Export thread
S.1867 is the end of America
#1
Null
Null
The Senate has, in closed-door committee meetings, come up with a bill that essentially negates the very idea of citizen rights and threatens the freedom of every one of us. S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, features in section 1031 and 1032 the following powers:
(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
This means that literally, one day federal agents could show up at the door of you, or someone you know, and take them away, without ever having to charge or try them for anything. You can simply be declared an "enemy" and disappeared.
If you have any belief in the rights of the people to not be subject to summary arrest and indefinite detention without charge or trial, you must contact your Senator and tell them to vote YES on the Udall Amendment, which will strip the bill of sections 1031 and 1032.
(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
This means that literally, one day federal agents could show up at the door of you, or someone you know, and take them away, without ever having to charge or try them for anything. You can simply be declared an "enemy" and disappeared.
If you have any belief in the rights of the people to not be subject to summary arrest and indefinite detention without charge or trial, you must contact your Senator and tell them to vote YES on the Udall Amendment, which will strip the bill of sections 1031 and 1032.
#2
GasBandit
GasBandit
It really surprises me that Carl Levin and John McCain would be the masterminds behind this... thing... Levin being Jewish, and McCain being, well, McCain.
#3
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
That is some KGB shit right there.
#4
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
What in the fuck is this...
#5
Null
Null
Our government at work, against us.What in the fuck is this...
#6
strawman
strawman
It makes more explicit the idea that a citizen who acts treasonously against the US can be dealt with militarily, rather than in civil courts. The problem the US currently has is that treason is currently defined as working with a nation against the US. Terrorists often aren't associated with nations, and so they are trying to grapple with the issue - how do you prosecute citizens who conduct military actions against the US.
The court system and laws are not designed to deal with military actions. Citizens are generally covered under the court system and laws of the US.
What should we do, however, to citizens who attack the US and its citizens as a military action?
So the "covered persons" in 1031.b specify those who could be detained.
And yes, it's scary, but it's hardly the "end of america"
However, I don't think people are comfortable with the idea of treason - is Oliver North the last person we've found and convicted as treasonous?
Note that I'm using "treason" here as a convenience - this bill doesn't actually use that word, nor does it affect the official definition of treason. However, there appears to be a gap between a treasonous citizen, and a non-citizen terrorist that we can't currently, successfully, prosecute or punish. This attempts to fill that gap.
Also, I'm making all this up based on my own reading and interpretation of this one small section of the bill - I could be way off my rocker - here, you read it and figure out if it's the end of the USA:
The court system and laws are not designed to deal with military actions. Citizens are generally covered under the court system and laws of the US.
What should we do, however, to citizens who attack the US and its citizens as a military action?
So the "covered persons" in 1031.b specify those who could be detained.
And yes, it's scary, but it's hardly the "end of america"
However, I don't think people are comfortable with the idea of treason - is Oliver North the last person we've found and convicted as treasonous?
Note that I'm using "treason" here as a convenience - this bill doesn't actually use that word, nor does it affect the official definition of treason. However, there appears to be a gap between a treasonous citizen, and a non-citizen terrorist that we can't currently, successfully, prosecute or punish. This attempts to fill that gap.
Also, I'm making all this up based on my own reading and interpretation of this one small section of the bill - I could be way off my rocker - here, you read it and figure out if it's the end of the USA:
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.
(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) 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.SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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).
(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.
(c) 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.
(C) 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.
#7
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
"The USA is not a police state" - an idiot
Added at: 12:00
Added at: 12:00
nah, you're just a fascistI could be way off my rocker
#8
GasBandit
GasBandit
STFU Charlie"The USA is not a police state" - an idiot
Added at: 12:00
nah, you're just a fascist
#9
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
#10
strawman
strawman
Here's the bill text link, in case anyone wants to poke around and find all the other places where they are ending america:
Bill summary and status:
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867
Table of contents:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867.PCS:/
Section 1031 and on, click on Subtitle D in the table of contents (stupid website doesn't provide direct link).
Note that the Senate Armed Services committee compiled the bill (haha - "closed doors" that's how bills are started ), and its chairperson (Senator Carl Levin [MI-democrat]) submitted it. It's being considered by the senate - now is the time where everyone picks it apart and debates about it. Eventually it will be passed in some form or another because it defines the military budget for 2012 - to the tune of $662 billion, according to the CBO.
The equivalent bill in the house is http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr1540
I encourage you to search through it to see if it has anything similar regarding the detainment of citizens.
Bill summary and status:
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867
Table of contents:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867.PCS:/
Section 1031 and on, click on Subtitle D in the table of contents (stupid website doesn't provide direct link).
