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

Mega, as you can see on my last post, I changed my mind after fully analyzing it. The bill clearly allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

You would think that if something like this did get passed, a court would strike it down as unconstitutional. However, if the Supreme Court, the highest legal authority who cannot, I repeat cannot, be voted out of their life positions, did something dumb like allow it to stand (or had some hidden agenda with TPTB), you better pack your bags and get out of this country asap.

reply to post by MegaMind


We are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. 1032 clearly states Citizens are not subject to the law.

As far as undermining a principle let me ask a question -
When did Posse Commitatus become a law? For hose who don't know it was around the civil war. Prior to that the only law that prevented military interaction with civilians was being forced to quarter them in houses. Absent that there is no prohibition on using military in law enforcement functions.

With that being said try this analogy.

The 4th amendment to the constitution established guidelines on the government when dealing with search and seizures. Nowhere in the wording does it allow exceptions, nor does it say anything about a persons car. It does not cover anything about a search incident to arrest, and says nothing about passengers in a car. It says nothing about searching a house while people who don't live in the house are present. It doesn't say anything about being able to search those people and their belongings.

I raise these points to demonstrate that that laws are in place and have adapted to the situation as our society and country evolved. While people can make an argument about the decisions preventing government over reaching, the opposite argument can be made that the courts extended protections to individuals that aren't specifically denoted.

While looking through the evolution of the 4th amendment, you will find the base - 4th amendment. From there you will find laws enacted to define it, and court rulings that either refined or stopped that legislation. You will find legislation that on its own makes no sense and looks like an overreach. However when you look at the entire evolution you will find other legislation and case law that define the language in other bills.

in this case, the legislation and supreme court rulings on US citizens, UCMJ and jurisdiction have been resolved. That information, case law, is what defines this legislation.

Just my 2 cents worth. I welcome other viewpoints as well as information I dont have / know about if anyone wants to try and sway my opinion.

EDIT to ADD -
Keep in mind that there are currently 5 versions of this legislation floating around Congress. The one cited in this thread and the other thread is S. 1867 - drafted by Levin out of Michigan. From what I ahve seen Levin's bill is the most current up to date version.

here is the link to track this bill www.opencongress.org... As you can see there is a reason to worry about this, It will make any one that goes against the Gov a combatant, not just terrorist but the common citizen that wants to protest, getting bust by LAPD or other LEOS is one thing, but going by by to a Mil camp is an other, this is what has me so concerned and what about the freedom of speech , would no more war, no more draft, be included? down with the Fed as well??.. the answer is YES.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yes we just simply disagree ...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty clear isn't it? It says there can be no searches without warrants and warrants can only be issued with probable cause and describing the PLACE to be searched and the PERSONS or THINGS to be seized. The 4th amendment is not "evolving" it is being systematically disregarded as well as our other rights. BTW the bill of rights are not granted rights but rather limits imposed on government. Those rights are ours by virtue of being a human.

Likewise this is an attempt to circumvent or subvert the 6th ...

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.

Obviously you bought all the propaganda. Don't like the bill of rights - get an amendment - good luck with that.

reply to post by Xcathdra
I will try to have you see my point of view S1867 is not a bad bill as a whole, just parts of it like the 1032 section this is just to vague and can be missed used in time of peaceful protest read this news.findlaw.com... then read 1032 i will be back, I'm back now here is a link we all need to read and states what I am saying or reaffirming www.opencongress.org... from the link

The key phrase, according to my reading, is: “A person who was a part of or substantially supported […] associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With Libya, we saw Obama select a definition of “hostilities” from the War Powers Act that fit his preference for not seeking authorization for military action from Congress. Political protests are disruptive and hostile by definition, so what’s to prevent a President (Obama or future) from twisting this language to detain political protesters in the same way Obama twisted the language of the War Powers Act? Similar questions ned to be asked of other language in this section, e.g. “substantially supported,” “associated forces.”

now do you see how this could be come not so good for we that want to say the GOV is out of control, for right there that sentence would make me a belligerent, 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.

