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

Originally posted by 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

There are already laws that violate the Constitution. In no sense is the word 'accused' defined as a U.S. citizen in the 6th amendment. In no sense is there any clawback of the 6th amendment if the person acting as individual commits a crime against the people of the United States if that person as a citizen does such an action in a foreign country. But given all that, Padilla did not get his due process. Also as defined in section 1031 in S. 1867, persons who are said to have given material support to associated terrorist organizations can be held by the U.S. armed forces for an indefinite period of time under laws of war. Who determines such a person has actually done this? There is no judge or jury mentioned. There is no hearing set for bail. A person can be a U.S. citizen or a foreigner. Are we under laws of war right now? And where do the laws of war apply? It is all very vague and arbitrary to me. Hence these sections are dangerous.

the section that should make all US citizens nervous is this

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

now hold on to your hats folks this is where it can get real murky we are at war, en.wikipedia.org... this could mean trouble for OWS and any one wanting to protest from the link

The bill proceeds to define an "unprivileged enemy belligerent" as an individual who:

1 has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
2 has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
3 was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.

now what 2 categories do OWS and anti war/ draft protesters fall under? note this , it does not say armed, "hostilities against the United States" or its corporate masters "Wall Street, Banks, and Big Biz namely Halliburton, or KBR, and GM. and the term it self dictionary.reference.com... some words that can describe protesters from the link

pugnacious, truculent, combative, quarrelsome, antagonistic, contentious.

McCain is no fool he was a POW, he knows the terms very well, all to well.
Now you are asking why did he put in the Draft, simple the next war( and it is just around the corner), will need the draft to have the troops to fight it, the ones we have are spent.

Fox News
Should the Military Be Allowed to Detain Americans Indefinitely?

Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com...

6th

reply to post by TheRedneck


I would say we are nowhere near a "war" on American soil. So why do they need this new power now?

What cannot be handled on American soil RIGHT NOW by the FBI and law enforcement?

IF we were being invaded by the Chinese or Russians or both, lol, on American soil I can see allowing the military to detain citizens and try them as enemy combatants if they aid or assist or fight with the enemy.

Terrorist are not rampaging through the country by the 10s of thousands.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I've gone over the Senate bill and have a different interpretation than the OP:
The text of the bill: thomas.loc.gov...:1:./temp/~c112B8yEJI:e462417:

Section.1031 clearly spells out who the Military Force can DETAIN:
"(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."

This section makes no carve out for citizens or legal resident aliens.
Thus under Section 1031 the military can DETAIN and hold under the law of war until the end of hostilities (which is very open ended), or some form of trial, or transfer to any other country or foreign entity.


Section 1032 Specifically discussed CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION and applies the citizen and legal resident exemption in section (b).

"(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."

Note the exemption is for this section (1032) only.

There is however this additional contingent definition in 1032, which refers back to section 1031. Note it says nothing about being consistent with section b. but rather section 1033.

"(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."

Section 1033 deals directly with Guantanamo Bay or other foreign countries, entities. And though it sounds like there are safeguards in place to keep the power fairly restricted and documented, there is the following exception:

"(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d)....."

Subsection (d) sub (D) reads:
"(D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States."


Which again seems to grant exceedingly broad powers.

I certainly might be wrong, but in the least it beings up an important point as to why was it worded in such a manner (by a Senate filled Senators that are attorneys and a staff of attorneys), as to be ambiguous. It appears to be open to interpretation to cover a variety of people and circumstances while also providing a carve out that provides a nice sound bite point of defense concerning its applicability to US citizens.

Thanks in advance for any input.

reply to post by MegaMind


Remember Rex84 was originally designed to detain illegals who fled to the US in the event of the collapse of society south of the border.

The document does indeed leave room for anyone to be targeted, but at the same time it almost glaringly points towards non-legal residents who are essentially a form of refugee.

Over the last few decades there has been a major breakdown in society in nations such as Mexico and throughout Central America, creating a situation where fleeing the nation could be desirable. Great political instability exists, as does a quick travel network for the refugees to catch a ride on. So it's not only a current issue it is a developing issue of great importance.

