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

reply to post by bekod

reply to post by PapaKrok

reply to post by MegaMind


Section 1031 - Part B

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person 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.

The remainder of 1031 deals with military tribunals, and if you would take notice it specifically references the Military Commission Act of 2009. Please review the list of cases I cited to get from point A to excludes US citizens.

1032 sets forth the requirements for military detention -

(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.

As in 1031, we see a reference to the AUMF - 107-40. That specifically deals with the war on terror. Person described in paragraph 2 who are subject to this law -

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

Emphasis added by me. Any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 - terrorists.

Terrorist further defined -

(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.

The waiver requirement, again, has no application to US citizens. We know this because - ]

(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.

This is part of section 4 - The waiver portion above:

(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.

The waiver section specifically states this does NOT apply to US citizens.

Now, how about US Citizens who are overseas who engage US forces?
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

..........

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

......

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

This bill does NOT apply to US Citizens. I dont know how else to make it any clearer. The US Citizens who have gone overseas to engage in war against the US are specifically defined by both US law, as well as UN / International Law on classifications of people during times of war.

double post

reply to post by Xcathdra
ok lets say S 1867 becomes law , you decide along with some other people , you do not like a Fed court ruling so you go down and protest.
The group becomes a mass of people more than say 1000 the states national guard is called out, the mass is ordered to disperse, the mass does not but starts yelling and shouting getting up in the guards faces with your signs, The National Gard Co a Lt determines this is a belligerent act, and you are acting in a combatant manner, do you still have citizen ship under the Bill's amendment? think you know the answer?

(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.

need some help?

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

..........

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

......

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

now lets take it one step further, one of the protesters hits a NG solder with a sign, doing no harm to NG member would the NG have the right to use deadly force?

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

ok lets say S 1867 becomes law , you decide along with some other people , you do not like a Fed court ruling so you go down and protest.
The group becomes a mass of people more than say 1000 the states national guard is called out, the mass is ordered to disperse, the mass does not but starts yelling and shouting getting up in the guards faces with your signs, The National Gard Co a Lt determines this is a belligerent act, and you are acting in a combatant manner, do you still have citizen ship under the Bill's amendment?

edit on 1-12-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

My God - I dont know how else to get this across to you people.

This amendment deals ONLY with terrorism, not the war on drugs, not operation wall street, not the US presidential elections. We know this because of this part at the beginning of 1031 -

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.

I will highlight -
who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40)

This amendment is designed to operate under Public Law 107-40. What is public law 107-40?

Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Its the authorization for the use of force against Afghanistan and the war on terror.

1031 specifically explains who is covered.
1032 specifically explains how it works.

You guys are taking this -

(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.

and this line

(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.

As being completely separate from each other. You guys are interpreting those 2 sections as being completely independent, and because of that you are misinterpreting the Citizen section.

Section 4 - the waiver section continues by specifically stating in Section 4 - subsection B paragraph 1. US Citizens are NOT subject to the law.

You have to read it in its entirety and understand its one section, and not 2 separate sections.

To recap -
The bill is designed for terrorism.
The bill allows the military to detain terrorists
The bill does NOT apply to US citizens.

The bill specifically mentions The Military Commission Act of 2009 as well.

As I said, you MUST understand the big picture and stop seeing what you want. The case law from Jose Padilla, Patriot Act, Military Commission Acts of 2006, 2008 and 2009 are NOT applicable to US Citizens, and can NOT trump civilian Domestic law for US citizens.

This bill does NOT apply to US Citizens - at all.

ok last time for the obtuse ....

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.

(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.

(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) 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.

emphasis mine.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens

.... is a the second part of SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (not part 4 of (a))

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War

.... is the first part of SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

therefore the statement

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

refers to sec 1032 REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

hence the words "The requirement to detain"

question: what does "not extend to citizens"? answer: "the requirement to detain"

So the military is not required to detain. But who are they authorized to detain (SEC 1031)? 1031 does NOT exempt citizens.