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.

you do realise how this is viewed from the rest of the world?
or do you never look at something from others perspective?

this law is abhorent to any human reading it,
to promote something which in my country is considered a war crime is terrorable
to indorce indefinate detention without trial is a human right violation,

by supporting this legislation YOU are also guilty of war crimes.

why do americans THINK they are imunine to war crimes charges?
BECAUSE OF BILLS LIKE THIS ONE

you cant even grasp what is being conveyed from me to you,
you are supporting a bill that is totally disgusting in the context of tthe rest of the world,

YOU PRETEND to aurthorize yourself to breach human rights?
untill you can see this as an attack and the acual humans of this world (every free country)
from a nation claiming to have the power to torture and kill

then you will be in my eyes complicite in war crimes

shame X shame on you

xploder

reply to post by Xcathdra


this bill can be abused,
it was written ambiguasly on purpose to allow over stepping of its deligation of power
and to claim any enemey bilederent will lose their right to a trial makes a mockery of the law

where is your humanity
we are humans, not collateral damage
we are humans not soilders on a battle field
we are humans not enemey combatents

to define any human as such is an excuse to take their humanity away

and you are ficilatating this

i find you guilty of the crime of insighting to allow a govenment to carry out crimes against humanity
xploder

reply to post by XPLodER
this is the other problem i have a POW should be held as long as there is war, treated as a POW under the Geneva convention, does not mean abused nor tortured, but then this is a new kind of where any one could be a terrorist, the more i look at this 1031 1032 the more I think it is amid at US citizens being listed as a terrorist, in times of protest or unwilling to relocate in a disaster, and the GitMo detainees being held till death, even when the war ends if it ever will, for i think they TPTB want his to go on and on with no end in sight. Just my take. lets hope I am wrong

here is today's senate on this bill if your wondering www.c-spanvideo.org... what the video is: The Senate convened with a period of morning business and thereafter resumed consideration of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

reply to post by Xcathdra


"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."

You just made the point - the LAW is argued, it is never factual. If it is applied to all then all should fully comprehend it - period! Let us say I decided to make stealing pencils "illegal." And I simply wrote, "if you steal one pencil you have to pay back two pencils." Clear, no argument. The legal drawing of that idea would cover dozens of pages, to be UNCLEAR so that in can be argued. This is done on purpose, natural law isn't supposed to be confusing, corporate rules and regulations - which is what we are talking about, is MEANT to be confusing and open to interpretation. The "laws" are designed this way, so they may be used to oppress those who can't understand them and to provide ways out to those who do.

There is nothing in our current system that doesn't address criminal action well. A gang member isn't any less of a "threat" then the guy who tried to circumcise himself and blow up something for good measure, or the guy who thought his dirty underwear would explode, or the guy who actually managed to acquire C4 but didn't know it doesn't explode with matches. These boobs were arrested and are being tried, so this law is simply unnecessary, UNLESS it allows for something more - and it does and will.

I am totally in agreement with Xploder on the notion that the folks in America somehow think these draconian measures don't apply to them personally but only to the other guy. But then again, this is the earther human nature - they fight over 3 dollars off a useless electronic device on the day they are told to fight over it. In many ways, they deserve to wind up detained with the laws they supported so completely.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Lol draconian measures? Its not even law, hell it hasn't even gone to conference committee with the House yet. If people would check their paranoia at the door and quit seeing only what they want the bill would make a lot more sense.

You guys have this tendency to latch onto something and turn it into something its not. You guys have a tendency to ignore other laws / legislation and court rulings that have direct influence on these types of bills.

People in this thread have gone bonkers in other threads, claiming all over the place that the patriot act did the exact same thing. They also claim possess commitatus was removed as well when in fact neither is true. Why is that? Because of other legislation and Supreme Court Rulings.

Would you prefer a law that is so black and white it does not and cannot take into account any other circumstance? Talk about a police state.

People are more than welcome to think what they want, but dont you think they should at least have a grasp / understand the entire picture instead of just bits and pieces?

While I'm glad people are taking interest in this with gusto, they need to do more than just come in here and complain or fear monger by making claims that aren't true.

I'm not going to go into details about the various U2U's ive received from a few different people, however its sad that some people are so paranoid that if anyone expresses a view they dont agree with or understand, that im somehow part of a vast conspiracy sent here to this website to monitor people all the while having my loyalty and patriotism questioned.

Im not sure what worse - the behavior of the government, or the behavior of some of the people in this thread.

reply to post by artfuldodger

Reading your post I can only believe you are unfamiliar with the scope of the Constitution and the military.

