S.1867: Can they really detain us? Let's find out.

Lately, I have been seeing many claims from all over the place. Claims that the US will be able to detain US Citizens indefinitely, with out a trial. This is a very scary though and I admit, I fell for it. It sounded true. After all, the US seems to be passing more and more questionable bills every day now.

Well, I got to thinking that I never once actually saw the part in this bill, stating that US citizens could be detained indefinitely. So I did some research and read through the bill.

Take a look at what the bill really in section 1032 entitled "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.

Section 1032

So clearly you can all now see, neither US citizen or Lawful Resident Alien can be detained indefinitely. What we have been seeing and hearing, is a lie being perpetrated by media and citizen alike. Some intentionally, some unintentionally.

But I hope you can all now see, that for once, our rights are not being trampled and that the truth is, US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely with out a trial.

S.1867


ETA: I must admit that after participating in this thread, there has been great debate and I eventually conceded that though it is very unlikely, it is in fact, possible, for US citizens to be detained indefinitely, given the correct circumstances.

Thanks to everyone for helping out, putting up with my questions and clearing up a few confusions I was having.

I will be back later to post and reply to people. I have to run some errands.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


This proves nothing. "Requirement" is the key word. It should say the power of indefinite detntion is restricted to non- us citizens.

But I hope you can all now see, that for once, our rights are not being trampled and that the truth is, US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely with out a trial.

No, what you can "Clearly see" is that: while it isnt a requirement to detain citizens, it can be done.

So if you are a US Citizen and happen to be classed as a terrorist - they can't detain you? Is that what you are saying?

Second line.

reply to post by quedup


Do they define anywhere in there what a terrorist really is?

Over the last few years what I thought was the definition has seemingly changed and I am no longer sure what a terrorist is any more.

In my view, a terrorist is anyone who attempts to harm and/or kill civilians.

reply to post by quedup


Yes! Exactly what he's trying to say!

Originally posted by derst1988
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

This proves nothing. "Requirement" is the key word. It should say the power of indefinite detntion is restricted to non- us citizens.

The bill stating that US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely with out a trial does not prove that US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely, with out a trial? Hmmmm.....

No, what you can "Clearly see" is that it isnt a requirement to detain citizens, it can be done.

No one is saying that US citizens cannot be detained. Of course we can be detained! We always could be!What I am saying and what the bill IS saying is that we cannot be detained indefinitely.... This bill, does not extend to US citizens. We are not among people who can be detained indefinitely.

We still have the right to a trial. A speedy and public trial.

And it DOES say that the power of indefinite detention applies to only non US citizens. It just is worded differently.

what it says is, US citizens do not apply to this rule of indefinite detention. It's pretty plain English.

These are requirements for military custody. One of those requirements is that you cannot be a US citizen or Lawful resident.

Originally posted by quedup
So if you are a US Citizen and happen to be classed as a terrorist - they can't detain you? Is that what you are saying?

Second line.

No, what the BILL says, is that US citizens cannot be indefinitely detained with out the right to a speedy and public trial.

What I am saying is that it is incorrect to say that US citizens can now be detained for ever with out a trial. That is flat out wrong.

I am saying that US citizens have the right to a trial and that has not changed with this bill...

Martial law has not been enacted as some have claimed. We cannot be detained for ever with out a trial, in the way this bill will allow for non US citizens or legal residents, to be detained forever.

Sure we can be detained. We always could be detained. But by law, we will receive a trial.So there is no need to sweat....For now

Phew!!Thank God for that!

The thing that is bothering me about the bill is its OK for anyone in other countries to be kidnapped by the US,and detained without trial forever.

But hey its perfectly OK to the voters as long as its not US citizens???

PuuurLEEEZE!!!

How about the rest of the world-We do not deserve the USA to deem us all potential terrorists-And what the hell gives them the right to make that legal?

The whole thing is BS.

For crying out loud USA people-VOTE RON PAUL.
Save the free world.

Even though the voting machines are rigged,do it anyway-please?
See what happens?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by derst1988
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

This proves nothing. "Requirement" is the key word. It should say the power of indefinite detntion is restricted to non- us citizens.


