It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Now if the mods will hurry up and change the title, because I honestly feel bad that people are starting to get the wrong idea about this thread and my intentions...And I truly get it too... But my intentions are pure and I want people to know that.

Which is why I edited the OP. I wish I had thought to change the title at the same time. Slapping myself for that one now. Kind of at mod mercy now

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Actually I can see why it would be very easy to misinterpret/overlook that one word. They made it that way for a reason.

Exactly, this bill is up for interpretation. Considering we have so many making so many different interpretations. Expert and amateur alike.

But the fact that just one word can completely change the meaning... It's kind of scary.

Like I said before. A law that is open to interpretation is also open to manipulation.

Anyway, I am just this side of retiring from this thread. I just want to see if I can get the title changed.
edit on 16-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:27 AM
I sure hope at the end of the day we citizens actually know what is law, and is not.
And its a sad day in America when its so damn convoluted.

Honestly, Rand Paul asks the question, and John McCain answers it.

John McCain! He might as well be Obama.

Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. McCain speak on Detainees on Senate Floor:
The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

The ACLU notes:
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.”

Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants: ----- “The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:11 AM
In the context of the legalese (one word changes everything) -

I want you to think about the motivation of the individuals that introduced and passed this legislation for a moment.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:28 AM
Now its through the senate, whether it says that or not....

Legalese is open interpretation, it always seems.....

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Skewed
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.

But that definition would make anybody guild of murder, rape, or even just assault a terrorist.
edit on 16/12/11 by Yazman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:51 AM
Of-course its for the American people. McCain has been trying to push these provision under 2 other names but they were rejected. He hates the idea that anyone simply charged with "terrorism" has any rights, American or not. He finally got his wish in the NDAA.

Here is McCain dodging the question:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:09 AM
Darn, are you sure???

Because, I have 2 in mind.


posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:03 AM
The basic issue at the core of this debate is that the mere accusation of terrorism is the grounds for detaining anyone without first acquiring evidence to support the original accusation. In essence you are being proven guilty first and then must prove your own innocence while being detained for an indefinite duration with no access to legal representation. And then during this indefinite detention they have the right to essentially coerce a confession based on nothing more than hearsay evidence.

Simply, put two boxer's in a ring, tie one to a chair bolted to the ground and gagged, then tell him to defend himself against the opponent.

A couple more American examples:

Salem Witch Hunt

Japanese Relocation Centers

Is it likely that the legislation can be misinterpreted? Yes

Proven if you watched CSPAN and saw the arguments presented about the Indefinite Detention aspect of the legislation.

Is it possible for this legislation to be misused? Yes

Power often corrupts, and our elected officials have proven more than once it can happen to anyone. Nixon's impeachment for example. The current insider trading issues within congress are a more blatant example of how our elected officials often misuse the trust placed in them for their own benefit.

Anyway that is my two cents.

I posted the above in another thread

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:15 AM

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.

No, what you can "Clearly see" is that: while it isnt a requirement to detain citizens, it can be done.
edit on 15-12-2011 by derst1988 because: (no reason given)
i believe you are spot on - "requirement" is the key word - in a land full of injustice all that is left is legalese - even hitler operated under the law - our rights are being taken away daily by the employees of the federal corporation known as the united states of america - need to check it out -

But, even though al Qaeda is virtually non-existent, the Washington imbeciles want to expand and extend the "War on Terror" anyway and include the entire U.S. territory as a "battlefield." How can we explain this? As Justin Raimondo speculated, the real reason for this new dictatorial power may be because these senators know that America is headed for economic collapse and civil unrest. But as I pointed out in my article on martial law, whether there are terrorists or not, or whether there is a prosperous or collapsing economy, all human beings have inalienable rights, among them the right to presumption of innocence and due process. Any government violations of those rights are crimes against the people, pure and simple. Sen. Lindsey Graham commented that, "If you’re an American citizen and you betray your country, you’re not going to be given a lawyer," in his un-American opposition to due process and his approval of apprehending and detaining innocent civilians indefinitely. But, as I asked in my earlier article: Who will determine whether or not one has "betrayed one’s country"? Graham and the other pro-dictatorship government bureaucrats do not seem able to distinguish between someone who actually has acted (or been found guilty of acting) against one’s fellow Americans and someone who is accused of doing so. Graham wants to empower all military personnel (and probably any armed government official) to detain indefinitely those who are merely accused of doing something, without evidence brought forward, without having a lawyer, without access to their families, no due process whatsoever. This is a banana republic dictatorship, and it is thoroughly un-American, thoroughly anti-liberty.

