S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act - Some Clarifictions - Does NOT allow US Citizen detenti

reply to post by rstregooski


that quite clearly states americans,
what about new zealanders?
what about australians?
what about any other country other than in the usa?

ARE YOU OUTRAGED that your govenment seeks to empower itself to claim the "world" is now a "battle field" and you may indefinatly imprisen a person NOT american indefinatly?

where is your care of other countries
my country is NOT a battle field

this needs to be stopped or it will agitate the entire world
new zealand included

xploder

reply to post by MegaMind


Well fair enough, good work. You'd probably know more about this than me, honestly.
Still seems like paragraph (4) negates (1) pretty brilliantly, though..

reply to post by XPLodER


So what is the purpose of this bill?
You seem to have a handle on it.

Sorry, meant to reply to the other X, but if you want to answer that's ok.

reply to post by rstregooski


The waiver simply means that they can get a waiver to not have to detain the person as they are required to do. (this is for false flag agents no doubt)

Also they do not HAVE TO detain US Citizens but clearly covered persons cover US citizens and make no exemption. You would think if US citizens were exempt the definition of COVERED persons would say so but it doesn't. The only mention of US citizens is in the automatic requirement to hold a COVERED PERSON.

reply to post by SunnyDee


they are trying to ligitamise the rendition of people from other countries who are polically hurting them.
they wish to allow themselves the right to "snatch" people from other countries that are supporting OWS.
they extend the definition of where a battle ground is deamed to by and in doing so they are giving othority over to the army to go into the friendly nation and remove people they deam as unsavouy and claim national security concerns.

this breaches the human rights of people in other countries, who life life by human rights standards.

in america the human rights are removed under a war provision calling you "ememy combatents" making you in there eyes a "threat" on the "battle field" and the ambiguaty of the wording allows for "GROSS" miss interpretation of poweers acually deligated and does not have a time frame to "restore" human rights

it totally tryes to make me in my country an enemy combatent in the battle field of the world
on a simple acusation alone.

these powers were seized once before in recent history and his name was adolf hitler, and only when he was dead and many countries destroyed did the power return back to the people.

this is not kidding around folks,

your congress by expanding on the definition of battle field has included my home in my country.

if this passes so will genoside of a whole population. starting with the non nesacery american population.

if this bill passes the rest of the world will be "snached" into legal slavery for the military on th esay so of your govenment.

why now, because the people are trying to reclaim their power over the govenment.

if this passes it will be enevitable that a larger war is invoked to control all the world.

xploder

reply to post by Xcathdra


is it just in your world view,
that i can now be a "enemey combatant"
on a "battle field" called new zealand
or the "internet batttle field"
and by only blogging i can be removed as a threat that you dont have to define?
and you trust my counties status as friendly to protect from your seceret police?

this is totally obhorent to america and to the world.
we are humans NOT "enemey combatents"
we do not deserve your milatary on our country thinking its a battle field.

we are HUMAN it empowers us to have human rights.

think if not for your own country,
think of others and seek humanity and what this will unleash on them.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

You should understand that certain members here consistently take a Zionist view, and approach "our" freedoms from this viewpoint. "Our" freedoms are not their freedoms, that is, their freedoms are not at risk, ours are.
So, these Zionists view "our" freedoms as being dispensable. In this viewpoint, it is every man/group/secret society...against the other. That IS the battlefield, and you should know that a war is being waged against you. Against your very capacity to wage war, on ALL fronts.
Don't ask where their humanity has gone, they never really had any.

Gotta love that this is what we are paying politicians to do. Giving them the power to imprison, without cause, the very people that put them in power to be able to do so. If any one thinks that they wouldnt abuse this law you'd be in denial. Why else would they even draft something like this? Do you think the military doesnt already snatch people up in other countries without permission? The US has never been one to ask for permission from anyone. They operate off an act now, think later mentality. This would give them the ability to extend this absurdity to our own country. And, look who is supporting it for gods sake. John Mcain? Lindsay Graham??? Really??? Even the idea of this is wildly dangerous.

Originally posted by BamStonin
Gotta love that this is what we are paying politicians to do. Giving them the power to imprison, without cause, the very people that put them in power to be able to do so. If any one thinks that they wouldnt abuse this law you'd be in denial. Why else would they even draft something like this? Do you think the military doesnt already snatch people up in other countries without permission? The US has never been one to ask for permission from anyone. They operate off an act now, think later mentality. This would give them the ability to extend this absurdity to our own country. And, look who is supporting it for gods sake. John Mcain? Lindsay Graham??? Really??? Even the idea of this is wildly dangerous.

Nailed it!

Well, three and a half hours and we're slowly getting toward the truth. Slowly.

