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

citizens of Japanese decent
Tesla
Zundle
Peltier
wellstone
al walaki
KENNEDY
LINCOLN
JACKSON

get it?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


If you had listened to Anonymous talk about it the first time. Further down in the bill it pretty much says they can make it apply to U.S. Citizens if they want it to. There really just trying to worm their way around the Geneva convention and U.S. Law.

Originally posted by TheRedP1LL
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

If you had listened to Anonymous talk about it the first time. Further down in the bill it pretty much says they can make it apply to U.S. Citizens if they want it to. There really just trying to worm their way around the Geneva convention and U.S. Law.

Where does it say that? Here is a link to the bill.

www.gpo.gov...

I'd like for you to tell me on which page and line that is located.

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.

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.

That wording is legally sound because the word requirement is the proper requisite word

which grants the determination in the clause. It is worded much better than the Patriot

Act which is is very vague and can be twisted by any good lawyer. Legally speaking

this clause might interfere with the Patriot Act and the several of the determination clauses

that might be misused there. I am actually glad I read this because I assumed the

titles of the other articles was right, this one is actually right.

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

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by TheRedP1LL
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

If you had listened to Anonymous talk about it the first time. Further down in the bill it pretty much says they can make it apply to U.S. Citizens if they want it to. There really just trying to worm their way around the Geneva convention and U.S. Law.

Where does it say that? Here is a link to the bill.

www.gpo.gov...

I'd like for you to tell me on which page and line that is located.

Me to because that first clause is pretty dang clear.

At this moment, the last five threads in the U.S. Political Madness forum are about S.1867 and not one of them quotes the actual text of the bill that actually authorizes or "requires" the military to detain, indefinitely or otherwise, United States citizens. Every one of them just quotes third parties as saying that is what the bill does.

I'm done with these threads, until someone can provide direct evidence of the claim, from the actual text of the bill.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Me to because that first clause is pretty dang clear.

What first clause?

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Me to because that first clause is pretty dang clear.

What first clause?

Sub section b, Clause (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.

This does not apply to Citizens

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


This is why I read the text of bills before I buy into what Alex Jones or other people who make a living off of conspiracy tripe say.

There's a lot of hyperbole and BS out there about what our government does. This does not mean that we should trust the government, on the contrary, there's also plenty of reason to scrutinize and worry about the erosion of our rights as a direct consequence of what our government does...In this case, it is not a founded worry.

reply to post by projectvxn


That is exactly right, and while I did concede that it is possible, I want to make it known that it is very unlikely( I think so, anyway ) that such a thing would ever happen. So many things would have to happen. So many laws broken and then the people would have to be complacent in not standing up for their rights, before indefinite detention ( With out a trial) were to take place. But I mean, yeah, it is possible and I can see where people are questioning things.

I think it is wise to examine all possibilities and sides of any debate, rather than just taking another persons word for it. Which in a way, is what this thread has become and I think that is a good thing.

A good dialog to get to the bottom of it all, is just what the doctor ordered, I think.

Originally posted by Danbones
citizens of Japanese decent
Tesla
Zundle
Peltier
wellstone
al walaki
KENNEDY
LINCOLN
JACKSON

get it?

Hmm... I give up. No, I admit, I don't get what you are on about. Please explain?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I have said nothing since this whole debacle started precisely because I've been reading the text of the bill.

(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.

Which means unless you are actively taking up arms against the US, even someone like me, who is a lawful resident alien, cannot be detained by the military. US citizens cannot be detained as they fall under different rules than us legal residents. While the Constitution does apply to me equally, if I were to take up arms against the US those rights and privileges could be revoked MUCH easier by EXISTING LAW and they cannot be revoked for US Citizens by right of birth.