edit on 16-12-2011 by musselwhite because: added to quote yet another imbicile in politics

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:24 AM
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

What bothers me greatly is the fact that some people have zero problems with human rights should apply only to some humans with obscure political definitions, but not others. If the state tells you they deserve rights, then they deserve rights. Otherwise, they don't? What messed up and dangerous thinking this citizen vs. non-citizen is! Humans deserve human rights, period!

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:43 AM
Heres the problem:
Quote from my Representative in a letter addressed to me.

"Section 1031 which authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.”" /end

His quote says persons and nothing about who "persons" is. Which means, anyone, including U.S. Citizens. The language is too broad and the previous section quoted in the OP may have nothing to do with this section at all. They do this on purpose in bills. Not defining language, so they can keep it as broad as possible.
edit on 16-12-2011 by arcnaver because: screw up.

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

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:01 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:08 AM
Cannot? Are you kidding? Cannot? That's your point? Right. Just like they cannot raid you for whole milk, whoops.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:39 AM
In the full bill, there is a "WAIVER" section - in which requirements can be waived for reasons of national security. Can someone look at that closer? What does it mean?

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:43 AM
OK here we go ...

section 1032 (a)(1) IN GENERAL - states the military SHALL hold

thus requirement here means MANDATORY.

(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.

section (b)(1) explains that this MANDATORY requirement to detain does not apply to US Citizens.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

question: what does not extend?

answer: the requirement to detain.

what does this mean?

It means they CAN detain US Citizens but are not required to.

quit being obtuse people!!

edit: this bill was written this way so that armies of internet shills can go out and claim it does not apply to US Citizens by misrepresenting the text of the bill. OP I am not accusing you of being such a person.

When (notice I said when not if) they start detaining US citizens without charge or trial (come to think of it has that not already happened?) this argument will be moot - as it will be too late - and that was my point from the beginning. This bill should NEVER become law!

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

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

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

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by MegaMind

Yeah, I mean two points really:
1. If they wanted to exclude US citizens from this, they wouldn't use the wording "required" - they'd use the word "excluded" or "cannot." I mean especially with such a controversial bill full of implications, you'd want to be pretty darned clear about that.
2. Seems more like a way to confuse the issue and retain Bill of Rights-shaming powers they've really already exercised up until this point.

Would still love someone to chime in on the "WAIVER" part - does this mean, given certain conditions, the president would authorize military NOT to detain someone, or that the president could just ignore these rules entirely for the sake of national security and detain anyone?

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
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.

This is a discussion forum. Not a soapbox.

Sometimes it's better to present what you have and your opinion on it to the public(in this case ATS membership) and discuss it. If it provided clarity for him then what's the problem?

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by MegaMind

I'm sure I will be seeing most of you in the detention camps. If they don't take me alive, I would like to say - we had a good run didn't we!? 235 years of freedom... they were fun days but like they say, "all good things must come to an end." I would also like to apologize to the world for the fact that we wasted something that at one point was unique, grand and pure. For the fact that the majority of Americans took freedom for granted. We got lazy and complacent. I can't say we weren't warned... John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower... FOUNDING FATHERS! But hey, maybe if I willfully deny my reality and fit in by watching the NFL, Oprah, 16 and Pregnant, American Idol and mainstream news while popping prozac I can stay in home and live a full life in this rapidly worsening police state.

Ok, so obviously the members of the house and senate had their lives threatened, are being blackmailed, or are being paid handsomely. Either way we should do them a favor and remove them of their current role... but of course its a long road from there as you have to impeach the president, clean house, move your money, quit paying taxes, imprison and shortly thereafter "make an example out of" (if you know what I mean...guillotine!) criminal bankers and rid the earth of those heading up the elite families whom have been wrecking our world and country since its founding, after a trial for each of course, because this IS America..... right?


posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

"there is no bar to this nation holding one of it's citizens as an enemy combatant" - Carl Levin

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in