Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens ON US SOIL

[Makalakumu]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...rican-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.


Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.


The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

Five years ago if I would have said this would happen, people would say I was being hyperbolic. Where is this country heading?

 

[Big Don]

Damn that George Bush.
Oh, wait... hahahaha

 

[granfire]

Damn that George Bush.
Oh, wait... hahahaha

sorry, Hun, but he laid the corner stone for that one.

 

[ballen0351]

SOOO this is the CHANGE everyone was talking about

 

[Big Don]

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill,

Hmm, here is the text of the bill from the Library of Congress. Nowhere in there do the words worldwide, indefinite, detention or charge appear.

 

[ballen0351]

Even if it passed congress I dont see it passing thru the Supreme Court

 

[ballen0351]

Hmm, here is the text of the bill from the Library of Congress. Nowhere in there do the words worldwide, indefinite, detention or charge appear.

Thats because the orig. post was from the ACLU all they do is lie

 

[Makalakumu]

Hmm, here is the text of the bill from the Library of Congress. Nowhere in there do the words worldwide, indefinite, detention or charge appear.

Broad powers are defined by what the text doesn't say. This is very real I'm afraid.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Big Don]

Broad powers are defined by what the text doesn't say. This is very real I'm afraid.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

But, the article that YOU cited in the OP clearly states that that is what the text DOES say.

 

[Makalakumu]

But, the article that YOU cited in the OP clearly states that that is what the text DOES say.

Lawyerspeak, Don.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Big Don]

Lawyerspeak, Don.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Bovine feces.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Even if it passed congress I dont see it passing thru the Supreme Court

Did you believe that new laws have to 'pass through' the Supreme Court first before becoming law? Because that's not how it works, actually.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thats because the orig. post was from the ACLU all they do is lie

The ACLU is a very worthwhile organization that defends a variety of Bill of Rights issues that benefit us all. Unfortunately, they are left-leaning and won't take 2nd Amendment cases, which is to their discredit. But they are not liars.

In this case, however, I'm somewhat mystified. I'm not sure I see the clear and present danger that they are claiming. Needs some more research here.

 

[ballen0351]

Did you believe that new laws have to 'pass through' the Supreme Court first before becoming law? Because that's not how it works, actually.

No I undersatnd the process Im saying once it is passed and then challenged which the ACLU plans on doing the Court will stike it down.

 

[ballen0351]

The ACLU is a very worthwhile organization that defends a variety of Bill of Rights issues that benefit us all. .

They were at one time. Now they are just left wing looney tunes. Looking for any chance to sue Police Department to make a buck.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No I undersatnd the process Im saying once it is passed and then challenged which the ACLU plans on doing the Court will stike it down.

They can't challenge until they have standing to do so. And they can't do that until some American citizen is apprehended under the new law and held without charge, etc, as the ACLU seems to think will happen.

However, I did find this...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203503204577040653240862394.html

In part, the White House wanted to make sure it retained flexibility in handling detainees. So, for instance, a new provision would ensure that a civilian interrogation isn't interrupted if law-enforcement officials learn a suspect is a member of al Qaeda.

In a letter to the committee, provided by a senior official, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the compromise didn't alleviate all the administration's concerns about the legislation. The Obama administration objects to the decision not to restrict the military-custody provisions to detainees captured overseas. The defense department said the legislation could restrict transfer of future detainees to other countries and also objected to new language that expanded the detainees held by the military to include any "associated force" acting in coordination with al Qaeda.

The agreement angered human-rights groups by striking original legislative language that excluded U.S. citizens and residents from the indefinite-detention provisions.

"It is a travesty," said Raha Wala, an advocacy counsel for Human Rights First. "It may be an even worse provision now."

So there's a little smoke here, but I'm not sure there is fire.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

They were at one time. Now they are just left wing looney tunes. Looking for any chance to sue Police Department to make a buck.

Far from it.

 

[ballen0351]

Far from it.

My department has had quite a few run ins with them that all i ever see them doing. Oh and making sure you dont say merry christmas. of have the 10 comandments in a govt building or the stars and bars flying

Our latest run in with them was just last year. We have city owned housing projects. We had a policy of banning people from the property if they were arrested and convicted of a felony drug crime or crime of violence. The challenged it saying we had no right to ban people from the property. They won and our banning list was thrown out. Violent crime is now up 63% in our housing projects since the ban was lifted. Murders are up 89% in the housing projects. Great Job ACLU.

 

[jks9199]

Here is the text, because I've found that Thomas searches time out:

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.

I find that 1031(d) seems rather important. Actions against US citizens are limited to those empowered by the Constitution. Even ignoring that section, it seems rather more narrowly drawn than the ACLU would have you think. The persons it authorizes detention of are, essentially, those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks, or who are part of Al Queda, the Taliban or other such bodies engaged in hostilities against the US. Section 1032 simply requires that certain people (basically Al Queda, the Taliban, the like) to be held in military custody. The whole of both really only apply to those people captured under hostilities related to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40)

That said... I don't like the sneaky, backdoor inclusion and methods here. On that basis alone, I'd oppose it. I'm not a fan of secret legislative process; somehow, it seems contrary to what we're supposed to stand for.

 

[oftheherd1]

I would not agree with detention of US citizens without protection of the courts. But this link http://willyloman.wordpress.com/201...032-of-s-1867-does-not-apply-to-u-s-citizens/ seems to show that US citizens are excluded, as well as legal resident aliens. I haven't gone up to the LOC site nor the GPO FDsys and don't have time at the moment. If US citizens are excluded, and only taliban and Al Qaeda subject to that type of arrest, it isn't what the ACLU seems to be saying. That makes other things they say about the bill suspect. In general, I don't like detention of combatants not subject to some oversite. However, the current al Qaeda and others who are willing to do damage to the US, do not play by the rules of war, and disposition of those capture gets a little more murky.