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

reply to post by ThatGuy45


There is nothing new here. This is so old news. Check my links. If people were thinking, they wouldn't blindly follow the piper, they would search out the truth and make an educated decision.

where else other than america where the government tries to screw us over more than the people we are fighting O.o

Originally posted by Kali74

including any person who has committed a belligerent act

this is the part im getting stuck on...what is considered a belligerent act?

Good question.

I stumbled across these commercials that aired on MTV in 2009. Almost made me wish I didn't stopped watching it years ago. I think they were just a little early and maybe their time has now come. It's only a minute long. Worth the watch...

In order to stop this nonsense, you must identify the people in government that originate these laws. The next step is to notify their constituents so that they are aware of the dangerous political view their representatives/senators are promulgating. Next step is to get them voted out of office. Following that, make those who are replacing them take an oath that they will not originate such laws.

Anything else is just useless drivel.

reply to post by Jim Scott


i didn't read through all of the many pages in this thread. in case this hasn't been posted, here is the meat and potatoes of the bill. kind of scary stuff if you ask me.

link to the 112th congress website

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, 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) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to 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) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens 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.

SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(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) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be--

(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and

(B) a participant 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) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on 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 date.

-subfab

This is how a true dictatorship starts.

No matter what, we CAN NOT let this pass.

If we stand by and let something like this happen, then we will be trailing the same path as Germany. back in the early 1900s.

This is the test we HAVE to pass, failure is not an option.

reply to post by subfab


even though the bill includes this line:

(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

does this becomes void as soon as you are declared a terrorist. and more importantly who decides who is a terrorist and what is the process in determining who is a terrorist?

-subfab

Originally posted by Mizzijr
This is how a true dictatorship starts.

No matter what, we CAN NOT let this pass.

If we stand by and let something like this happen, then we will be trailing the same path as Germany. back in the early 1900s.

This is the test we HAVE to pass, failure is not an option.

Please name a nation with a more relaxed law.

Originally posted by Gridrebel
I looked up: National Defense Authorization Act

This is a military funding bill which is voted on and passed EVERY YEAR since 1986. It has been voted on since it’s inception in 1985:

thomas.loc.gov...:SN02638:@@@L&summ2=m&


Bill Summary & Status
99th Congress (1985 - 1986)
S.2638
All Information

S.2638
Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987
Sponsor: Sen Goldwater, Barry [AZ] (introduced 7/8/1986) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.591, H.R.4428, S.2132, S.2199, S.2218, S.2641, S.2642
Latest Major Action: 11/14/1986 Became Public Law No: 99-661.

********************** *********************

www.govtrack.us...

S. 1298: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
103rd Congress: 1993-1994
An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for militray activities of the Department of Defense, for militray construction, and for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
****************************** ****************************
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.2461.ENR:

H.R.2461 -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)


************** ********************* *****************
www.gpo.gov...

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 1867
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

*************** ***************************** ***************

This is what I did not find in any of the above sites.

“Sec 962” or "The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision"

If one were to look in the current 682 page bill and all the prior bills, "The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision" it is not there. A google search will lead to many results with the identical “ring around the rosy” chase your tail information. I haven’t figured out where the original “scare” came from. I think somebody is putting words in another’s mouth trying to scare monger and stir the pot.

edit on 25-11-2011 by Gridrebel because:

they want to AMEND that to that bill....scary part is, they're trying to railroad it thru congress...once a train gets rollin....and they won't stop on a dime

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
Well if this is to be the language used if this bill becomes law:

(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 force

We now have before us a very disturbing precedent being set, and that is RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION... something they researched so hard to accomplish in the case of Julian Assange but failed to connect the dots for...

This makes it legal now, to create retroactive punishment, for laws broken that have not been introduced and ratified yet.

You may note that the clause is only a subject-- not a predicate.

What law is new is codifying that a military belligerent remains under military jurisdiction-- and is only necessary because that standard practice for all nations has recently been challenged and debated in the US.

The predicate, I read on one of the several articles, includes the already assumed notion that such a person would, in fact, remain under military jurisdiction; but adds that for the first time, that such a person would be provided legal representation before a military court.

Dang those nasty Americans for daring to offer justice to an enemy!

