Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being R

Dear MegaMind,

I'm not sure why, but this issue is creating a lot of confusion. I take that back, I think I see why there is a lot of confusion.

Wait a minute! I've been staring at this thing and trying out alternatives and I might have stumbled on what your thinking is.

Are you thinking that the waiver paragraph gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to use the military to lock up any one they want, for as long as they want, citizen or not, anywhere in the world, with no other reason than a signed note saying it's in the interest of National Security?

But maybe I'm still misunderstanding you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


1032 requires the military to hold the "covered person." (It states SHALL)

They can also get a waiver for this requirement. Why would they want one - who knows?

Also the requirement does not apply to US citizens - they do not HAVE TO hold them.

However, nowhere does it say US citizens cannot be held. "Covered Person" does not exempt US citizens.

The 1032 section is being used intentionally to mislead people into thinking that indefinite detentions do not apply to US citizens - conveniently overlooking that the purpose of the section 1032 is about the REQUIREMENT to detain, not WHO to detain.

THE REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

emphasis mine.

It does not state that detainment does not extend to citizens only the requirement to detain does not extend to citizens.

SNEAKY ....

reply to post by charles1952


That's what I've been thinking. But in trying to un-convolute the convoluted wording of the part of the Bill in question, I seem to have gone cross-eyed. I need to take a break from this. Be back soon.

Seriously who didn’t see this coming?

They have to have a cause for all their spending and maybe they need to get rid of un-used stock before the next tax audit.


Now everyone be good little sheep and get on the fema fun camp bus.

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by charles1952

 

1032 requires the military to hold the "covered person." (It states SHALL)

They can also get a waiver for this requirement. Why would they want one - who knows?

Also the requirement does not apply to US citizens - they do not HAVE TO hold them.

However, nowhere does it say US citizens cannot be held. "Covered Person" does not exempt US citizens.

The 1032 section is being used intentionally to mislead people into thinking that indefinite detentions do not apply to US citizens - conveniently overlooking that the purpose of the section 1032 is about the REQUIREMENT to detain, not WHO to detain.

THE REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

emphasis mine.

It does not state that detainment does not extend to citizens only the requirement to detain does not extend to citizens.

SNEAKY ....

edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

I believe the waiver is to avoid taking the decision from the Commander in Chief.

And, I am fairly sure I read that the "indefinite detention" is actually specified as release when hostilities cease (which might not be the case if the persons were handed over to criminal courts).

And, Yep. A US citizen captured in battle substantially supporting the enemy receives no guarantee of special treatment.

I don't know, but I wonder, if treason might be applicable in that case-- far worse, and no guaranteed release even after hostilities have ended.

None of this is a big deal. We can just vote trustworthy people into office.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Frira

 

You should be careful. You actually read the bill and offered a comment based on logic, rationality, and the actual context of the bill. Thats not the way ATS typically works; people tend to read whatever the first line of the OP are, skip to the end, and immediately fear monger without hesitation.

Good job standing apart from the crowd!

Well thanks, but the discussion has improved quite a bit-- so I am not alone with logic, rationality and actual context-- even with those who disagree with my point of view. It is kind of eerie now that you mention it!

Originally posted by ManlyHall
I agree with this new law. I am a member of the NWO ...

Yes, and we missed you at the last meeting. I took notes for you.

...and see this as an expediant way to deal with radical religious zealots who use their scriptures to undermine the governments of the world.

Do you mean Muslim fundamentalist who kill innocents; or do you mean Christian fundamentalists who want to rule over innocents?

At the last NWO meeting, we placed those in separate categories... one called "Animals" and the other, "Tyrants."

This should serve as notice to those who swear allegiance to ideaologies that are the enemy of the new world order. Frankly I don't understand the anger of those who do not agree as most religions promise their savior will stop the NWO. So perhaps those who disagree should question their own faith. Either way, welcome to reality.

Alas! As a mere Christian-- non fundamentalist variety-- I have no promise that my Savior will prevent the NWO, or any other form of government.

Come to think of it, I have no promise of security, safety, ease, riches, power, or influence at all in my faith.

Time to Take back America people, and soon.

I want to ask a question in regards to the Presidential elections in Nov 2012:

If Obama is not re-elected, is it possible for him to declare Martial Law prior to the inauguration of January 2013 in order to try and halt a new President from taking over the reins of the White House?

If this were to happen, how does that work and what does it mean for the newly elected President?

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I want to ask a question in regards to the Presidential elections in Nov 2012:

If Obama is not re-elected, is it possible for him to declare Martial Law prior to the inauguration of January 2013 in order to try and halt a new President from taking over the reins of the White House?