Note that the Senate Armed Services committee compiled the bill (haha - "closed doors" that's how bills are started ), and its chairperson (Senator Carl Levin [MI-democrat]) submitted it. It's being considered by the senate - now is the time where everyone picks it apart and debates about it. Eventually it will be passed in some form or another because it defines the military budget for 2012 - to the tune of $662 billion, according to the CBO.
The equivalent bill in the house is http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr1540
I encourage you to search through it to see if it has anything similar regarding the detainment of citizens.
#11
Sara_2814
Well, I guess I'm a fascist, too, because Null's excerpt has a whole different meaning when you add in 1031.b and 1032.a.2.
Literacy -- Destroying America One Word at a Time!
Sara_2814
LOL, really? Educating yourself by reading the source material rather than trusting an out-of-context excerpt is "fascism"?"The USA is not a police state" - an idiot
Added at: 12:00
nah, you're just a fascist
Well, I guess I'm a fascist, too, because Null's excerpt has a whole different meaning when you add in 1031.b and 1032.a.2.
Literacy -- Destroying America One Word at a Time!
#12
makare
makare
ah yeah i didn't have time to read the whole thing. Excellent.
#13
AshburnerX
Do we really want to have to deal with another Joseph McCarthy?
AshburnerX
I think the issue here is exactly what kind of person is "covered" and who gets to decide it. As is, the bill is rife with potential for abuse... potential that WILL be exploited for reasons beyond it's intended purpose, as the PATRIOT Act and Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have shown us in the past.So the "covered persons" in 1031.b specify those who could be detained.
And yes, it's scary, but it's hardly the "end of america"
Do we really want to have to deal with another Joseph McCarthy?
#14
strawman
strawman
That's the rub. But keep in mind that this is merely a bill, and will be trumped by the constitution, bill of rights, and amendments. If this is used in opposition to the constitution then it will be overturned. So there will be some push and pull as cases are tried.I think the issue here is exactly what kind of person is "covered" and who gets to decide it.
#15
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Yes, constantly. He was just another culture warrior throwing out unfounded accusations. Hell, we now have a couple of "24-hour News" channels that do the same thing.Do we really want to have to deal with another Joseph McCarthy?
#16
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
Hey, Steinman, your links are broken. To link to a bill, you have to use the "Share/Save" button on the page, and then get the URL from that. So the Summary & Status is at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867 (then that URL redirects to the links you gave, which are temps and expire with the session, apparently).
Whoever designed that site should be arrested for terrorism.
Whoever designed that site should be arrested for terrorism.
#17
strawman
strawman
Thanks, Sara. I fixed the links as best I could.
For those who find the links broken in the future, do a web search for "S. 1867" and look for "loc.gov" in the results.
For those who find the links broken in the future, do a web search for "S. 1867" and look for "loc.gov" in the results.
#18
Dave
Dave
The problem is twofold. First, they use loose enough definitions that nearly anyone can be labeled a terrorist or enemy of the state. Think OWS protesters. But it won't hold up in court as it basically removes habeas corpus. The biggest issue is even if it doesn't hold up in court, how long will it take for the law to get to the supreme court and what will be happening to those incarcerated during that time? Even though the bill states that it won't be used against US citizens, it's very easy to label someone so that that portion of the law would no longer affect them and they'd be able to be absconded.
So you are all right. It's a terrible bill but there are protections built in, even if those protections are too easily removed or sidestepped.
Not the end of America, but it's certainly an insidious step towards furthering the police state and further centralizing the power and taking it away from the citizens.
So you are all right. It's a terrible bill but there are protections built in, even if those protections are too easily removed or sidestepped.
Not the end of America, but it's certainly an insidious step towards furthering the police state and further centralizing the power and taking it away from the citizens.
#19
GasBandit
GasBandit
That's crap. I'm enacting MARTIAN law.
#20
ElJuski
ElJuski
For some reason I feel like there's wayyyyyyy more context to this shit than what a few knuckleheads on an internet forum are saying.
#21
Dave
Dave
It's 1000 pages. So yeah, I think so.
#22
ElJuski
ElJuski
Oh, good. But you know, let's all still have a great round of AMERICA FUCKING SUX FASCIST FUCKERS POLICE STATE OH GOD LIKE SYFY CHANNEL PREDICTED
#23
Null
Null
Yes, because there's nothing that should be alarming about giving the government ill-defined and broad-based power that they can use against their own people.
#24
ElJuski
ElJuski
There's certainly nothing alarming about thirty words jacked from a thousand-some-page document and posted on Halforums. I'll start being afraid when I hear more from people at the source. The rest of this is just arm chair postulation.
