Miltary this close to treating US as war zone

[Augustine2004]

Lil Pixie, phooey! She says I'm a paranoid conspiracy nut. Well I certainly have reason now.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-m...out-trial.html


The bill may not pass--I hope not! But that Congress would even deign to consider such a monstrosity . . . !

And that explodes Rum Tum Tugger's belief that the military is a bulwark for liberty and justice for all.

Phooey.

[lao tzu]

Yes, Augustine, it's an ugly intrusion, but it hasn't happened yet.

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

It won't pass. And even if it does, Obama will veto it.

[Littlejoe]

Yes, Augustine, it's an ugly intrusion, but it hasn't happened yet.

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

It won't pass. And even if it does, Obama will veto it.

And even it it passed AND Obama didn't veto it...there is no way it passes a civil rights challenge in the courts. As it is clearly unconstitutional.

[seanD]

And even it it passed AND Obama didn't veto it...there is no way it passes a civil rights challenge in the courts. As it is clearly unconstitutional.

The Patriot Act did. All we need is another terrorist event to get the public in an hysterical uproar, and it's over with.

[Littlejoe]

According to the actual Bill found here It states that this provision does not include US Citizens
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.
(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.
***bold emphasis mine***

So I don't know where they are getting the idea that it does. I can't find anywhere where the US is defined as a battleground. Anybody have any info as to where it is? I wonder if Aug4 bothered to actually research it or if he is simply parroting ACLU's website?

LJ

[seanD]

(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.

I wonder if that includes officials of NATO who we now know assisted terrorist groups in Libya, yet who were previous combatants against western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? I guess those were the good al-Qaeda that changed their ways.

[Littlejoe]

(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.

I wonder if that includes officials of NATO who we now know assisted terrorist groups in Libya, yet who were previous combatants against western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan? I guess those were the good al-Qaeda that changed their ways.

That's section 1031, that is clarified by sec. 1032.

[seanD]

That's section 1031, that is clarified by sec. 1032.

NATO is a foreign element, supposedly not covered by 1032 (assuming that revision is a final one).

[joel]

(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.

"this section", i.e., section 1032.
So presumably 1031's authorization to detain indefinitely still applies to U.S. citizens.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-r...isions-of-ndaa

[Augustine2004]

And even it it passed AND Obama didn't veto it...there is no way it passes a civil rights challenge in the courts. As it is clearly unconstitutional.

Ah, but many SCOTUS verdicts are clearly unconstitutional. You probably have not heard that the SCOTUS is the most corrupt branch of the USFG.

[Epoetker]

Use this law to round up all the illegal Mexican immigrants before it gets declared unconstitutional and I, as well as a whole lot of the Army, will be right on board

Mention that to the Justice Department and it'll get declared unconstitutional within a

[Littlejoe]

"this section", i.e., section 1032.
So presumably 1031's authorization to detain indefinitely still applies to U.S. citizens.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-r...isions-of-ndaa

The title and explanation of 1031 is affirming that the Military has the Authorization to detain certain people. - 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 title and explanation of 1032 defines who that is - SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

Is seems pretty self evident to me.

LJ

[Littlejoe]

Ah, but many SCOTUS verdicts are clearly unconstitutional. You probably have not heard that the SCOTUS is the most corrupt branch of the USFG.

No I haven't, but I have heard you will believe just about any conspiracy theory out there...

LJ

[Pilgrim]

If by "this close" you mean "not close at all" I think you're correct. Especially since this is an item being introduced not by the military but by the legislature.

[joel]

The title and explanation of 1031 is affirming that the Military has the Authorization to detain certain people. - 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 title and explanation of 1032 defines who that is - SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

Is seems pretty self evident to me.

LJ

As best as I can tell, 1031 affirms the authority to detain certain people. (says: you may detain)
Then 1032 requires certain people to be detained by the military (says: you shall detain).
Then 1032 gives an exemption to the "shall" for U.S. citizens. Therefore the military does not have to detain them. But it doesn't seem that this diminishes the authorization to detain.


1031 defines who "covered persons" are for the purpose of 1031 (who may be detained).
Then 1032 defines who "covered persons" are for the purpose of 1032 (who must be detained by the military).

Or am I misreading it?