If this were to happen, how does that work and what does it mean for the newly elected President?

The White House is AGAINST this bill and has threatened to veto it. It's not the President or the Executive branch that is pushing for this - it is Congress.

See link below....

White House Threatens Veto of bill to Detain Americans Indefinitely

reply to post by Riffrafter


Is that the answer to my question?

I'm aware that bill did'nt pass.....for now!

reply to post by Riffrafter

The White House is AGAINST this bill and has threatened to veto it. It's not the President or the Executive branch that is pushing for this - it is Congress.

Yeah keep believing that Obama will veto it...

If you learned anything in the last 3 years, you would know that Obama is a stinking LIAR and doesn't give a flying duck about the constitution.

Originally posted by RedbeardedFoo
Go#amn it, i mean honestly, why cant we just implement citizens arrest on these fools that say they rep us.

Tar & feather, leave em in the middle of nowhere with one box of matches and a dead cellphone.

I mean the civil unrest from these weekly Cupcake Wars is intense but no need to declare it a battlefield.

You could try to arrest some Congress people, but if it should go against you, then you will be arrested under federal law. Assault and batter on a Congress critter could get you 5 years in a fed pen. Under most state laws punching somebody's lights out in a bar will on average get you probation and community service. In the worst cases you might get a few months in a county lockup. Now suppose a Senator punches you in the nose. Well, it isn't a federal crime to punch a constituent in the nose. It is a misdemeanor or lightweight felony under state law for the Senator. How is that for equality under the law?

reply to post by Vitchilo


I've got a feeling they will make afew ammendments...change the wording more like it......then pass the bill in the dead of night; thats how they've passed some of these bills.

Its obvious this is definately leading up to something and perhaps has to do with the Presidential elections in 2012.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Riffrafter

 

Is that the answer to my question?

I'm aware that bill did'nt pass.....for now!

If I understand your question correctly, is the time frame you are talking about after the 2012 election but before the Jan 2013 inauguration of a new, different President? In other words - Obama loses the election and then declares Martial Law?

Want to make sure I understand before responding...

reply to post by Riffrafter


Yes, thats exactly what I'm asking. Is such a thing possible? Someone mentioned it a week ago elsewhere which got me thinking on afew things.....

Well according to the senators (from monday) they expected a final vote in the senate today.

The discussions begin at 10AM.

I don't know at what time there will be a vote... but hopefully someone with a brain stops the bill till it's fixed... till the pro-torture amendment is out and the let's-arrest-americans-as-terrorists amendment is dropped too.

Originally posted by pistolerooo
Everyone is so revved up....Have ANY of you read Sec. 1032 of S.1867???? IF YOU READ THE BILL, you would understand what is trying to be done. OR, would like to have a Terrorist Bomber let out on Bail. The Military MUST be allowed to handle "Enemy Combatants" and "Foreign Terrorist", they cannot be allowed to enter the American Justice System. The American Justice System is NOT equipped to handle "Foreign Terrorist." Do you want your family protected from a terrorist by existing DAs and Attorneys or would you feel safer IF the Military had custody of the terrorist??? I am a former Marine...I say let the Military handle the them....that's what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Your Liberty is not in question with S.1867, it's your safety. READ THE BILL Sec. 1032 and you'll see. Extremist are FLOODING into the U.S. because of Political Correctness and the people in Washington looking the other way. We must be prepared for our enemies HERE AND NOW, next week or next month may be too late.

First I must laugh, DO YOU really think there are terrorists out there that want to harm the people of this country? I think they want to do away with the politicians just like the rest of us Americans. If the military were to leave every country they are involved in, do you think the people of those countries would want to come to America, the united states of America, the 50 union states of America, and bomb us or kill the people of this land? I think not.

It is the government USING the military in nefarious ways that pisses the people off in these countries, so WHO IS THE REAL terrorist? Our government and the president and politicians that let this happen. I strongly believe and know for a fact, from studying foreign affairs, that it is the military killing of innocent civilians that gets these people in these foreign countries pissed off, and rightfully so.

So do not believe for a second, ANYTHING the media or government tell you, it is all a scam to get what the Elite want. We are not and never have been terrorists, the ONLY terrorists in this world are the people in government positions, the police, the CIA, the military and so on. THEY TERRORIZE, control through fear.

Funny thing though, if you do not fear them, they go away, because they can not get what they want when you know the truth and what is real!!

Well the bill just passed the senate : 88-12... traitors from both sides... what a surprise... NOT.