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

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


Hey,for what it is worth, I do understand the confusion on the wording.

If you will, read my post which is just below yours. I explain in what I hope are more simple terms, the reasons I came to the conclusion I did.


But again, if I am wrong or mistaken, I will be the first to admit it. But at this point. I do not think I am wrong.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


When multiple Constitutional Lawyers... even TEACHERS of Constitutional Law say your wrong and FIssionsurplus' reading is right.... I'm sorry seems like your telling yourself what you want to hear.

I've read and reread and reread and listened to all sides of the argument. It seems clear as day to me they have made a loophole so they can say one thing and do exactly what they want... declare anyone they want a terrorist and lock them away indefinitely.

I trust the constitutional lawyers over anyone here on ats without a law degree.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis

No, dude, you're not listening. You are confusing "Requirement" with "permission." The military is not REQUIRED to detain US Citizens under the circumstances that they are REQUIRED to do the same to non citizens. This provision says nothing whatsoever about PERMISSION. The bill, in large part, gives PERMISSION to indefinitely detain people without trial. The SECTION you are looking at details when they are REQUIRED to exercise that permission.


First, please do not call me dude. That is not my name. Sorry, just a silly pet peeve of mine.

Now, I am listening. Do not confuse my disagreeing, with not listening. I am considering everything everyone has said.

I ask you to read something that I posted in this thread. This is my stance and if I am incorrect, I will admit I am wrong and apologize. At this point I do not believe I am wrong. Please read this. Thank you

the bill of rights.



Right to a fair trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.


This right has not been taken away from US citizens.

Here, read this from bill s.1867


(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.


That is who the bill applies to. These are who can be detained indefinitely.


Now read this part.


(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.


Simply it says that members of al-queida and non US citizens planning terrorist attacks on US soil, can be detained indefinitely. US citizens, can be detained, but not indefinitely. We do not apply to that law.

That combined with our right to a fair trial, ensured that US citizens will not be detained indefinitely,unless,perhaps they are found guilty and they are sentenced to life in prison.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I'm also insane, because here goes


1031 is not 1032. The provision that this does not apply to american citizens is with reference to 1032, which is subtly different than 1031.

Ok, first thing, 1032 (2) B:

"to have participated in the course of
15 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
16 attack against the United States or its coalition
17 partners."

Second thing, going backwards, 1031 (b) 2:

"(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces."

1032 can be applied to those falling under 1031, but it doesn't look like it necessarily has too.

More importantly, why did they change the language defining "covered persons" to a much less amorphous definition when referring to us citizen exemption?

I'm not saying I'm proficient enough in legalese to interpret this completely correctly, but this sounds like 1032 is leaving out a very important "belligerent act" statement which could apply to anyone, OWS most obviously, and you people with guns



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Dude, you're not getting it. I'm sorry, haha.

You keep quoting the same section over and over again, and saying that because a US citizen isn't required to be detained, it means that they can't be detained. Not being required is not the same as not being allowed.

Stuff like this is precise. If US citizens couldn't be detained, it would say they are restricted from the law or that this excludes them.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


When multiple Constitutional Lawyers... even TEACHERS of Constitutional Law say your wrong and FIssionsurplus' reading is right.... I'm sorry seems like your telling yourself what you want to hear.

I've read and reread and reread and listened to all sides of the argument. It seems clear as day to me they have made a loophole so they can say one thing and do exactly what they want... declare anyone they want a terrorist and lock them away indefinitely.

I trust the constitutional lawyers over anyone here on ats without a law degree.


Well, for the third time, it may seem that way to you, but I am not doing what you accuse me of and I still do not appreciate you doing that.

I have stated that if I am wrong, if it turns out I am wrong, I will apologize and admit it, but at this point in time, I do not think I am.

Do not mistake my disagreeing as not listening, okay? Hear me out too. I am listening to you



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Gimmie, would you kindly shut the hell up and listen to your fellow ATS'ers??!!? om fricken g they are flat out giving you sources from professionals who know a lot more then you do. You can only hide in your box for so long till you have to ccept the truth!

4.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
You have the right to do what they say or be detained. It's nothing new, just now they are being more overt about it. They will not stop until we are all enslaved. The drug war (attack on cognative liberty) is a good example of legislation almost as ambiguous and Constitution gutting. Now it's freedom of protest being directly attacked using the foot in the door approach of semantics.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Stop repeating yourself. You are not disputing what anyone is saying. you are only repeating yourself, things which we have already disagreed with. try explaining why the difference between "Can" and "Must", the difference between "Permission" and "Requirement" is not relevant.