#25
GasBandit
GasBandit
I'm of the opinion that every "step in that direction" should be fought tooth and nail, because each time it will always just be a "step in that direction" until we've taken enough steps to be there. We don't want to be the frog that is boiled alive slowly.
#26
ElJuski
ElJuski
By all means. But fighting it tooth and nail might require actually reading the entire document and speaking to somebody--say, a politician-- who might be able to sort it out. But again I doubt this is any step towards anything, and nobody will feel this any time soon.
#27
GasBandit
GasBandit
Smells too much like the patriot act to me. Might turn out to be nothing as you say, but the chance of it being otherwise abused is not one I'm comfortable with.By all means. But fighting it tooth and nail might require actually reading the entire document and speaking to somebody--say, a politician-- who might be able to sort it out. But again I doubt this is any step towards anything, and nobody will feel this any time soon.
#28
Adammon
Adammon
You keep your god-damn sensible reactions to yourself mister, this is an INTERNET FORUM!By all means. But fighting it tooth and nail might require actually reading the entire document and speaking to somebody--say, a politician-- who might be able to sort it out. But again I doubt this is any step towards anything, and nobody will feel this any time soon.
#29
Necronic
Necronic
Thanks for posting the actual wording of the bill Steinman. Infinitely more informative than the original post.
But I do agree with Dave's assesment that the definitions are far to loosely defined and it effectively eliminates Habeus Corpus so it will never survive in courts. That said the point is to remove the courts.....so....yeah that could be a problem.
Also I don't see the necessity of this bill. An american citizen that is overseas working with terrorists can be killed by the government, we already have seen that. And an american citizen that is in country and working with terrorists can be handled by the Justice Department. There is absolutely ZERO reason to eliminate the justice department from this.
I am apalled that they think this is a good idea, and more apalled that it is probably going to get over-reacting "WE LIVE IN A POLICE STATE" responses from the left and similarly ridiculous "Quit being weak on terror!" cries from the right.
I am seriously considering pushing for Canada when my girlfriend chooses her PhD Internship.
But I do agree with Dave's assesment that the definitions are far to loosely defined and it effectively eliminates Habeus Corpus so it will never survive in courts. That said the point is to remove the courts.....so....yeah that could be a problem.
Also I don't see the necessity of this bill. An american citizen that is overseas working with terrorists can be killed by the government, we already have seen that. And an american citizen that is in country and working with terrorists can be handled by the Justice Department. There is absolutely ZERO reason to eliminate the justice department from this.
I am apalled that they think this is a good idea, and more apalled that it is probably going to get over-reacting "WE LIVE IN A POLICE STATE" responses from the left and similarly ridiculous "Quit being weak on terror!" cries from the right.
I am seriously considering pushing for Canada when my girlfriend chooses her PhD Internship.
#30
Null
Null
As an update, the Udall amendment, which would have removed sections 1031 and 1032, was voted down 38-60.
#31
GasBandit
GasBandit
Hrm, given that the bill's sponsor has a D after his name, I think the "right" will more likely try to connect Obama to the bill, or at the very least democrats in general, for leverage in the 2012 election.I am apalled that they think this is a good idea, and more apalled that it is probably going to get over-reacting "WE LIVE IN A POLICE STATE" responses from the left and similarly ridiculous "Quit being weak on terror!" cries from the right.
#32
strawman
strawman
I'd like to see the text of the "Udall Amendment" because I'm hearing reports that it has serious problems - it goes far beyond just removing 1031 and 1032, if reports are to be believed.As an update, the Udall amendment, which would have removed sections 1031 and 1032, was voted down 38-60.
#33
Krisken
Krisken
Well of course. They need a crazy, fucked up bill that distracts from the crazy fucked up screw the internet bill.
#34
GasBandit
GasBandit
When they were making constitutional amendments, I think they'd have just simplified everything if they called it a day after the first 5 words.
#35
strawman
strawman
Man, getting through this stuff is painful.
The "Udall amendment" Amendment 1107 strikes all of subtitle D, and replaces it with essentially a requirement that the gov't justify itself for guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq, etc,etc.
Not only does it remove 1031, and 1032, but also 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037. It's essentially grandstanding. "Rather than give you the power you want, I want you to answer for the power you're already exerting."
This is all well and good, except that no one was seriously supporting it. They got the media involved, and got a bit of publicity with some cute soundbites, but anyone who reads the actual amendment knows it's just posturing.
Why doesn't Udall submit an amendment that will actually have some useful effect, that others will vote for? Primarily because this is merely the opening shot in a long, drawn-out process. People are all up in arms about this military bill, but it's going to see a lot of action on the floor - anyone who thinks this is a fast process, and that they better light a fire is simply being used to build the frenzied support some of these senators need to get their slice of the $622 billion pie.
