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: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Solasis
 


You're not. That is actually a recognized tenet of international law with regard to POW/Enemy combatants. So long as hostilities persist, the country that captures enemy combatants can hold onto them until hostilities cease.

In the case of AQ, since the Military commissions act labels them unlawful enemy combatants, and unlawful enemy belligerents, they are not entitled to civilian trials on US soil for criminal acts due to the danger of them rejoining enemy forces and committing further terrorist attacks. They do get military tribunals. Which is just fine with me.


*nod* that makes sense in and of itself. what worries me, and other people, is the fact that this is being extended to non-combatants by 1031, or at least it appears to be. Especially in contrast to 1032's explicit statement that 1032 doesn't apply to US Citizens.



There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this here on ATS because although ATS members are supposed to deny ignorance, they instead deny facts and perpetuate BS in order to satisfy the doom/conspiracy fetish. I'm not saying this applies to you only that it is a prevalent modus operandi around here.



Oh, jeez, there is SO much of that going on. It's going on all around the internet, too, the hyperbole and exaggeration. No matter what, this isn't going to just lead to the at-will imprisonment of any US Citizen deemed troublesome.

If there's a real concern to be had here -- which I personally think there is -- it's that the government could grab people who they thought were involved in al-Qaeda; they could then detain them until the War on Terror was officially deemed over, without any trial, without having the right to defend themselves against the evidence at all. It could also act as a stepping stone to further action -- a lot of people think that this is the culmination of those stepping stones, but I think there are really only a few in place so far.

Tangentially, I have a similar measured response to SOPA, SOPA is scary and messed up, but it's not going to do about 90% of what most people think it's going to do. ATS, tumblr, twitter -- none of those are under ANY direct threat from SOPA and PIPA. But SOPA and PIPA set a precedent which could lead to similar regulations that COULD block ATS.

End tangent!




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Solasis
 


1031 relates to the "Disposition Under Law of War" and includes this clause


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


1032 relates to the "CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR."

The two sections refer to the same people or detainees. The only difference is how they are to be handled prior to and during "Disposition".
edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)


Could you explain this in more detail? I don't understand how that's borne out by the text of the law which I've read. Like I said, I'm no legal expert, but it really seemed like they were different things.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


As I understand it, there was an original copy which includes a segment stating that American citizens cannot be detained indefinitely, but that this was replaced with a second amended bill with those clarifications removed - the second one was passed.
Which version are you presenting here?

Also, this clearly states that there is no REQUIREMENT for the MILITARY to detain American citizens. It doesn't say anything about the initial right to detain, merely who is responsible for their indefinite detention.

This is basically a clause stating that the MILITARY will not be required to indefinitely detain a-la Guantanamo, it doesn't state that American civilians cannot be indefinitely detained.

At best, this is a loosely worded document which will legally allow the US government to detain indefinitely, and without trial, anyone they wish.
At worst, it is a clear and thorough document stating that US citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Whichever translation you prefer, this is bad.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


The way I read this is:

All of this discussion is under the main title, found on page 426
www.gpo.gov...


Subtitle D—Detainee Matters


The seven sections, under Subtitle D, are


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.



SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY



SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.



SEC. 1034. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA



SEC. 1035. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.



SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.



SEC. 1037. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT TO PLEAD GUILTY IN TRIAL OF CAPITAL OFFENSE BY MILITARY
COMMISSION.


You have to understand that these are all related and that all of it must be examined within the context of the whole of Subtitle D. The first section, Sec. 1031, explains the who of Subtitle D and identifies the background legislation (Public Law 107–40) being addressed in this bill. Subsection (b) defines "Covered Persons".

Basically, 1031 "affirms" the military is authorized to "detain" "covered person", pursuant to Public Law 107-40 and 1032 assigns the task of maintaining the custody of such detainees to the military, pending the disposition of the case through whatever court system is in place.The explanation of 1032 is clearly stated in Sec. 1032 at the end of page 428 and the beginning of page 429.

I may have made that more confusing than it should be.