The US Constitution applies to US citizens and in some cases legal residents. It does not apply to the French, or the Spanish, or the Germans, or the Russians, just as their Constitution and laws do not apply to Americans in America.

Military jurisdiction is over battlefields. That is what martial law is: military rule placed into the country because of an act of war or battle. I can think of nothing sillier than believing there is an opportunity to enforce civil or common law during a firefight in a battlefield situation. People die in war; that is why it is a thing to be avoided whenever possible.

Even under martial law, there are courts: military courts. They do not have the same procedures as civil or criminal courts, and they do not operate like civil or criminal courts. Judgment can be summary, meaning little evidence is needed, and appeals are extremely rare. Rights of the accused are curtailed, and punishments can be severe. All this is necessary in a war situation.

A veteran could give you a much more exact description of a military tribunal than I am able to.

Which controls when? In the United States, military action is only during a declared period of martial law. If that happens, and this bill is not in any way required to make such a declaration happen, your rights under the Constitution are gone. You are under the jurisdiction of the military. If you are in a foreign country, and there is military action taking place, you may well be under military jurisdiction. You might even be placed under a foreign military jurisdiction!

That is why the military is so vital. Those rights we take so seriously are only able to be exercised because they are specified in the US Constitution we live under. It wasn't all that far back in history when a word form a king or a ruler could send you to the gallows without proof, evidence, or even a chance to speak out. If the USA is invaded by another country, we are right back to might makes right.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Reading YOUR post, I can only believe that you are naive.
The "scope" of the constitution? The "scope" of the military? Give me a break. Our federal government totally ignores the constitution whenever they want, and the military invades and overthrows foreign governments.
Yeah, some "scope".

reply to post by MegaMind

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

Quite possibly.

However, let's take a look at some recent developments:

• D.C. Terror Plot Foiled: Plan To Kill Saudi Arabian Ambassador, Bomb Washington Embassies Disrupted - Octobr 11
  
• Pentagon Terror Plot Foiled - September 29
  
• Foiled New York Terror Plot Teaches Lessons - November 21
  
• Man charged with Obama assassination attempt - November 17
  
• OWS protests
  
• The escalation of tensions surrounding Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Israel
  
• Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen - September 30

Quite a list of ongoing/escalating problems, wouldn't you agree?

The FBI is a police agency, not a military force. They are not prepared to handle things outside a societal correction issue. And just because they can handle what is going on now, it does not follow that they can handle what comes next. No one would dream of waiting to buy a spare tire if they saw frayed fibers sticking out of their tires with the excuse that a spare isn't needed yet. Some things must be in place before needed in order to be effective.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


So I guess what your saying is we should just give them these new powers and pray that they are, and will always be, truly benevolent? Why not just return to having Kings and Queens with absolute power? You know, no pesky rights and constitution to get in the way of protecting the subjects, uh, I mean the people.

I get your point, really I do, and if people were perfect this would be alright with me, but hey if they were this wouldn't even be a discussion would it?

I would feel safer, much safer, with having a government with it hands tied a little by we the people and take my chances with the terrorist. You see Governments have killed many many more people than terrorist.

Over 100 million people have been murdered by the hands of THEIR OWN government ... how many have terrorist killed?

hint: nowhere even close to 100 million.

reply to post by MegaMind

No, I am simply trying to explain how this particular bill isn't that big a deal. People are running around in circles over this, crying about how big bad Uncle Sam is going to pass this law and remove posse comitatus, detain citizens indefinitely, etc., etc., etc. The real danger is that all this uproar over a completely false claim only makes it easier to actually do the things people are apparently worried about.

The amount of actual hysteria over this is well reflected in your contention that, because I recognize the actuality of the totalitarianism of kings and queens, I want to return to that form of government - the exact opposite of what I said about them!

All this bill does, according to what I have read of it, is define how the military, in wartime acts, is to treat enemy combatants. It exempts citizens and legal residents from that definition by stating the military is not bound to this requirement of treatment options where citizens or legal residents are concerned. That does not mean other legal restrictions do not exist; as a matter of fact, this exemption is there to not violate the 6th Amendment.

I wonder what the discussion would be if those exemptions did not exist... I am sure what my position would be. I would be all up in arms myself. The bill would be unconstitutional without those exemptions. Yet, those exemptions that keep the 6th Amendment in place and actually recognize it are the main point of contention.