Let's take a look at section 1032 again, shall we?

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.

So this section determines that the military (Armed Forces) shall hold prisoners. OK, so far so good. Who shall they hold?

(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.

Anyone connected with Al-Qaeda or a similar association, or anyone who attacks the USA or its allies. OK, I can go along with that. But what about this exception?

(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.

OK, so they can make exceptions and let people go as long they do this paperwork thingy. But it goes on:

(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.

So the requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to US citizens. Now the concern is apparently over why it doesn't simply say "This does not apply to US citizens". That's because anyone who attacks the military on a battlefield becomes an enemy combatant.

Oh! The horror! Does that mean, you say, that I can't walk onto a battlefield and attack soldiers without the soldiers attacking back? Yes, it does. Duh. American, British, Turk, Russian, Chinese, Martian does not matter at that point. You jump into a military conflict, you just became a legitimate target.

One guy made that mistake a while ago. Remember the citizen Obama had assassinated? That's what this is all about. Not about locking people up inside US cities, but about allowing the military to handle enemy combatants, including Americans who want to get involved in military conflicts, under wartime law regardless of citizenship.

Now that the secret is out of the bag, we can continue on to whether or not this is a good thing. I have mixed feelings, personally.

TheRedneck
(all excerpts from thomas.loc.gov...)

reply to post by TheRedneck


Great analysis so far - I concur .... except .... what about someone they claim is an enemy?

An American on US soil?

Do they get a chance to defend themselves from such an accusation?

If for example YOU are accused by someone in the executive branch to have committed a "belligerent act" against the United States.

YOU can be held indefinitely correct? without charges? without trial?

hmmm ...

reply to post by TheRedneck


with the new definition of the internet as a "battle field" this law would extend to anyone in any country that uses the internet,

any human can now be labeled as non human ie "enemey combatent"
and the battle field now includes any place on earth,
thats why they added the provisions to exclude americans

my country is NOT a Battle field
the INTERNET is NOT a battle field

i am breathing human with human rights, not an "enemey combatent"
to be seceretly deprived of human rights because your govenment thinks it is above international law and human rights conventions across the world.

the world is NOT your battle feild and we do NOT accept that we are ENEMEY COMBATENTS in your seceret war using seceret police deporting humans into combatents does not make this a human rights violation it makes this a breach of war crimes.

xploder

xploder

reply to post by MegaMind

Before I answer directly, let me mention something I believe may make all this very clear...

• Police are law enforcement. They act to enforce laws based on the US Constitution (or whatever country's constitution you live in), which includes the protection of basic human rights enumerated in said Constitution. The police do their jobs with a focus on maintaining the peace of society, through arrest, trial, and potential criminal punishments.
  
  
• The military are not law enforcement. The military has two proper uses: to kill people and to break things. They are called upon when there is no peace and no societal balance to maintain. They do not care about rights; they care about survival.

Posse comitatus is the legal evidence of this difference. Against a functioning society, any use of the military directly would only serve to destroy. Thus, the military is forbidden from taking direct action against a citizen of the US on US soil. However, should the United States be attacked by a foreign military, we would quickly lose posse comitatus, as it would then be actually prohibiting the military from doing their job.

War is simply different from police actions. We have come to associate the two because for years our military has been abused by calling operations 'police actions' and restricting military response to attack. If anything in recent history has weakened posse comitatus, it is this attitude because it undermines the very difference posse comitatus is designed to reflect.

Now, with that firmly in mind, how would you answer your question?

TheRedneck

reply to post by XPLodER

The Internet is not a 'battlefield'. Can you show me where you get that assumption?

As for your country being a battlefield... any country where a military battle is being waged is a battlefield. I would love it if there were no more battlefields anywhere, in your country, my country, his country, her country, their country, any country! However, we do live in a world where there are bad people with the ability to do bad things, and to simply say "No more battles for any reason" would be akin to societal genocide. It's a sad but true fact.

As for International law... there is no law in wartime, and there can be no real law where there is no real controlling authority. That means there is no such thing as International law, because there is no authority under which all the different countries operate. The term is used loosely only to refer to established agreements between nations.

Think of it this way: in a place where there is no such thing as police or government, two neighbors have made agreements between themselves as to how they will conduct themselves. Then imagine that one day, one of those neighbors decides to ignore this 'law'. Who is going to stop him? The 'law' in this case is only applicable when all the involved parties agree to it.

Yes, you have human rights. However, so did the millions of innocents throughout history who died at the hands of invading armies. Understand that the exercise of those human rights is totally dependent on the military might of countries who abide by this so-called International law. Without them keeping others from violating that International law, there would be no International law and no exercise of basic human rights... and that includes the very right to life itself.