Whether it accomplishes the task or not, I believe this portion of S.1867 is an attempt to clarify and codify the role of the military in the detention of enemy combatants, which has been nothing but mass confusion since
18 September 2011.
edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 
I am asking again as I am wanting to be clear also you are saying you believe and that citizens of u.s. cannot be detained as such??



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
All they have to do, if they want to completely say that American citizens are exempt, is to put that in the bill. "Citizens of the U.S. are exempt from this legislation.", or some such. The fact that this wording has been excluded is a clear message that they mean to include American citizens.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I really don't understand the denial going on about this bill anymore, it does in fact violate the Costitution, hopefully SCOTUS takes care of this because no one else is going to especially when people are refusing to see the blatant betrayal we have just been dealt. It may even be true that none who crafted the bill or voted in favor of it ever meant for it to mean that US Citizens could be detained without trial, however if it is indeed true we've been betrayed by their ignorance.



Think about a few key points:
There is no need to define the US as the battlefield except to change the laws of capture and detention.
An enemy combatant is considered unprivelaged, meaning they have no Constitutional protection.
A US citizen may be deemed an enemy combatant.
Now with the US being legally considered part of the battlefield a US Citizen captured on US soil may also be deemed an enemy combatant.
It now never has to be proven.

Also something to consider about this bill is that it also claims that a beligerant is not privelaged without ever defining beligerant.

Whatever the intentions of the bill were/are, the language allows for it to violate the Constitution. Whether we think this means detention camps or whether we think it's just faulty wording and no official would take evil advantage of such, is irrelevent. We cannot allow anything in law to violate the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 




bill hr 1540
pdf of hr 1540

page 419 sec 1031 (c) (1)


419 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in sub section (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.


you should change your tittle if you have changed your view.

edit on 15-12-2011 by m.red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Keep telling yourself that OP... that's gonna fix everything.


Seriously, go read the news a little and see WHO says what...

On the side that it includes US citizens :

- Congressmen, senators
- Constitutional lawyers
- Rights activists
- John Stewart
- Maddow
- Obama supporters waking up because of this

On the other side

- Nobody really



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent

Interesting phrase. While looking for the definition of it, I ran across something that will surely raise some eyebrows of those who are quoting John McCain as being in opposition to this bill.

In 2010 McCain sponsored S.3081, entitled "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010". It, in fact, contains the phrase


An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

thomas.loc.gov...:S.3081:

But, McCain is coming out against S.1867 saying it will permit the detention of American citizens? My, my, my.

Fortunately, that bill died in committee.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Keep telling yourself that OP... that's gonna fix everything.


Seriously, go read the news a little and see WHO says what...




With all due respect, please do not talk to me about reading, when you are apparently unwilling to read the OP or this thread. You clearly are unaware of my stance. It has changed you know....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I even edited the OP to reflect that.

With all due respect,I have done plenty of reading and learning on this subject. Now it's your turn to do some reading, since you apparently did not read through this thread or even my OP.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I mean, not to be rude, but as far as this thread goes, and the opinions within, you are rather misinformed.


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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I couldn't agree more Kali - I made the same connection here

AboveTopSecret



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Just finished all 8 pages:
To say this was a"meaty" thread would do it an injustice! kudos to all involved.
I'd like to point out after8 pages and countless manhours invested in debate we armchair debaters haven' seem to come to a firm conclusion:
However:
In Application, each military services General counsels"(top lawyers) will come to their own determination( interpretation) and hand down a "reading" which will become policy for whatever possible future "citizens confinement" issues come up.

Local commanders will receive orders and young troops will carry them out . The safeguard being:" An unconstitutional incarceration could be overturned by a court" IF one were to ever see the inside of a court room!

No matter what hours of fine legal debate ensues here or in congressional committee; the guys holding the guns and the keys to the hand cuffs may get different guidance.To possibly eliminate the checks and balances provided by a courtroom is enough to rank this right up there with the "patriot act" in govt abuses .
The wording is complex and nuanced for a reason: Something's fishy in denmark...No evidence just my opinion...
edit on 15-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by m.red


you should change your tittle if you have changed your view.