If you want to talk about how unconstitutional the Patriot Act is, I'm right there with ya'. It violates American's rights to privacy, grants unprecedented and sweeping powers to the Department of Homeland Security without checks and balances, and establishes a dangerous concept in the form of "domestic terrorist". But when you want to go all conspiratorial over a section of this bill which actually recognizes constitutional protections for citizens and legal residents... well, I'm not in that camp.

Sorry. Twist my words all you want to. It will not change their true meaning, nor the legal ramifications of this bill. It just makes people not take you seriously.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by artfuldodger

Reading your post I can only believe you are unfamiliar with the scope of the Constitution and the military.

The US Constitution applies to US citizens and in some cases legal residents. It does not apply to the French, or the Spanish, or the Germans, or the Russians, just as their Constitution and laws do not apply to Americans in America.

Military jurisdiction is over battlefields. That is what martial law is: military rule placed into the country because of an act of war or battle. I can think of nothing sillier than believing there is an opportunity to enforce civil or common law during a firefight in a battlefield situation. People die in war; that is why it is a thing to be avoided whenever possible.

Even under martial law, there are courts: military courts. They do not have the same procedures as civil or criminal courts, and they do not operate like civil or criminal courts. Judgment can be summary, meaning little evidence is needed, and appeals are extremely rare. Rights of the accused are curtailed, and punishments can be severe. All this is necessary in a war situation.

A veteran could give you a much more exact description of a military tribunal than I am able to.

Which controls when? In the United States, military action is only during a declared period of martial law. If that happens, and this bill is not in any way required to make such a declaration happen, your rights under the Constitution are gone. You are under the jurisdiction of the military. If you are in a foreign country, and there is military action taking place, you may well be under military jurisdiction. You might even be placed under a foreign military jurisdiction!

That is why the military is so vital. Those rights we take so seriously are only able to be exercised because they are specified in the US Constitution we live under. It wasn't all that far back in history when a word form a king or a ruler could send you to the gallows without proof, evidence, or even a chance to speak out. If the USA is invaded by another country, we are right back to might makes right.

TheRedneck

The Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. The sections 1032 and 1031 are trying impose laws of war on a domestic population through obviating the recourse of defendants to Constitutional remedies. The military is supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. We face the situation where the military is well past the Rubicon. The military is being used against groups of people who are more rightly parts of criminal organizations, not nation states. The Constitution mentions that persons have rights, not just citizens. There is good reason for that as tyrannies rely on a sliding slope precedents. Section 1031 denies a citizen or person, protection of the Constitution just by the label "enemy combatant" or "material supporter of terror organizations." This label(Section 1031) can be applied by the executive branch, and can be used against anyone. It is possible for the current President to call his political opponent a material supporter of terror, thus securing a second term for an elected monarch. The military authority of the President becomes supreme over Constitutional law. With no due process rights under a military rule, there can be no appeal to the court system.

reply to post by MegaMind


How about you take the time to understand the 4th amendment and how it applies. You do understand the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, but the government. The bill being discussed acknowledges that by exempting US citizens.

The 6th amendment argument is without base because again US citizens are not subject to the law in question. As I stated before the Patriot Act, Jose Padilla, Hamdi / Hamden vs Rumsfeld, the Military commission act of 2006, 2008 and 2009 and all relevant Supreme Court rulings on the items listed has clearly established that US citizens are only subject to domestic law and are not subject to military law or tribunals.

The biggest danger of Sections 1031 and 1032 is that the very vagueness of these codes will force suspects of the government to take intransigent positions. If a farmer is barricaded with his family in his house as it is surrounded by federal agents, should he consider himself as a defendant against the Dept. of Agriculture or is he an enemy combatant who shall endure indefinite detention with the attendant dangers of torture? There are enough frightened and scared people who will not ask questions of government forces, but will shoot first. This is not the fault of fear mongers or paranoids. It is the fault of laws written so vaguely that they inherently engender rational fear of the government.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I understand that the bill of rights are limits on government and that the 4th amendment is being violated at every turn.

The bill does not exempt citizens. It says, for the 100th time, THE REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIZENS. This mean only that they are not REQUIRED to detain citizens BUT the other section clearly states THEY CAN.

Sorry, but i think your interpretation is just plain wrong and I have said why ^

How about you explain why it says "THE REQUIREMENT." If what your saying is true US citizens would be exempted in the Covered Person section WHICH THEY ARE NOT.