No, what you can "Clearly see" is that it isnt a requirement to detain citizens, it can be done.

The bill stating that US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely with out a trial does not prove that US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely, with out a trial? Hmmmm.....

No one is saying that US citizens cannot be detained. What I am saying and what the bill IS saying is that we cannot be detained indefinitely.... This bill, does not extend to US citizens. We are not among people who can be detained indefinitely.

We still have the right to a trial. A speedy and public trial.

And it DOES say that the power of indefinite detention applies to only non US citizens. It just is worded different.

Again, what it says is, US citizens do not apply to this rule of indefinite detention. It's pretty plain English.

There are requirements for military custody. One of those requirements is that you cannot be a US citizen or Lawful resident.

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

I'm sorry but you can be sure that it was worded that way for a reason. If something wasn't specifically ruled out than that leaves open room for interpretation. They aren't "required" to....but it doesn't say they can't if they want to. That's the problem.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


Ron Paul is not here to save you or anyone. Stop relying on him and become the change you seek and stop holding on to someone else!

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I've heard this sticking point argued so many ways.
I think you are right gimme some truth.
It's a spooky bill, but I think US citizens are in the clear.
Of course, Obama haters they think it means Obama
will personally show up at their door dressed in commie garb
and take them away. However if this bill does make secret arrests
and indefinite detention possible,......ITS ON.
And 300 million Americans with 400 million guns are gonna be pissed.

Us citizens cannot have mandatory military detainment, though they COULD be detained indefinitely in "cilvilian custody" and "temporarily" detaioned in military custody. The bill is a disgusting disgrace to our Constitution.

reply to post by MissSmartypants


Okay, I think what some people are not understanding is that section 1302 is entitled requirements for military custody.

That is where the world requirement is coming from.

So, in other words, the rules that say a person can be indefinitely detained do not apply to US citizens or Lawful Residents.

Although Section 1032 does say that it doesn't apply to US citizens, Section 1031 is more broad and most certainly can be construed as covering EVERYBODY, including US Citizens here and abroad: Here is a statement from the ACLU website:

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Here is Section 1031:

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.

This bill is misleading and contradictory. It should not have been passed as is, but those traitors on Capitol Hill are quite sneaky. "A belligerent act"? Such as, being part of the OWS crowd?

We live in troubling times, indeed.

Originally posted by eywadevotee
Us citizens cannot have mandatory military detainment, though they COULD be detained indefinitely in "cilvilian custody" and "temporarily" detaioned in military custody. The bill is a disgusting disgrace to our Constitution.

No they cannot. Any citizen can be detained, but we have the right to a trial that has not been taking away. We cannot and will not be detained forever, with out a trial.

The bill doesn't REQUIRE the executive or the military to detain citizens indefinitely under those circumstances. It doesn't bar them from doing so. They can just do it at their discretion
In other words...A police officer is not REQUIRED to handcuff you and beat you over the head with his baton while pepper spraying you. He just has the right to if he deems it necessary.
Same concept.
The Bill of Rights is effectively useless if the executive branch labels you an "enemy combatant"
This was effectively true under Bush. Now it is legally true under Obama.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You could be right Bro,but in the system we are in-how else do we make the big changes?
Sure we could riot or go guerrilla,but then the powers will shoot,gas,electrocute,blow up any resistors,and get new powers into the bargain.
They love resistance-its an excuse to become more draconian.
Whats the answer?
Wish I knew.

Nevermind, sorry, I was wrong.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The thing that is bothering me about the bill is its OK for anyone in other countries to be kidnapped by the US,and detained without trial forever.

But hey its perfectly OK to the voters as long as its not US citizens???

Well, yes. That's the point of having a state--to do violence to the citizens of other states on our behalf. Much neater than roving bands of global vigilantes. In any case, citizens of other states still have habeas rights--at least five people got out of Guantanamo that way. That wasn't really possible in the black sites, but Obama shut all those down (wink, nod).

How about the rest of the world-We do not deserve the USA to deem us all potential terrorists-And what the hell gives them the right to make that legal?

Sovereignty. Or Article 51 of the UN Charter, if you're an international kind of guy.