Anyway. Here's the congressional record of the amendment as it was introduced to the senate:
Click on "All Congressional Actions With amendments"
Search the page for "S.AMDT.1107"
Then click on the link to the first consideration.
Or something like that. Good luck.
The "Udall amendment" Amendment 1107 strikes all of subtitle D, and replaces it with essentially a requirement that the gov't justify itself for guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq, etc,etc.
Not only does it remove 1031, and 1032, but also 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037. It's essentially grandstanding. "Rather than give you the power you want, I want you to answer for the power you're already exerting."
This is all well and good, except that no one was seriously supporting it. They got the media involved, and got a bit of publicity with some cute soundbites, but anyone who reads the actual amendment knows it's just posturing.
Why doesn't Udall submit an amendment that will actually have some useful effect, that others will vote for? Primarily because this is merely the opening shot in a long, drawn-out process. People are all up in arms about this military bill, but it's going to see a lot of action on the floor - anyone who thinks this is a fast process, and that they better light a fire is simply being used to build the frenzied support some of these senators need to get their slice of the $622 billion pie.
Anyway. Here's the congressional record of the amendment as it was introduced to the senate:
To find it, go here: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To revise the provisions relating to detainee matters)
Strike subtitle D of title X and insert the following:
Subtitle D--Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. REVIEW 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.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:
(1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).
(2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.
(3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.
(b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person, other than a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, whose detention or prosecution by the Armed Forces of the United States is consistent with the laws of war and based on authority provided by any of the following:
(1) The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
(2) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
(3) Any other statutory or constitutional authority for use of military force.
(c) Congressional Action.--Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
Click on "All Congressional Actions With amendments"
Search the page for "S.AMDT.1107"
Then click on the link to the first consideration.
Or something like that. Good luck.
#36
Covar
Covar
And yet it's 1000 pages. Pretty much sums up what's so fucked up about Congress. Why be clear, specific and concise when you can write 1000 page bills that are far-reaching, vague, and more importantly confusing?But I do agree with Dave's assesment that the definitions are far to loosely defined
#37
Null
Null
Okay, even I have to admit, that's pretty screwed up.
#38
Krisken
Krisken
Works for banks.And yet it's 1000 pages. Pretty much sums up what's so fucked up about Congress. Why be clear, specific and concise when you can write 1000 page bills that are far-reaching, vague, and more importantly confusing?
#39
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
According to the OP content, they won't be tried. You can basically just be put in a box and forgotten about.That's the rub. But keep in mind that this is merely a bill, and will be trumped by the constitution, bill of rights, and amendments. If this is used in opposition to the constitution then it will be overturned. So there will be some push and pull as cases are tried.
#40
strawman
No single senator is ever going to read and understand the full bill as it was submitted, nevermind the amendments. They use staffers to parse the language and point out anything that might be worth making a stink about. The majority of the bill (90% or so, perhaps) is simple housekeeping, and is generally ignored unless it can be used as a bargaining chip for something else. They fight like cats and dogs over the more precious bits - items that might be turned to their advantage in terms of industries in their states, or political advantage. They insert completely irrelevant stuff simply to get it passed.
This defense bill, for instance, modifies and funds, in part, the clean water act specifically for rural water systems. Why is it in the defense bill? Why not! Further, the President doesn't have line-item veto. He can veto the whole bill, or none of it. It's one of the checks and balances that gives congress real power - Yes, the president can vote against the rural water stuff, but then he also throws away his half trillion dollar military budget. It's an arm wrestling match, and he has to balance the whole against the minor irritations of the little things thrown into the pot along with it. Gumbo is great, but if the cook likes a bit of gristle in their gumbo, you might have to eat some gristle if you want the rest of the gumbo.
It's a ridiculous process. Uniquely American, you might say.
Added at: 19:58
strawman
It's what our process has become. They simply can't sit there and vote for the 2,000 items they need to pass, so they cram them all in one bill. A sub committee of members of congress from both parties put the bill together, then it gets sent to the floor and, for a bill this size, weeks and months of debate, amendments, etc occur. The same happens on a similar but not quite the same bill in the house. Then another committee is formed from both senate and house and they agree on the same set of amendments that makes the bill the same on both sides, then they pass it and it goes to the president.And yet it's 1000 pages. Pretty much sums up what's so fucked up about Congress. Why be clear, specific and concise when you can write 1000 page bills that are far-reaching, vague, and more importantly confusing?
No single senator is ever going to read and understand the full bill as it was submitted, nevermind the amendments. They use staffers to parse the language and point out anything that might be worth making a stink about. The majority of the bill (90% or so, perhaps) is simple housekeeping, and is generally ignored unless it can be used as a bargaining chip for something else. They fight like cats and dogs over the more precious bits - items that might be turned to their advantage in terms of industries in their states, or political advantage. They insert completely irrelevant stuff simply to get it passed.