I would advise that we stand up against any federal military actions against illegal immigration if that ever becomes the focal point of this entire ordeal. It is just opening the doorway for incredible abuse and it is far preferable to keep what we have now than to allow this situation to depreciate even further into the abyss.

Oh yikes, I just went back and re-analyzed the bill. IT DOES ALLOW INDEFINITE DETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENS. The U.S. citizen exception only applies to Section 1032 (which deals with requiring military custody). It does not apply to Section 1031, which is the section authorizing indefinite detention. Now I see what all of the fuss is about And of course, the wording is very vague as to who could constitute someone associated with forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

This really worries me now. Our only hope is that federal court would strike it down as unconstitutional.

reply to post by Counttrarian


1031 establishes who qualifies - namely al queida / taliban / terrorists supporters etc.

1032 defines the authority / scope of the military involvement. It specifically address US Citizens, stating they are not subject to this law or military action.

1033 again specifically deals with non US citizens.

Supreme Court rulings have made it clear US citizens are not subject to the UCMJ, they cannot be removed from the civilian side of the court system, and their civil rights cannot be abridged, even in the case of National Security (Jose Padilla / Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld, The Military comission acts of 2006, 2008 and 2009, patriot act).

Differences in interpretation aside people should contact their reps and voice their opinions / concerns or support. Get involved to ensure your voice is heard.

What strikes me as so odd about all of these kinds of discussions is what is never, ever mentioned. The "bill" or "law" or "policy" or whatever one wants to call it isn't clear. We have several very intelligent people here arguing over what it says. Why doesn't it say what it means? Why does it have to be vague? The bill which is designed to simply render a being occupying a body into non-existence is so vague and unclear as to make the entire process a comedy of the absurd.

Why doesn't the law say "do this, get that?"

One thing folks in the argument don't seem to get is the obvious fact in play already: all an "official" has to say is "you're al ciada" and the whole "doesn't apply to US citizens" is thrown out the window. The accused can say to them, ""I'm a white kind from the Bronx" but the fact is you can't prove you aren't al ciada because you can't prove a negative, so this provision is pointless. They can already imprison anyone they want for any reason, and do - the work around the whole "I have rights" thing is simply - "we lost the paperwork, and need 30 more days to make our case" and this can go on forever and often does already. They don't need more excuses to do this, they can do it without any kind of repercussion at all. What ever came of that whole rendition stuff? Anything? No repercussion. This law is about something else, and the fact that it can't even be understood by anyone in this panel is totally obscene.

reply to post by crankyoldman


To some the language used is straight forward and clear.. To people who aren't versed in legalese (legal speak) it can look vague and appears as gibberish.

People need to take into account how other laws and court rulings affect the legislation. A new law that is passed can already be defined by past laws / rulings.

in this case I am submitting that based on the Supreme Court rulings over the last 10 years specifically dealing with this topic has defined this current laws language about Us Citizens.

A citizen born in the US cannot be stripped of their US citizenship by the Government. The only way a person an lose their citizenship is by their own methods. Non natural citizens can have their citizenship revoked based on the severity of a crime (think nazi war criminals).

Jose Padillas case ended any debate on who had jurisdiction over US citizens who are accused of being a part of terrorist activities. US citizens are not subject to the UCMJ, which is how gitmo operates, as well as the tribunals.

Like I said though, if people feel differently then speak up and be heard. Call your reps.

reply to post by MegaMind
that you know of , how many come in through the border this is old but it does make a point americanandproud.net... then you have the domestic terrorist KKK, the neo nazi of Idaho, OWS and any one that is not for the GOV or the Fed GOV of the USA. do you get it now?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Counttrarian

 

1031 establishes who qualifies - namely al queida / taliban / terrorists supporters etc.

.... and US citizens are not excluded or made exempt.

1032 defines the authority / scope of the military involvement. It specifically address US Citizens, stating they are not subject to this law or military action.

... it says no such thing.

it says the REQUIREMENT to detain does not apply to US citizens. BUT that does NOT mean they cannot detain US citizens.