Besides that, don't cite the Bill of Rights. We know the Bill of Rights. Our fear is that this ignores the bill of rights, and proves that the bill of rights has been eradicated. Citing the bill of rights does NOTHING in this argument.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by TomServo
 


Hey,for what it is worth, I do understand the confusion on the wording.

If you will, read my post which is just below yours. I explain in what I hope are more simple terms, the reasons I came to the conclusion I did.


But again, if I am wrong or mistaken, I will be the first to admit it. But at this point. I do not think I am wrong.


That is a fair analysis, and is much appreciated. You make a few assumptions in your interpretation (logical ones at that). However, the caveat is: What degree of confidence do you and I have that the legislative branch will arrive at the same interpretation, and under what circumstances might they be able to pick and choose which sections/terminologies gain precedence over another according to individual cases? There seems to be too much contradictory rhetoric in this bill, and I would hate to be one of the first to find out what they really meant... Not looking forward to the potential of civil suffrage that, God forbid, may come from this.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Dude, you're not getting it. I'm sorry, haha.

You keep quoting the same section over and over again, and saying that because a US citizen isn't required to be detained, it means that they can't be detained. Not being required is not the same as not being allowed.

Stuff like this is precise. If US citizens couldn't be detained, it would say they are restricted from the law or that this excludes them.


Again, please don't call me dude. That is not my name. thanks.

And hey, maybe I am not getting it. Fact is, we are all going in circles now.

Allow me to write my full stance on this. Something that seems to have been skipped over. Below is why I believe I am right in saying that US citizens cannot be detained forever, at least with out a trial.

And I ask for anyone... If I am wrong. Please do not just say I am wrong or say that lawyers say I am wrong...

Please some one help me to understand why you think that the right to a fair trial does not apply. Please help me to understand why it gives clarification as to who can be detained forever and US citizens are not in that group.

Please help me to understand why US citizens are labeled under the exceptions to the rule of who can be detained forever.

Maybe I don't get it, but I think I do.



the bill of rights.



Right to a fair trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.


This right has not been taken away from US citizens.

Here, read this from bill s.1867


(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.


That is who the bill applies to. These are who can be detained indefinitely.


Now read this part.


(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.


Simply it says that members of al-queida and non US citizens planning terrorist attacks on US soil, can be detained indefinitely. US citizens, can be detained, but not indefinitely. We do not apply to that law.

That combined with our right to a fair trial, ensured that US citizens will not be detained indefinitely,unless,perhaps they are found guilty and they are sentenced to life in prison.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I can't believe this is happening again...gimme_some_truth, do you really believe what you are saying? Or are you just trying to stir the pot? It is nearly impossible to believe the former.

To be concise, 1032 is not the real troubling section, even though it certainly DOES give the military that ABILITY to detain US Citizens, even if it does not REQUIRE them to detain.

Section 1031, on the other hand, is where we lose our right to trial, listen carefully:







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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


When multiple Constitutional Lawyers... even TEACHERS of Constitutional Law say your wrong and FIssionsurplus' reading is right.... I'm sorry seems like your telling yourself what you want to hear.

I've read and reread and reread and listened to all sides of the argument. It seems clear as day to me they have made a loophole so they can say one thing and do exactly what they want... declare anyone they want a terrorist and lock them away indefinitely.

I trust the constitutional lawyers over anyone here on ats without a law degree.


Well, for the third time, it may seem that way to you, but I am not doing what you accuse me of and I still do not appreciate you doing that.

I have stated that if I am wrong, if it turns out I am wrong, I will apologize and admit it, but at this point in time, I do not think I am.

Do not mistake my disagreeing as not listening, okay? Hear me out too. I am listening to you


We have told you how you are wrong. You simply are not listening tow hat we are saying.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Dude, you're not getting it. I'm sorry, haha.

You keep quoting the same section over and over again, and saying that because a US citizen isn't required to be detained, it means that they can't be detained. Not being required is not the same as not being allowed.

Stuff like this is precise. If US citizens couldn't be detained, it would say they are restricted from the law or that this excludes them.


Again, please don't call me dude. That is not my name. thanks.

And hey, maybe I am not getting it. Fact is, we are all going in circles now.

Allow me to write my full stance on this. Something that seems to have been skipped over. Below is why I believe I am right in saying that US citizens cannot be detained forever, at least with out a trial.

And I ask for anyone... If I am wrong. Please do not just say I am wrong or say that lawyers say I am wrong...

Please some one help me to understand why you think that the right to a fair trial does not apply. Please help me to understand why it gives clarification as to who can be detained forever and US citizens are not in that group.

Please help me to understand why US citizens are labeled under the exceptions to the rule of who can be detained forever.

Maybe I don't get it, but I think I do.



the bill of rights.



Right to a fair trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.


This right has not been taken away from US citizens.

Here, read this from bill s.1867


(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.