This defense bill, for instance, modifies and funds, in part, the clean water act specifically for rural water systems. Why is it in the defense bill? Why not! Further, the President doesn't have line-item veto. He can veto the whole bill, or none of it. It's one of the checks and balances that gives congress real power - Yes, the president can vote against the rural water stuff, but then he also throws away his half trillion dollar military budget. It's an arm wrestling match, and he has to balance the whole against the minor irritations of the little things thrown into the pot along with it. Gumbo is great, but if the cook likes a bit of gristle in their gumbo, you might have to eat some gristle if you want the rest of the gumbo.
It's a ridiculous process. Uniquely American, you might say.
Added at: 19:58
If they only targeted people with no close friends or family, then perhaps there would be no cases. I suspect, however, that even then someone would find out, and get the ACLU and others involved to test out the law, if not friends and family. If it happened to my wife, my kids, anyone in my family, I would not stop until I took it to the supreme court.According to the OP content, they won't be tried. You can basically just be put in a box and forgotten about.
#41
Null
Null
Okay, I have to admit, my initial information came from the ACLU. Was it complete? No. But it also wasn't entirely mis-representative; if passed, those provisions to this bill could allow exactly that - disappearing US citizens without any due process. This is the sort of thing that there needs to be the occasional foofaraw about, because ultimately we are responsible for what sort of things become law.
#42
strawman
strawman
The bill needs better language to define the process for determining a suspect's status as a terrorist or not, and defines what rights they have to clear themselves, get representation, etc. On of the larger problems here is people assume that once they are imprisoned by the military, they have no charges, no rights, etc - which is wrong. They will be able to fight the charges in military tribunals. It's different than civilian courts, but it's not like people are going to be thrown into a pit with no recourse. Due to guantanamo, the gov't has a process in place for detainees.
#43
Sara_2814
I used to work for an environmental testing company that had the USAF as a client and you would not believe just how much the military has to do with clean water. Or should I say "contaminated water that smelled so bad you had to plug your nose when you went into the sample cooler even though it was in jars packed in vermiculite inside a cooler inside a refrigerator". Not saying the Clean Water stuff wasn't just tacked on as pork, but it wouldn't be out of place either, depending on the context. It actually makes a lot of sense for the Clean Water Act to show up in a defense bill if it was regarding rural water quality near military installations. Which section of the bill is it?
Sara_2814
This defense bill, for instance, modifies and funds, in part, the clean water act specifically for rural water systems. Why is it in the defense bill?
I used to work for an environmental testing company that had the USAF as a client and you would not believe just how much the military has to do with clean water. Or should I say "contaminated water that smelled so bad you had to plug your nose when you went into the sample cooler even though it was in jars packed in vermiculite inside a cooler inside a refrigerator". Not saying the Clean Water stuff wasn't just tacked on as pork, but it wouldn't be out of place either, depending on the context. It actually makes a lot of sense for the Clean Water Act to show up in a defense bill if it was regarding rural water quality near military installations. Which section of the bill is it?
#44
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nati...s-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-20111117
Despite his bloodlust for assassinating US Citizens abroad, it looks like Obama would do the right thing if this passes Congress. Whew.
Despite his bloodlust for assassinating US Citizens abroad, it looks like Obama would do the right thing if this passes Congress. Whew.
#45
Tress
Tress
Bloodlust?
#46
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Obama cannot orgasm unless a drone blows up a jeep filled with his Moslem brothers.
#47
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
No wonder the tabloids say his wife wants a divorce.Obama cannot orgasm unless a drone blows up a jeep filled with his Moslem brothers.
#48
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
(the bloodlust part was joking)
#49
makare
makare
we need a that was a joke font.
Which side of the Duck has the most feathers? The outside!
Which side of the Duck has the most feathers? The outside!
#50
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Uh... no. A military tribunal is essentially being thrown into a pit with no recourse. The jury you have to sway is made up of the people trying to put you away and the burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence. More over, you are likely to be denied adequate representation on the grounds of national security. It's next to impossible to win one of these, especially since the members of the court don't have to answer to anyone but themselves.One of the larger problems here is people assume that once they are imprisoned by the military, they have no charges, no rights, etc - which is wrong. They will be able to fight the charges in military tribunals. It's different than civilian courts, but it's not like people are going to be thrown into a pit with no recourse.