READ AND THINK!!!

ONLY THE REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIZENS THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIZENS!!

EDIT: Requirement here does not mean who will be detained, that is defined elsewhere. Requirement means the military MUST/SHALL detain these people. They are required to detain these people. They can get a waiver to not have to detain them and also they do not have to detain citizens. Who may be detained and the authority to detain them is defined elsewhere and does not exempt US citizens.

HOW CAN IT BE MADE ANY CLEARER??!!?

reply to post by Xcathdra
we agree to disagree this is ok for it is not law yet, but when it does if it does and you do decide to protest, just leave when asked er ordered to, it is better to run and fight er protest an other day, than to become looked up.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I could care less how the rest of the world views this law

the truth comes out,
you do not care that this law attemps to subvert the rule of law in my country?
our police, our courts our laws cover us and our CIVIL society.

YOU DO NOT have the right to write laws that superceed our soverenty,
YOU DO NOT have the right to designate any nzer as any thing
we have extradition to the usa

WE HAVE NOT TERRORISTS
the onlt terrorist act in my country EVER was the GOVENMENT OF FRANCE

and if this laws passes the only other terrorists will be the US govenment.
terrorising our civil society with laws and courts and NO TERRORISTS

you see to claim power above and beyond your civil society to impose on our civil society.

read your own laws,
understand that we are a soverign civil society, and you cant write laws that effect that,
and expect others to not be upset.

the fact that you dont really care is telling,
i think if you had a concience you would not be dong this,

YOU DONT CARE THAT YOU SEEK TO CHANGE THE RULES TO MY CIVIL SOCIETY?
WITHOUT OUR AGREEMENT?
TO PROTECT FROM TERRORISTS ?

you are brainwashed into thinking humans who are pieceful lawful soverigns in their civil society,
can be legislated into "less than" human,
and you think ist ok to call one of the most pieceful places on earth "a battle field"

THIS IS A CONVIENIANT POWER GRAB,

and you excuse it without caring for other countries and your passage of law is somehow just?

you are now the tyrant you fear.

i am so ashamed i used to respect you X

the inconvieniant truth now is,
America claims soverignty over the world using military power to justify its breaking of national international and our civil law.

you law does not trump ours because you have a stronger military.

we are pieceful human beings who write our own law and live by agreement to uphold this law for the good of all.
a civil society,

your laws that seek power over us is evil as we are civil

xploder

reply to post by MegaMind


Lol wow..

US citizens are exempt from the bill.

Spin it anyway you want to achieve your I hate the US quota of the week.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MegaMind

 

Lol wow..

US citizens are exempt from the bill.

Spin it anyway you want to achieve your I hate the US quota of the week.

LOL wow you can't read!! I love the US that's why I am trying to WAKE YOU UP!!

here is the text of the Subtitle D--Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. the link below covers 1031 1032
www.downsizedc.org... now under this amendment, you give up your citizen ship when you partake in anti Gov acts. This is how the law reads it, and how I read it.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

we agree to disagree this is ok for it is not law yet, but when it does if it does and you do decide to protest, just leave when asked er ordered to, it is better to run and fight er protest an other day, than to become looked up.

Why? The law doesn't apply to Us Citizens and it DOES NOT apply to domestic actions like protesting. I posted the information that specifically shows its attached to the war on terror.

Are you guys really that paranoid and so eager to be able to find something new to hate the government for that you willfully ignore facts because they undermine the hatred and paranoia plan?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

we agree to disagree this is ok for it is not law yet, but when it does if it does and you do decide to protest, just leave when asked er ordered to, it is better to run and fight er protest an other day, than to become looked up.

Why? The law doesn't apply to Us Citizens and it DOES NOT apply to domestic actions like protesting. I posted the information that specifically shows its attached to the war on terror.