That is who the bill applies to. These are who can be detained indefinitely.


Now read this part.


(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.


Simply it says that members of al-queida and non US citizens planning terrorist attacks on US soil, can be detained indefinitely. US citizens, can be detained, but not indefinitely. We do not apply to that law.

That combined with our right to a fair trial, ensured that US citizens will not be detained indefinitely,unless,perhaps they are found guilty and they are sentenced to life in prison.



No, DUDE. you are going in circles. You are repeating yourself to absolutely no avail. You are indeed ignoring everything that is said to refute what you are saying, and simply repeating yourself.

That happens to be a pet peeve of mine, DUDE.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 





(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.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Hi I think I may have this partially figured out, I would like you to highlight exactly where it says that a fair trial is guaranteed. I'm probably staring right at it and not seeing it, perhaps you can point it out please.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



haha, A fair trial is not 'Required'....



Gimme_Some_Truth - Im sorry, but the wording is just way to intricate to rule anything out as a constant.

If the Govt. wants to lock you away indefinitely - they can and will FIND a way to make it 'legal'


ThatGuy45
edit on 15/12/11 by ThatGuy45 because: being funny



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Stop repeating yourself. You are not disputing what anyone is saying. you are only repeating yourself, things which we have already disagreed with. try explaining why the difference between "Can" and "Must", the difference between "Permission" and "Requirement" is not relevant.

Besides that, don't cite the Bill of Rights. We know the Bill of Rights. Our fear is that this ignores the bill of rights, and proves that the bill of rights has been eradicated. Citing the bill of rights does NOTHING in this argument.


I can say anything I like. If you have a problem with that, I do apologize.

I am disputing what others are saying. Okay,so you disagree with me, but why? Why does the Right to a fair trial not apply? Why does the bill state that non US citizens can be detained indefinitely and US citizens cannot?

Yes, US citizens can be detained, but we have the right to a fair trial.

I repeat because I am looking for answers. I even asked you for the answers...Your response? Stop repeating yourself....Thanks for the help.....

Now, Yes,you know the bill of rights, so you know that we have the right to a fair trial! So, lets say that it does ignore the bill of rights. Lets say you are right and that it allows for permanent detention of US citizens.

Then that makes it an unconstitutional law and there for, cannot be legally enforced. The bill of rights still applies and you are afraid for nothing.

An illegal bill does not mean the bill of rights has been eradicated.

But, I do not think this bill allows for what you think it does and I am asking for your help in answering my questions..... Please don't just say " quit repeating yourself" I have questions....



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Because not being REQUIRED is not the same thing as not being ALLOWED. And that's the quote you're basing your whole argument off of!



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis

No, DUDE. you are going in circles. You are repeating yourself to absolutely no avail. You are indeed ignoring everything that is said to refute what you are saying, and simply repeating yourself.

That happens to be a pet peeve of mine, DUDE.



No, I am asking questions and even asking you for your help in answering them... You responded by calling me dude and saying to quit repeating myself.

I will ask my questions until they get answered...

So, do you wish to help me or are you just going to stand around and deliberately call me dude, just because it bugs me?

I can only say that I am looking for answers in so many ways.... If you don't like that I have questions, well...Tough.

I have questions and I invite anyone to help me come up with the answer.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Stop repeating yourself. You are not disputing what anyone is saying. you are only repeating yourself, things which we have already disagreed with. try explaining why the difference between "Can" and "Must", the difference between "Permission" and "Requirement" is not relevant.

Besides that, don't cite the Bill of Rights. We know the Bill of Rights. Our fear is that this ignores the bill of rights, and proves that the bill of rights has been eradicated. Citing the bill of rights does NOTHING in this argument.


I can say anything I like. If you have a problem with that, I do apologize.

I am disputing what others are saying. Okay,so you disagree with me, but why? Why does the Right to a fair trial not apply? Why does the bill state that non US citizens can be detained indefinitely and US citizens cannot?

Yes, US citizens can be detained, but we have the right to a fair trial.

I repeat because I am looking for answers. I even asked you for the answers...Your response? Stop repeating yourself....Thanks for the help.....

Now, Yes,you know the bill of rights, so you know that we have the right to a fair trial! So, lets say that it does ignore the bill of rights. Lets say you are right and that it allows for permanent detention of US citizens.

Then that makes it an unconstitutional law and there for, cannot be legally enforced. The bill of rights still applies and you are afraid for nothing.

An illegal bill does not mean the bill of rights has been eradicated.

But, I do not think this bill allows for what you think it does and I am asking for your help in answering my questions..... Please don't just say " quit repeating yourself" I have questions....




What questions, exactly, are you asking? there is not a single question mark in the chunk of text you are repeatedly copy-pasting.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join