#51
Necronic
Necronic
So, everyone put on your Alex Jones shirts for this next one. I wanted to see if any lawyers etc had already started crying foul on the Habeus Corpus problems with this bill. So I googled 1867 Habeus Corpus. As I hit enter I was like "oh snap, 1867 is like a year, but....meh what are the chances that it's some big thing for habeus corpus, this should take me right to S. 1867"
Whelp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1867
In that one it was a movement to expand the power of Habaes Corpus to allow Federal writs on State imprisonment. Calling the house bill S. 1867 is a clear "thumbing of the nose" by the New World Order at us.
Ok, taking my Alex Jones shirt off now.
Whelp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1867
In that one it was a movement to expand the power of Habaes Corpus to allow Federal writs on State imprisonment. Calling the house bill S. 1867 is a clear "thumbing of the nose" by the New World Order at us.
Ok, taking my Alex Jones shirt off now.
#52
strawman
strawman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunals_in_the_United_StatesUh... no. A military tribunal is essentially being thrown into a pit with no recourse.
#53
Necronic
Also the critically acclaimed "JAG" never would have come out, which would have set western civilisation back by at least 10 years.
Necronic
If this were true then "A Few Good Men" would have been the most boring movie in the world.Uh... no. A military tribunal is essentially being thrown into a pit with no recourse. The jury you have to sway is made up of the people trying to put you away and the burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence. More over, you are likely to be denied adequate representation on the grounds of national security. It's next to impossible to win one of these, especially since the members of the court don't have to answer to anyone but themselves.
Also the critically acclaimed "JAG" never would have come out, which would have set western civilisation back by at least 10 years.
#54
makare
makare
I found out A Few Good Men is based on a true story. I thought that was fun.
#55
Necronic
Necronic
JAG is also based on a true story.
It's called America.
It's called America.
#56
makare
makare
I never watched it and when I saw JAG i didn't even think of a show. lol.
#57
Covar
Covar
It's understandable. JAG was a show mostly watched by people only slightly younger than Dave.I never watched it and when I saw JAG i didn't even think of a show. lol.
#58
makare
makare
It was the show that spawned NCIS though right? now that show i love. mmm DiNozzo.
#59
strawman
They may well be nearly the same process, but those shows don't show military tribunals (although perhaps they had one in a given JAG episode?).
strawman
Technically those aren't military tribunals, they are court marshal. The difference being that a tribunal prosecutes non-citizen soldiers, while a court marshal prosecutes soldiers of our own forces.If this were true then "A Few Good Men" would have been the most boring movie in the world.
Also the critically acclaimed "JAG" never would have come out, which would have set western civilisation back by at least 10 years.
They may well be nearly the same process, but those shows don't show military tribunals (although perhaps they had one in a given JAG episode?).
#60
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
From the wiki you posted.Technically those aren't military tribunals, they are court marshal. The difference being that a tribunal prosecutes non-citizen soldiers, while a court marshal prosecutes soldiers of our own forces.
They may well be nearly the same process, but those shows don't show military tribunals (although perhaps they had one in a given JAG episode?).
Basically, Military Tribunals don't remotely resemble Common Law courts. They look more like the Guantanamo military commission.A military tribunal or commission is most usually used to refer to a court that asserts jurisdiction over persons who are combatants of an enemy force, are held in military custody, and are accused of a violation of the laws of war. In contrast, courts-martial generally take jurisdiction over only members of their own military. A military tribunal or commission may still use the rules and procedures of a court-martial, although that is not generally the case.
The Guantanamo military trials do not operate according to either system of justice. The differences include:
- Unlike civilian courts, only two-thirds of the jury needs to agree in order to convict someone under the military commission rules. This includes charges such as supporting terrorism, attempted murder, and murder.[4]
- The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The Presiding Officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute.[5]
- It may be possible for the commission to consider evidence that was extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act.[6] However, legally the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense.[7]
- The proceedings may be closed at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, so that secret information may be discussed by the commission.[8]
- The accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can only use military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret security clearance.[9]
- Because the accused are charged as unlawful combatants, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that an acquittal on all charges by the commission is no guarantee of a release.[10]
The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings. Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President. The U. S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
#61
Zappit
Zappit
#62
Null
Null
I sure hope it's vetoed.
#63
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Senator Rockefeller. Senator Manchin.
Go fuck yourselves.
Go fuck yourselves.
#64
strawman
strawman
tldr; RTFLegislation - Citizens and lawful resident aliens are explicitly disallowed in the bill that was actually passed. The previous language was amended, and people shouldn't be so up-in-arms about it any longer.
.
You guys suck. Seriously. Read the bill that was actually passed and you'll find, in quite plain language:
I suppose you can be annoyed about the possibility of illegal aliens disappearing now.
But the actual language of the bill that was passed does NOT allow citizens to be detained under these rules.