Supreme Court rulings have made it clear US citizens are not subject to the UCMJ, they cannot be removed from the civilian side of the court system, and their civil rights cannot be abridged, even in the case of National Security (Jose Padilla / Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld, The Military comission acts of 2006, 2008 and 2009, patriot act).

... This bill seeks to undermine this principle. All totalitarian governments get this power sooner or later.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by MegaMind

 

that you know of , how many come in through the border this is old but it does make a point americanandproud.net... then you have the domestic terrorist KKK, the neo nazi of Idaho, OWS and any one that is not for the GOV or the Fed GOV of the USA. do you get it now?

I prefer not to give up my freedoms because there may be a risk to us all. Whatever happened to don't let the terrorist win by allowing our way of life to change.

Remember when "they" said the terrorist hate us because of our freedom. Well given enough time our federal government will remove what the terrorist hate so much - then I guess they will no longer be a threat huh?

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by jburg6
Anyone who knows how to apply the rules of statutory construction should be able to see it does not apply to U.S. citizens.

And therein lies the problem. Too many people who don't really understand how to read bills jump to conclusions based on what they think it says instead of what it actually says. Same thing happens with every bill that has a topic made about it here. It's not entirely their fault. They have people telling them that's what it says and bills/laws are written in the most unreadable format known to man it's no wonder they believe whoever they hear or see talking about it first.

And no matter how you explain that they are wrong about what a law does or does not do, nobody will bother to read it. These are the "scared of their own shadow" conspiracy theorists. No amount of logic will help them see the true facts.

I think S 1867 overrides the old pre 2010 guide lines and ruling on how to deal with domestic terrorist, or the "lone wolf" for the war powers act says

2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.

I have persons in bold to make the point more clear. like i said this bill S1867 gives the "P" act teeth it will no longer be a FBI matter nor a DHS TSA, I bet you might see MP's at airports just for this reason

Just once, I wopuld love to see someone who has actually read the damn things
before they post scare tactic BS

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by jburg6
Anyone who knows how to apply the rules of statutory construction should be able to see it does not apply to U.S. citizens.

And therein lies the problem. Too many people who don't really understand how to read bills jump to conclusions based on what they think it says instead of what it actually says. Same thing happens with every bill that has a topic made about it here. It's not entirely their fault. They have people telling them that's what it says and bills/laws are written in the most unreadable format known to man it's no wonder they believe whoever they hear or see talking about it first.

And no matter how you explain that they are wrong about what a law does or does not do, nobody will bother to read it. These are the "scared of their own shadow" conspiracy theorists. No amount of logic will help them see the true facts.

... and all three of you can't read or are intentionally trying to mislead.

The only place it mentions US citizen is in section 1032 and that section is about a REQUIREMENT to detain. It says in plain English that the REQUIREMENT to detain does not apply to citizens. That does not mean they cannot detain. Get it?

Its like beating your head against a brick wall!!

reply to post by usernameconspiracy
only when it is to late, you have seen the vids of people being detained at air ports well if this passes you will see them being MP escorted out, or the FBI has you on a watch list, do not worry a hummer and a dues will come get you, gave to the Mosque that funnel money to a terror group, do not worry thew MPs will come get you, go to an OWS protest , LAPD will be the least of your worry's the 82nd or the 101 will handle you armed or not your a terrorist.

Originally posted by MegaMind
... and all three of you can't read or are intentionally trying to mislead.

The only place it mentions US citizen is in section 1032 and that section is about a REQUIREMENT to detain. It says in plain English that the REQUIREMENT to detain does not apply to citizens. That does not mean they cannot detain. Get it?

Its like beating your head against a brick wall!!

And why, exactly, would you expect to see anything that would indicate the ANYONE was "exempt" from being held by the military if you are assisting terrorists? Has there ever been a law enacted that would exempt a U.S. citizen from being detained by military police for traitorous actions?

Honestly, I don't believe the garbage about how it will be used in some extreme and unrealistic manner arguments. This bill is not needed for you or me to be detained by the military. If there was a reason, we would be and nobody would know what happened. It's just fearmongering from the "scared of their own shadow" people of the highest order.