About that Bills of Rights

[bills_fan]

yeah, sorry...CONgress doesn't like it.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11

 

I'd suggest calling your Senators. I've called mine. And if you live in Michigan or Arizona....WTF? Don't vote for McCain or Levin.

[DC Tom]

yeah, sorry...CONgress doesn't like it.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11

 

I'd suggest calling your Senators. I've called mine. And if you live in Michigan or Arizona....WTF? Don't vote for McCain or Levin.

 

That would be a bull **** provision. If it's true. Until I see the actual text of the bill where it allows that, and not an ACLU article referencing nothing but other ACLU articles, I'm skeptical.

[KD in CA]

That would be a bull **** provision. If it's true. Until I see the actual text of the bill where it allows that, and not an ACLU article referencing nothing but other ACLU articles, I'm skeptical.

 

ESPN confirms an ESPN report that Brett Farve is still retired.

 

 

But yeah, that would be a pretty bold step if true.

[/dev/null]

[DC Tom]

Actually, the ACLU is completely wrong. The very section of the bill they're complaining about - section 1032 - says

 

(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.

 

That's pretty damned unambiguous: if you're a citizen, the military can't detain you. At all. Even if you're captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan, much less walking the streets in East Podunk, Nebraska.

 

Good job, ACLU. As though there's not enough to criticize, you have to go and make up nonsense.

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually, the ACLU is completely wrong. The very section of the bill they're complaining about - section 1032 - says

 

 

 

That's pretty damned unambiguous: if you're a citizen, the military can't detain you. At all. Even if you're captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan, much less walking the streets in East Podunk, Nebraska.

 

Good job, ACLU. As though there's not enough to criticize, you have to go and make up nonsense.

It's like the EPA:

instead of focusing on the things they are supposed to be and are good at, they focus on stuff that is way out of their scope, and in doing so detract from their mission and lose their credibility.

 

Somebody needs to kick the far-left nuts out of the left-leaning institutions what we rely on. There was a time when both the EPA and the ACLU were respectable. They weren't trying to push a socialist/one-world government agenda. They were focused on clean air and keeping the police honest. It was easy to respect that.

 

It's impossible to respect their recent behavior.

[....lybob]

Actually, the ACLU is completely wrong. The very section of the bill they're complaining about - section 1032 - says

 

 

 

That's pretty damned unambiguous: if you're a citizen, the military can't detain you. At all. Even if you're captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan, much less walking the streets in East Podunk, Nebraska.

 

Good job, ACLU. As though there's not enough to criticize, you have to go and make up nonsense.

I think the ACLU is talking to you personally Tom

 

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

Edited November 29, 2011 by ....lybob

[DC Tom]

I think the ACLU is talking to you personally Tom

 

Section 1013 is:

 

SEC. 1013. REPORTING REQUIREMENT ON EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT FOREIGN COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES.

 

Section 1022(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-255), as most recently amended by the section 1013 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4347), is further amended by striking `February 15, 2011' and inserting `February 15, 2012'.

 

And Section 1022(a) of 106-398 says:

 

 

 

SEC. 1022. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT FOREIGN COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES.

 

Not later than January 1, 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report detailing the expenditure of funds by the Secretary during fiscal year 2000 in direct or indirect support of the counter-drug activities of foreign governments. The report shall include the following for each foreign government:

 

(1) The total amount of assistance provided to, or expended on behalf of, the foreign government.

(2) A description of the types of counter-drug activities conducted using the assistance.

(3) An explanation of the legal authority under which the assistance was provided

 

Got those from the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov) and the GPO (frwebgate.access.gpo.gov), respectively, by the way.

 

Want to try again?

[....lybob]

OK I really don't know why you quoted sec 1013 and 1023 when the secs in question were 1031 and 1032- but anywho

 

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.

 

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(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.

© 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.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

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©, 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.

(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.

© Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

© Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after 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 effective date.

 

The exemption for U.S citizens and LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS seems to only be made for sec 1032 and not for sec 1031.

[GG]

OK I really don't know why you quoted sec 1013 and 1023 when the secs in question were 1031 and 1032- but anywho

 

 

 

Could it have anything to do with your original post referring to sec 1013?

 

Love that editing feature, don't you?

 

PS - In my cursory reading of 1031 & 1032 - 1031 establishes the authority for detention, but 1032 establishes the rules of how detentions are actually carried out. And 1032 specifically exempts citizens & green card holders.

Edited November 29, 2011 by GG

[DC Tom]

OK I really don't know why you quoted sec 1013 and 1023 when the secs in question were 1031 and 1032- but anywho

 

Because YOU SAID 1013, you idiot.

 

The exemption for U.S citizens and LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS seems to only be made for sec 1032 and not for sec 1031.

 

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©, 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.

(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.

 

I highlighted the parts that say "section 1031 doesn't apply to American citizens", in hopes you might actually understand them if I shout.

 

Now shut the !@#$ up and go watch more Russia Times clips, you ignoramous.

[....lybob]

Because YOU SAID 1013, you idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

I highlighted the parts that say "section 1031 doesn't apply to American citizens", in hopes you might actually understand them if I shout.

 

Now shut the !@#$ up and go watch more Russia Times clips, you ignoramous.

I think

(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.

 

is a problem it needs to be defined better as to associated forces, hostilities,belligerent act, directly supported.

 

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

 

also change this to "The authority"

[Adam]

Section B- See section C

Section C- See Section B

[DC Tom]

I think

 

is a problem it needs to be defined better as to associated forces, hostilities,belligerent act, directly supported.

 

 

 

also change this to "The authority"

 

Oh, I have a LOT of problems with how it's written. But the ACLU - and, by extension, yourself - has its head up its ass on this point.