No one has anything to worry about unless this amendment magically goes away before Obama signs it.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


This is what they have been saying in the thread. There is a difference between requirement and permission. No where does it say that citizens are exempt from indefinite detention. Also as someone else here said, the 4th amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not enemy combatants. So by the wording the Obama had changed in the bill, if you are preceived as a terrorist/ enemy combatant, the military can arrest you and hold indefinitely. They just aren't required. It would have been so much simpler to say "citizens are exempt and must have due process"

reply to post by projectvxn


Simply put, I completely agree. 100%

Not much else I can say. Just I agree with you

Star for you.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


The exception to that rule for US citizens is that if you move to another country and then actively take up arms against the US, or actively support organizations or a foreign military who are at war with the US, you legally become an enemy combatant and are guilty of treason. And if you were to be captured by the US military while conducting hostile acts against the US they can legally detain you. But the NDAA doesn't authorize that, that has been law for 230 years.

Originally posted by WTFover
At this moment, the last five threads in the U.S. Political Madness forum are about S.1867 and not one of them quotes the actual text of the bill that actually authorizes or "requires" the military to detain, indefinitely or otherwise, United States citizens. Every one of them just quotes third parties as saying that is what the bill does.

I'm done with these threads, until someone can provide direct evidence of the claim, from the actual text of the bill.

Section 1031 (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.

the authority to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.

"disposition under the law of war" is defined in 1031 (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.

so 1031-(c)-(1) is the alarming part. This means someone arrested by the armed forces can be held indefinitely without trial "until the end of . . . hostilities".

This is wholly distinct from 1032 which, as explained, explains when the armed forces are required, and not simply authorized, to take and hold someone in custody.

1032 defines when the military has to take someone into custody with the potential of indefinite detention without trial. 1031 defines when the military can take someone into custody. 1032 is the one which specifically says that it doesn't apply to US Citizens. 1031 names no such thing. who does 1031 cover?

(b)

(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.

There is no "applicability to US Citizens" clause as there is in section 1032. So a US Citizen who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011, or harbored those responsible for those attacks" or "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States" could be indefinitely detained without a trial.

You might say "well, people who didn't support the attacks or al-Qaeda are safe!" But without a trail, how do we know that the arrested people really did support the attacks or al-Qaeda? We don't. They don't have the right to defend themselves.

(I went and read up on the actual text of the bill once it was signed by Obama, heh.)

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by TheRedP1LL
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

If you had listened to Anonymous talk about it the first time. Further down in the bill it pretty much says they can make it apply to U.S. Citizens if they want it to. There really just trying to worm their way around the Geneva convention and U.S. Law.

Where does it say that? Here is a link to the bill.

www.gpo.gov...

I'd like for you to tell me on which page and line that is located.

Someone posted this on the first page, I think it covers it:

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.

If the US deems you a "covered person" you would be deemed an enemy combatant. For example, if you supported "associated forces" "engaged in hostilities" against the United States (say, OWS protestor, for example - they are pretty hostile to the government) you could technically be covered. It would be very difficult for the government to get away with it... now. But it certainly makes it clear that if you are part of an "associated force" against the United States you can be detained indefinitely. Now, if you are a citizen, they are not REQUIRED to detain you. So, the police or the military doesn't have to detain OWS protestors, just as an example. But they COULD, if there was "evidence" of OWS "engaging in hostilities" against the US.

reply to post by spacekc929


No, you couldn't "technically be covered" if you support OWS.

Unless OWS is actively supporting AQ, or the Taliban. Which as far as I'm aware, they have not.

Now these organizations SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED or anyone in direct support of these organizations would be tried in military tribunals. These are not cut and dry as one would assume.

A military tribunal still has to legally establish guilt. If they cannot, then those being tried would have to be let go. And many already have.

Here's a list, for example, of detainees and their current disposition:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I appreciate your open mindedness, and sorry if offended you about the flag comment, just trying to say the obvious that many people like myself are not in a relaxed mood concerning this bill. And yeah, I think i'd be here a while if I was waiting for obama to reassure me on ats lol. For america's sake I hope you are right that this bill is just blown out of proportion.

reply to post by projectvxn


Yeah, projectvxn is right. It's specifically the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces. OWS would definitely not be subject without a lot of manufactured links.

I'm no legal expert, but i THINK that he's a little wrong about the military tribunal, though not literally wrong. 1031-(c)-(1) says that they could be detained without trial until the end of hostilities. I'm not sure that hostilities with al-Qaeda are capable of ending, the way they're set up. al-Qaeda is a rather wide organization.

I hope I'm wrong about that.