Here's the full text of the relevant sections for those interested (which can be found by going here, clicking on"Text of Legislation", searching for "Detainee" and clicking on "Subtitle D: Detainee Matters") - there is more to subtitle D about detainee matters, such as transporting them, etc, but it's not relevant to this discussion:
.
You guys suck. Seriously. Read the bill that was actually passed and you'll find, in quite plain language:
Alright? All this section does now is give a clear path for them to consider existing and future detainees who are NOT citizens or lawful resident aliens.
(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 suppose you can be annoyed about the possibility of illegal aliens disappearing now.
But the actual language of the bill that was passed does NOT allow citizens to be detained under these rules.
Here's the full text of the relevant sections for those interested (which can be found by going here, clicking on"Text of Legislation", searching for "Detainee" and clicking on "Subtitle D: Detainee Matters") - there is more to subtitle D about detainee matters, such as transporting them, etc, but it's not relevant to this discussion:
S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)
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.
(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) 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.SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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).
(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.
(c) 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.
(C) 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.
#65
makare
makare
Also 1000 pages for a bill like that doesn't seem all that bad to me. I mean it is a lot of pages but vagueness in legislation is not a good thing. If the bill covered 50 issues that would only be 20 pages an issue so some are more some are less but it works out about right.
And before anyone points out "great things" that are less than 5 pages like the bill of rights or whatever, believe me more than 1000 pages have been written clarifying the bill of rights probably more than 10,0000. Less is not really more in legislation.
And before anyone points out "great things" that are less than 5 pages like the bill of rights or whatever, believe me more than 1000 pages have been written clarifying the bill of rights probably more than 10,0000. Less is not really more in legislation.
#66
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Yeah, but they tend not to spend 1000 pages clarifying those issues; if anything, it makes the law more vague with the wording, and they sneak in a bunch of unrelated bullshit.
I'm so sick of Congress, more than any other section of our government. Maybe it's because I've been living nearby for too long. I didn't feel this way in New York. It was a bunch of bitching about Bloomberg then.
I'm so sick of Congress, more than any other section of our government. Maybe it's because I've been living nearby for too long. I didn't feel this way in New York. It was a bunch of bitching about Bloomberg then.
#67
makare
makare
I don't understand what you mean. I am saying that they do in fact write thousands of pages clarifying those issues.
#68
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
And I'm saying I don't think it clarifies anything. I highly doubt that if individual members of Congress are too busy to vote issue-by-issue that they take the time to read every page of every bill when the bills get to be hundreds of pages long. I don't think it's to clarify anything. I think it's to make the bill intimidating so it's less likely to be gone over carefully, which is why we get shit hidden inside like the water situation mentioned earlier in the thread. Most bills have unrelated crap like that, with everything getting piled together. I don't believe our elected representatives actually wade through all that to know exactly what they're voting on.
So no, I don't think it clarifies the issues of the bill.
So no, I don't think it clarifies the issues of the bill.
#69
ElJuski
ElJuski
clicked on this thread again, read the words "New World Order", facepalmed.
#70
Espy
Espy
Oh man, I love Ministry.clicked on this thread again, read the words "New World Order", facepalmed.
#71
Krisken
Krisken
FUCK YEAH!
#72
Espy
Espy
I thought you'd appreciate that.
#73
Krisken
Krisken
It's the first thing I thought of and was going to post it myself 
#74
makare
makare
QP, you also have to keep in mind that even if the senators do not read the bill there is an army of congressional aides that do.
#75
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
So, Obama's a shithead after all and signed it into law, no question, no revision.
Fortunately, there are Senators already trying to pass another act to amend it, the Due Process Guarantee Act. Show support.
Fortunately, there are Senators already trying to pass another act to amend it, the Due Process Guarantee Act. Show support.
#76
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I really liked the Daily Show's take on it, where they point out that even if Obama never uses it, someone else will.
#77
strawman
Please post the actual section from the version of the bill that was actually passed and signed that is evil.
Unless, of course, you're content just eating up the fanatic's take like every other bottom feeding media outlet out there.
strawman
Of course he did. It doesn't change due process for american citizens one whit.So, Obama's a shithead after all and signed it into law, no question, no revision.
Please post the actual section from the version of the bill that was actually passed and signed that is evil.
Unless, of course, you're content just eating up the fanatic's take like every other bottom feeding media outlet out there.
#78
Krisken
Krisken
Define terrorist. Make sure it will stand up in a court of law. Also, define domestic terrorist. Make sure the definition can't be twisted to include people simply standing up for their rights.
#79
Sara_2814
From the bill:
Sara_2814
Define terrorist. Make sure it will stand up in a court of law. Also, define domestic terrorist. Make sure the definition can't be twisted to include people simply standing up for their rights.