How the American people can sleep when such just decisions are made is beyond me. It must be Hell. Surely, only Shariah Law can correct this terrible error! If we are successful in getting this evil bill voted down, then we can adopt the practice of publicly castrating the Enemy belligerents with a dull and rusty butter knife before impaling them.

Either people need to wake up and act or everyone should join the army and police.

Originally posted by xuenchen
The ACLU has been involved in many court cases since the 1920's.

from this list: ACLU Cases

can anyone find anything where the ACLU may have deliberatly "swayed" a case in favor of a specific agenda that may still have, or have had, a negative impact on the majority of American citizens?

The ACLU has a reputaion of leaning 'Left' while supporting 'Right' behind the scenes.


The ACLU was involved in this famous case:
ACLU Scopes Trial ("The Monkey Trial")

I have the "Your Rights" app on my iphone which is the ACLU's and it has the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, a breakdown of the ACLU, any news and your basics concerning approaches/arrests by police, and more. I got hooked and a reader would be well informed.

Honestly the ACLU is overloaded and they're like the Supreme Court where they have to pick their battles. I really think they go over the top to try to get more support. People these days are shock resistant and it really takes over-the-top rhetoric to snag them. They aren't lying about the issues I suspect.

My problem with them is that from this app, I found an article that really got to me concerning a privacy issue and they provided a petition form for me to apply my digital signature to and then have that forwarded appropriately. They started calling me asking for financial support which I would have been glad to provide if they didn't tell me that I signed a petition on allowing gay/lesbians to marry. I don't have an issue with gay/lesbian marriage as it's not for me to judge folks. I have issue with you taking my signature and applying it to whatever you want. I don't even know if my sig went to where it was supposed to go and that was enough to get me pissed to the point where I had to let the guy have it.

They do fight the good fight and are on the front lines fighting tirelessly, but they may resort to tactics; a practice i don't endorse.

As an American Muslim, I'm not surprised. I've posted on other forums about the unfair nature of the illegal detainment of American Muslims, a friend of mine was "detained" for no reason for 6 months then released without explanation or apology. He lost his job and family, because he was denied any communication or legal counsel. I wrote about how when this happens to Christian and Jewish Americans everyone will all of a sudden see the injustice in these events... SURPRISE!!!

My Christian and Jewish brothers, welcome to my world.

To clarify, I was born on a US Army base to American Citizens. Half my family was wiped out by Nazis in WW2 the other half is Roman Catholic. I'm about as white Anglo as you get, Raised in the Pacific Northwest. The friend I spoke of was just as white as me, didn't even remotely look Middle Eastern.

Now, can we all finally band together as one family of God and get those Godless tyrants out of office with one voice?

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Mizzijr
This is how a true dictatorship starts.

No matter what, we CAN NOT let this pass.

If we stand by and let something like this happen, then we will be trailing the same path as Germany. back in the early 1900s.

This is the test we HAVE to pass, failure is not an option.

Please name a nation with a more relaxed law.

Fiji...

reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou


That's kinda what I was talking about.

The ACLU may have good intentions on the surface, but what are they doing behind the scenes?

Your case seems like one of those "behind the scenes" problems.

Seems they preach protection of all the freedoms while taking advantage of all the loopholes at the same time without regard to morals and ethics.
Hmmmmm....


The OP article (from the ACLU website) seems to be sensationalized and possibly wrong.

One post did mention however, that Congress may be trying to slip a change of language in the standard bill.
Would not be the first time we have "unread" and/or "cloaked" language in bills, especially ones that usually have a negative impact on the majority of American citizens.

Does anyone else see "that" ?

This proposed or alleged "law," would be so incorrect, that it would diminish or dilute the sovereignty of any country or citizens which reside there-in.

Aside from any rights allegedly given by a Creator, any kind of law would be a mistake. Transparency, is the window in-which all things operate. We have to see it happen, "under-glass," to know it is transparent; and on-the-surface and not contrived or produced.

I repeat this again that the skill of discernment is important to tell what is "what." Propaganda is the cousin of the truth, but the vehicle is the same in which they travel; and it's the component parts which make-up the difference between the two.

