S. 1867/NDAA: The Sponsor Speaks

here is a video....


in the frame we can see a 4 page 'letter' dated 17 November 2011

this letter was addressed to Sen Levin and has to do with the bill (soon to be law)


anyone got the means to reproduce the communication, clear up the text. so we can analyze it and discuss?






or have all the points been satisified and exhausted already...thanks

aw forget it..

the PTB say its a malformed link...but it sure plays on Youtube

reply to post by ArrowsNV
you my friend have nailed it !!!! It is the vague wording of the text and the use of Hostile and belligerent, Lets say, someone calls 911, and says there is a belligerent drunk making Hostile threats , who is going to show up and what are the charges??? here is the word of the law of war According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war. then why not just that what that is

I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war

what is the wording of SUB SEC D of HR 1540? here is a breakdown of the text as it could be interpreted

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities

a 911 op would just see this and call DHS off to Git MO the Drunk goes till they get a trial, but do they? here is the full SUB SEC D part ! formally 1031

H.R.1540
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Print - PP)

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

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.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Do they get a trail ? NO (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Who can be can be detained?

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

does a drunk fall into this? YES by what by saying ="good for them" who is them?enemy forces And who are they?associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners so what does this mean?associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, do i need to explain it?

this is part 2 1032 of SUB SEC D of HR 1540, S1867

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

one must know the law before auguring for or against it I for one am Against it as it is written, change the wording and then it will be fine, as to what should be written ? any one giving aid to or on behalf of the terrorist responsible for 9/11, any one committing terrorist act shall and will be prosecuted to fullest extant of the law, yes this is just a suggestion as you can see it to has holes and can be misused

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

All of this has been hashed and rehashed so what is your point.

I haven't seen Levin's speech quoted yet. So I posted it here. I still haven't seen anyone actually engage it, except to claim he's either lying or wrong about the legislation he authored.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It has to do that now, they don't get any of that if they are branded a terrorist or helping terrorists, which can be done without any proof or trial.

How is "now" any different than "before?" No one has found any clause in the NDAA that expands the long-standing detention authority with respect to US citizens. It doesn't touch that body of law. And you are also wrong that detention can be accomplished without proof; the government needs to show proof to a judge or the detainee's habeas petition will succeed. See Boumediene and the ultimate outcome of that case.

You forgot to point out that between "Any person who has committed a belligerent act" and "in aid of such enemy forces.", there's the word OR, which is very important. So it doesn't LIMIT anything, in fact, it expands the definition, not limits it.

No, it's a limit. Let me write it out with parentheses for you: "including (any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities) in aid of such enemy forces."

What you have suggested, that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" can be understood without the limitation, is absurd. It includes, inter alia, almost every member of the US armed forces and several members of the US Congress like Senator John McCain. The phrase must be understood in the context of the entire clause, the subject of which is "a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces."

They don't need anything from that bill to do so, they already have that. We are talking about the COMBINATION of powers here.

Branding protesters terrorists + NDAA = arresting of protesters as terrorists and hold them forever in jail without trial.

The NDAA does not establish any authority to hold terrorists "forever in jail without trial." Not Occupy terrorists--for which there is no authority, anywhere in US law, as far as I know--nor Al Qaeda, whose detention was authorized by the AUMF.

It expands the procedural rights of Gitmo detainees

And wrong. When was the last time republicans voted to give people (especially ``terrorists``) more rights? Never, that's when.

When they voted to pass this bill, that's when. If you disagree with Levin, the bill is in the public domain, you can show us why he is wrong. I am tempted to do so myself, I think he's bragging about something that was already done with an EO, but I'm not sure and don't really care. With or without the braggadocio, the end result is the same.

Right. Congress not abusing their power and regulating power? Give me a break. Where was congress on Obama and Bush's blatant abuse of power in HUNDREDS of cases? Where was congress on Fast and Furious? Where was congress on torture? Where was congress on illegal wars? Etc... Nowhere to be found, that's where.

What does any of this have to do with the NDAA? Congress is spearheading the investigation into Fast and Furious. They knew of and approved enhanced interrogation. What illegal wars? The Libya air campaign? Let's stick with the NDAA.

my rebuttal to this

Those who say we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens--or anybody else.

no you just renamed them

The issue of indefinite detention arises from the capture of an enemy combatant at war. According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. Can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant?

under your law yes

According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant?

again yes

I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war.

why not just say that in this first place?

In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''

er yes there is, it is called the Constitution

The Court cited with approval its holding in the Quirin case, in which an earlier court held that ``citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ..... the law of war.''

thus giving up there rights as Citizens and if you read this law there are 2 types lawful and unlawful

But despite that view of mine, which I clearly expressed on the Senate floor a couple weeks ago, neither the Senate bill nor the conference report takes a position on this issue. Both the Senate bill and the conference report include the language of the Feinstein amendment, which we drafted together and passed 99 to 1. That amendment leaves this issue to the executive branch and the courts by providing the following:

yes of course it does you just do not what to define it

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.

a citizen is a non combatant so he she has nothing to worry about unless engaged in hostile or belligerent acts would you explain this?? oh yes you let it lie with, "That amendment leaves this issue to the executive branch and the courts by providing the following: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. nothing like double talk

The more difficult issue for me--and I believe it goes to the heart of the concern of the detention policy--is the kind of war we are in with al-Qaida, and that issue is when does the detention end? In other words, when are the hostilities over? In this kind of nontraditional war, we are not likely to sign a peace treaty or receive a formal surrender or even reach an agreement on a cease-fire.

yes this is the forever part

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for us to provide greater procedural rights to enemy detainees than we might in a more traditional war. We have done so in this conference report. The conference report, for instance, requires periodic reviews of detainee cases in accordance with an executive order issued earlier this year to determine whether detainees pose a continuing threat or safely can be released. Under the conference report, enemy combatants who will be held in long-term military detention are told, for the first time, they will get a military judge and a military lawyer for their status determination.

so guilty to proven innocent, can be held till ???? most certainly till death, you do not get a civil judge or trial but a mil trail and judge so you must now mil law.

Originally posted by brokedown
Each and every citizen charged with treason had their day in open court.

Why all of a sudden does our Legislative Branch desire to turn its back on our Constitution and empower the Executive with dictatorial power, removing Judicial oversight ?

Your first error is thinking in terms of people being charged with treason. No one is being charged with treason. It is not necessary to charge someone with treason to detain them during a period of armed conflict. Never has been. Do you think the Lincoln government charged every single Confederate private they captured with treason? Did he try every single one of them? No. (I don't think he tried any of them for treason.) He just locked them up until the war was over, then let them go. An enemy combatant may be captured and legally detained until the end of hostilities. You don't have to charge them with anything. (You may charge them, if they have committed a crime, but it is not required.)

Your second error is in thinking that judicial oversight has been removed. It has not. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Boumediene v. Bush, and section 1024 of the NDAA for starters.

I would say that during WWII this Nation faced the strongest enemy ever and our Congress did not commit treason then.

At least one US citizen was held as an unlawful combatant, and even executed, during World War II. Herbert Hans Haupt. He probably would have preferred indefinite detention.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


Arguing with you is a waste of time. The NDAA kills the bill of rights, period. Hopefully when you protest and get disappeared by the military, you'll realize that you were wrong, as generals, lawyers, congressmen, senators, rights activists and Obama bots have realized.