I've already put in a request to the mods since the 4 hour editing window is long over.


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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by condition9
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 
I am asking again as I am wanting to be clear also you are saying you believe and that citizens of u.s. cannot be detained as such??



My view has changed.

I see that it is possible. I think it is highly unlikely to happen, but as I said before, clearly this bill is written vaguely enough that different people are coming up with different interpretations and if a law is up for interpretation, it is also up for manipulation.

A lot of things would have to fall into place. Laws broken, the people complacent... This being manipulated but I have long since conceded my view that there is no way.

I admit it is in fact possible. Highly unlikely that it will ever be used in such a way, but I see the potential for manipulation of the law which would allow for it.

That is where I am at right now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 15-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 



My view has changed.
Well done sir. Now you have this thread on the front page and you've made a lot of people forget about this very important issue, simply because you chose to post something without doing enough research.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


And just how do you know the amount of research I have done?

Fact is, I have done lots of research. Fact is, I started out with the mind set that it was unconstitutional. Fact is, I did more research and thought...Hmm, maybe it's legal...Fact is, I did some more research and realized that I was right the first time.

With all due respect, don't make accusations when you know not of which you speak.


And how did I make people forget about this issue by encouraging people to speak about it, research it and to work together to come up with the truth?



I've been told by several members that this thread has more research and more material and that they have learned more from this thread, than any other on the subject.


This thread was yet more research and I was aided in that continuing research by my fellow members of ATS before I came came to a final conclusion. If that is a problem for you, I make no apologies.

By the way,I just looked.Maybe I am missing it. I do not see this thread on the front page, anywhere.

Come off your high horse.

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 



And just how do you know the amount of research I have done?
I said you hadn't done enough before posting this thread. Many people only read the first page and don't follow the rest of the thread. That is why it's misleading.

I am sorry if I offended you in my last post, you seem like a generally decent poster. I just hate these counter-threads which contain misinformation, because they are usually coming from shills.

You have changed your mind and contacted the mods about it, so at least you're making an effort to fix your mistake. Clearly you're not trying to mislead anyone, we all make mistakes.

edit: actually it's not on the front page. I meant to say the near the top of the hot-topic list, which means it will probably reach the front page.
edit on 15-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Thank you. No I am not trying to mislead anyone. I have said MANY times in this thread that I very well could be wrong and encouraged people to work with me to find out for sure, what the answer is. I edited the OP to state that I was wrong and to explain what I was wrong about.

I don't think anyone who reads this thread or at least the OP in full, will think that I am trying to mislead anyone. You of all people should know that is not what I am about. I take ATS very seriously. As I said in this thread. I would rather hear an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie.

Truth be told, at the time I posted this thread, I honestly felt I had done enough research, which is why the OP is so absolute. It turns out, I had done enough research, we were just comparing notes and comparing interpretations of our research.

Ultimately, I decided that I interpreted ONE WORD, incorrectly. It's interesting actually, how just one word can change it for me. I assure you I had done more than enough research. It came down to a misinterpretation of the word requirement.

Like I said, this thread was very well researched, it came down to each of us, sharing notes and interpretations until we reached a conclusion.

Also, to be fair, this is what you said.


because you chose to post something without doing enough research.


Which is why I asked how you know the amount of research I had done.
But now you know I have done more than enough and that it came down to comparing notes and deciding that one word had been misinterpreted.

That said, I hope the mods change the title soon. I feel bad that people are starting to get the wrong idea about this thread.

edit on 16-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 



Ultimately, I decided that I interpreted ONE WORD, incorrectly. It's interesting actually, how just one word can change it for me. I assure you I had done more than enough research.
Actually I can see why it would be very easy to misinterpret/overlook that one word. They made it that way for a reason.


Like I said, this thread was very well researched, it came down to each of us, sharing notes and interpretations until we reached a conclusion
Yeah that's true, this was actually quite a productive thread with lots of good insight, I'm sure many people learnt a lot from it.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join