It's necessary to know both to know the difference. As in, "knowledge of good and evil."

You'll know, just turn-on your "BS" detectors and calibrate the sensitivity.

Originally posted by Biohazard_Video

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Mizzijr
This is how a true dictatorship starts.

No matter what, we CAN NOT let this pass.

If we stand by and let something like this happen, then we will be trailing the same path as Germany. back in the early 1900s.

This is the test we HAVE to pass, failure is not an option.

Please name a nation with a more relaxed law.

Fiji...

I am surprised that Fiji has ANY law regarding enemy combatants-- especially since the Coup of 2006, as I believe it has been under Military Rule despite its Constitution forbidding it.

But, perhaps you are aware of something I am not. Let's compare.

Your turn:

* What is the legal disposition of prisoners of war captured by lawful Fijian troops on a battlefield?

* Please specify how the Fijian law is distinguished from that of the proposed US bill.

I believe your are in check, can I get a ruling?

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Biohazard_Video

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Mizzijr
This is how a true dictatorship starts.

No matter what, we CAN NOT let this pass.

If we stand by and let something like this happen, then we will be trailing the same path as Germany. back in the early 1900s.

This is the test we HAVE to pass, failure is not an option.

Please name a nation with a more relaxed law.

Fiji...

I am surprised that Fiji has ANY law regarding enemy combatants-- especially since the Coup of 2006, as I believe it has been under Military Rule despite its Constitution forbidding it.

But, perhaps you are aware of something I am not. Let's compare.

Your turn:

* What is the legal disposition of prisoners of war captured by lawful Fijian troops on a battlefield?

* Please specify how the Fijian law is distinguished from that of the proposed US bill.

I believe your are in check, can I get a ruling?

I was referring to the "relaxed " statement. Fiji is more a neutral country and as far as I know doesn't handle "enemy combatants". Most of my friends in or from Fiji are more likely to invite you to a BBQ instead of anything remotely violent.

Apparently I missed something in your statement an attempt at humor to lighten things up...

Originally posted by Biohazard_Video
As an American Muslim, I'm not surprised. I've posted on other forums about the unfair nature of the illegal detainment of American Muslims, a friend of mine was "detained" for no reason for 6 months then released without explanation or apology. He lost his job and family, because he was denied any communication or legal counsel. I wrote about how when this happens to Christian and Jewish Americans everyone will all of a sudden see the injustice in these events... SURPRISE!!!

My Christian and Jewish brothers, welcome to my world.

To clarify, I was born on a US Army base to American Citizens. Half my family was wiped out by Nazis in WW2 the other half is Roman Catholic. I'm about as white Anglo as you get, Raised in the Pacific Northwest. The friend I spoke of was just as white as me, didn't even remotely look Middle Eastern.

Now, can we all finally band together as one family of God and get those Godless tyrants out of office with one voice?

No. Not on this issue.

What happened to your friend happened under current law-- whether or not the current law was violated, I have no way of knowing.

I believe I read a thread on this site about the police in Michigan (I think it was) who started detaining anyone they wished by charging them with "Public Intoxication." Sobriety tests were denied-- so innocence could not be proven. Many states now employ that practice. It is clearly an abuse, but so far, not forbidden by law.

But this new Senate bill does not touch on that issue.

To my knowledge, never has the US (or, perhaps, any other nation) taken Prisoners of War from a battlefield and then placed them in criminal or civil courts. It seems that this bill is to prevent that legal maneuver.

And for the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone wants a Prisoner of War to be in the criminal or civil courts.

There is, after all, an excellent way to stay out of military jurisdiction: Do not get mixed up with Al Qaeda.

Surprise surprise... NOT.

They are learning from the revolutions in Syria, Egypt, Iran and Libya... Because they know that at some point the economic reality, like Greece, will come knocking on the door.

They are doing this for self-preservation because they know they will have a rope around their necks if justice is ever brought to them.

Hopefully, but I'm not holding my breath, the military will do the right thing and say no to those orders and TURN AGAINST the scum who gave the orders and those who FOLLOW THEM because you know there will be some brainwashed soldiers who will follow orders.

And IF those orders are EVER GIVEN, it will spark a CIVIL WAR in America, bet on it.