute, but under current law the President is the only one who can suspend it. Under this Bill the President no longer needs to suspend Habeas Corpus- this Bill gets around that.

Now in many States when a State of Emergency is declared the States Constitution has many of the same requirements as Martial Law, for example Hurricane Katrina. In Louisiana a State of Emergency was declared and the Mayor of New Orleans stated that officers did not have to follow Civil Laws and suspended the Miranda Rights. Under this Bill the Mayor would only have to declare a State of Emergency, he would not have to suspend anything.

Imagine if a disaster happened near where you live and a State of Emergency is declared. The National Guard is going house to house to De-arm people to protect themselves and the civilians. You refuse to let them in your house, they enter anyway- now let's just say from their perspective you may be 'inclined' to be a hostile. Under this Bill they can detain you until the end of such hostility whether the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended or not.

Again I apologize to the OP for straying from the purpose of this thread.
edit on 12/16/2011 by Sostratus because: clarification



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 

You are right, I do not have a law degree, but my job requires me to deal with legal gibberish on a daily basis. I have to interpret contracts and am constantly debating on the true legal meaning of such contracts (it's a PITA).

Thanks for your 'congrats' - and yes, I do live in the USA.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join