Are you guys really that paranoid and so eager to be able to find something new to hate the government for that you willfully ignore facts because they undermine the hatred and paranoia plan?

NOW you are claiming those that disagree with you hate the US

pathetic argument! You lose!

reply to post by XPLodER


The truth doesn't come out, but in actuality you ability to ignore and only see what you want comes out.

What part of me saying I could care less what the world thinks confused you to mean I could care less what the government of the US thinks or the people of the US?

I am a Us citizen, so please read my pots and understand it before you attempt to twist it into a lie for your use ok.

This bill does NOT subvert the rule of law in the US. It does NOT apply to Us citizens.

Why is this so difficult for you and the others to understand? It states it in the bill how it applies to. It states who is exempt from it. It specifically states the public law it affects and specifically deals with the Military commission act of 2009.

How about you learn the info, all the info, before you rant?

reply to post by Xcathdra


It does apply to US citizens as written!! Go ahead say it .... I'm waiting ....

reply to post by Xcathdra


i think if you couldnt care less about "other" countries people and their rights then eventually it will come out that you also "dont care" about the people in your society either, and you are just hidding your contempt for the moment.

your true nature is showing you wish the entire world to be subjigated to how you see the world

we are a just civil society who are pieceful and lawful and have courts and procedures,
you wish to remove that and replace it with your govenments seceret miliary police.

you are a tyrant
you do not respect my human rights
and i now fear you over any suposed threat
for you are powerful and tangable and deluded and that is many times more dangerous than a band of terrorists.

you are more terrorsum than the suposed terrorists you use to remove your own citizens protection from your tyrany

may god have mercy on us all

xploder

Originally posted by bekod
here is the text of the Subtitle D--Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. the link below covers 1031 1032
www.downsizedc.org... now under this amendment, you give up your citizen ship when you partake in anti Gov acts. This is how the law reads it, and how I read it.

1031 establishes who is covered. It does not say anything about US citizens. It specifically states what public law it affects, in this case the use of force in Afghanistan and war on terror. It specifically deals with the Military Commission Act of 2009 - again confirmation this law has NO affect on US citizens.

1032 talks about waivers, and contrary to the creative editing by megamind, the exception waiver goes on to state US citizens are NOT subject to the law.

As I have stated time and again, and people continue to ignore because it undermines the bash the US band wagon, is the active legislation / laws / court rulings on this topic.

The Supreme Court has already ruled Us citizens are not subject to the UCMJ or military tribunals. They cannot be denied their rights in the US. Read the rulings on Jose Padilla, Military commission act of 2006/2008 and 2009, the USSC case of hamden as well as hamdi Vs. Rumsfeld.

All of those laws and case laws deal with Us citizens and the war on terror. In every single case it establishes US Citizens are NOT subject to the UCMJ or this law.

reply to post by XPLodER


Get off your high horse and quit grandstanding. The debate in the thread deals with the amendment and how it applies to US citizens. Because I have a different view than yours, you condemn me for it. Dont look now, but extremist Islam does the same thing. So when you accused me of being more terrorist apparently you have already established the double standard to protect yourself?

Pathetic man - I expect more form you than just obfuscating the topic to give a pretty rant about something that has nothing to do with the topic.

That is an internal domestic issue so yes, I could care less what foreign countries think about it.

Also before you try to claim your moral high ground how about you explain how this law is worse than how enemies treat our people?

For you, and megamind - This law DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

1032 talks about waivers, and contrary to the creative editing by megamind, the exception waiver goes on to state US citizens are NOT subject to the law.

you can't even follow the structure of the bill ... LOL

reply to post by Xcathdra
well i tried to show you through the law and the bill and the wording with reference to them to no avail, but to you that still have doubt , the US will be a classified as a Battlefield, just be aware of what you say, do, or post. It might get you to Git MO current.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
For you, and megamind - This law DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS.

Wrong! You have the structure of the bill wrong!!