As I said, I have not decided if this new bill is a good thing or not. I do know one thing, however: the United States cannot enforce US law anywhere except within its borders, unless allowed to. My suggestion is not to allow your country to operate under US law.

TheRedneck

There are all kinds of vague words in this section 1032. One thing I learned from business law when I was getting my BBA was that a contract should be written up to be as specific and well defined as possible without room for misinterpretation. The problem with 1031 and 1032 is the use of the following words: requirement, person, and connected with terrorism. A U.S. citizen is also a person. So as long as a U.S. citizen is considered a person then they have not special immunity in regard to detention without due process. A 'requirement' in the positive sense means a condition must be met in order for an action to take place. To say some condition is not required only means that it is not necessary to commit such action if the condition is not met, but the action is not specifically prohibited. It is like saying you are not required to take some cookies from the cookie jar, but you are not expressly prohibited to take cookies from the cookie jar. All that means in regard to section 1032 is that the military can detain a U.S. citizen w/o due process at its discretion, whereas a non citizen must be detained without due process in connection with terrorist allegations.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I wish I could give you a hundred flags! You are correct and thanks for posting a well sourced piece of information!

reply to post by TheRedneck


the death of free humans with civil rights is a war crime,
the kidnap of free humans with human rights is a human rights violation

just because an invading army killed people with human rights does not make those rights go away
those who kill people with human rights are war criminals,
those that kidnap are violating human reights

just because you think americans have the right to attack doesnt mean they lose their rights.

humans have rights enemey combatents are humans and have rights

just because you excuse yourself from recognising some one as human does not remove their human rights

only GOD can take away what GOD has given

to think you can define a law that takes my god given rights away,
or remove them at gun point makes you an inhuman monster.

your legal jargon does not change this,

i am a fleash and blood human and i have the god given powers to proclaim that only evil seeks to deminish my status as such,

i do not support terrorism, either by crazies or by govenment,
and this law enables the army to terrorise humans and call them names that mean "less than human"

your torture laws and rendition laws are crimes weather you like it or not.

i am human
xploder

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

wtf?
why if it does not acually apply to americans did rand paul give this speach?

Probably the same reason the ACLU is stating it allows the detention of citizens. Apparetly they ahve not read the bill in its entirety to understand it.

The first part denotes those who are covered by the law. Section 1032 states how the process works and specifically notes US Citizens are NOT subject to military detention.

Even with the facts present, people want to seel it as something its not just for the fear factor.

This bill does NOT allow US citizens to be held indefinitely with no charge.

Section 1032 only states that the military is not required to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.

17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

A requirement that does not extend to citizens is not the same as saying prohibited from detaining U.S. citizens. The military may detain citizens even if the requirement is not extended to them. There is no outright denial of that power of detention w/o trial to the military.

reply to post by XPLodER

just because you think americans have the right to attack doesnt mean they lose their rights.

Whoa Hoss!

I do NOT, in any way, shape, or form, support an attack by anyone on anyone, including by the USA, except to defend themselves. Do not make the mistake of confusing a realistic approach with an aggressive one.

just because you excuse yourself from recognising some one as human does not remove their human rights

Exactly where in any of my posts have I refused to recognize human rights?

only GOD can take away what GOD has given

Then how is it that people die at the hands of other people every single day? Did God not give them life? Did a human not take that life away?

your legal jargon does not change this,

At least my 'legal jargon' seeks to understand it. Your knee-jerk response to mine adds nothing to this discussion, dismisses reality, and seeks to establish some sort of fantasy utopia.

It is very easy to sit in a comfortable house at a computer and proclaim rights. It is quite another thing to live inside a battle zone. I have had the fortune to have not experienced that personally, but I have also had the pleasure of getting to know quite a few veterans who were not so lucky. It might behoove you to talk with some of these brave souls who fought against the enemy bent on and sworn to destroy them. Until you can understand what it is like to live in constant fear of death at any moment with no warning, to realize that the sounds you hear are quite possibly someone sworn to destroy you and your entire society, and that you, along with your comrades, are the only thing that can stop them from doing so, you cannot understand what it is I am talking about.

Are there war crimes? I believe there are. Do all humans have basic human rights? I believe so. Does any of this change the reality of what happens on a battlefield or during war? No.

Will I either defend or condemn this bill? No, neither until I understand it.

Reality is reality. Truth is truth. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you that.

TheRedneck

reply to post by artfuldodger

Here is the prohibition.

Amendment 6:

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.

All power of US law is derived from the Constitution. Therefore no law may violate the provisions of the Constitution.

TheRedneck