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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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
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.
(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.
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)
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.
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.
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....