From the bill:
How much more specific do they have to get? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be a smartass. A lot of bills are (rightfully) criticized for being vague in who it applies to, but I don't see how this one is. To me, this bill is doing it right. You may disagree with al-Qaeda/Taliban associates being treated this way, but I never see that being brought up in any of these discussions. It's all about how it's going to be used agains, say, college students protesting tuition increases or Occupy protestors or whatever. How? How is (1) and/or (2) going to apply to the average protesting college student?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.
#80
Tress
Tress
This appears to me that the left wants to be outraged at something, and no amount of logic is going to dissuade them.
#81
strawman
strawman
The politicians want people to be outraged about something - preferably something that will win people to their side next election.
#82
Krisken
"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"
What is considered belligerent? What are 'associated forces'? How tenuous can the link be? Can it be as non existent as the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and the Taliban when we invaded with the Iraq war? You see where I'm going here? What are the consequences for wrongful imprisonment or execution? That's the biggest problem with this, I feel. There has to be a consequence for abuses of power.
Krisken
I think this part is kinda vague...From the bill:
How much more specific do they have to get? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be a smartass. A lot of bills are (rightfully) criticized for being vague in who it applies to, but I don't see how this one is. To me, this bill is doing it right. You may disagree with al-Qaeda/Taliban associates being treated this way, but I never see that being brought up in any of these discussions. It's all about how it's going to be used agains, say, college students protesting tuition increases or Occupy protestors or whatever. How? How is (1) and/or (2) going to apply to the average protesting college student?
"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"
What is considered belligerent? What are 'associated forces'? How tenuous can the link be? Can it be as non existent as the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and the Taliban when we invaded with the Iraq war? You see where I'm going here? What are the consequences for wrongful imprisonment or execution? That's the biggest problem with this, I feel. There has to be a consequence for abuses of power.
#83
Covar
Covar
Or how about including the word non-citizen in there. You know the one area in particular where there shouldn't be any vagueness.
#84
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Also, who gets to decide what these things mean on a case by case basis? What sort of oversight do they have? What are the standards to determine conviction? Who gets to judge guilt or innocence? What sort of compensation do the victims of false and incorrect capture and imprisonment get?I think this part is kinda vague...
"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"
What is considered belligerent? What are 'associated forces'? How tenuous can the link be? Can it be as non existent as the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and the Taliban when we invaded with the Iraq war? You see where I'm going here? What are the consequences for wrongful imprisonment or execution? That's the biggest problem with this, I feel. There has to be a consequence for abuses of power.
#85
strawman
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
does not extend to citizens of the United States.
What part of that are you having difficulty with?
I can usually argue logically with all y'all about this sort of thing, but you and others are supporting a position which has no basis in reality, nevermind logic. If you wanted to discuss a fiction created by some media source, start a new thread. If you want to discuss S.1867 as it was actually passed by congress and signed into law by the executive branch, then please help us find the passage or clause or section that is causing you so much angst.
What section, exactly, are you worried about in this bill? Please quote it, and provide a link to it on a government website (not a frothing at the mouth pundit "media" source).
Chances are good you'll want to look at subtitle D of the bill, if you're having a rough time finding your way around in it. I've quoted it as passed by the senate here: http://halforums.com/xenforo/threads/s-1867-is-the-end-of-america.26796/page-2#post-889483 but it might have changed in some small ways before being sent to the white house. Go ahead and read it as passed by Obama, quote the relevant bits, and then we can discuss the USA ending impact of the legislation.
strawman
There is no face palm macro big enough. Why are you guys lambasting the bill without reading it? Do you seriously eat the slop others are shoveling into your gaping maw?Or how about including the word non-citizen in there. You know the one area in particular where there shouldn't be any vagueness.
Let's break this down:(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.
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
does not extend to citizens of the United States.
What part of that are you having difficulty with?
I can usually argue logically with all y'all about this sort of thing, but you and others are supporting a position which has no basis in reality, nevermind logic. If you wanted to discuss a fiction created by some media source, start a new thread. If you want to discuss S.1867 as it was actually passed by congress and signed into law by the executive branch, then please help us find the passage or clause or section that is causing you so much angst.
What section, exactly, are you worried about in this bill? Please quote it, and provide a link to it on a government website (not a frothing at the mouth pundit "media" source).
Chances are good you'll want to look at subtitle D of the bill, if you're having a rough time finding your way around in it. I've quoted it as passed by the senate here: http://halforums.com/xenforo/threads/s-1867-is-the-end-of-america.26796/page-2#post-889483 but it might have changed in some small ways before being sent to the white house. Go ahead and read it as passed by Obama, quote the relevant bits, and then we can discuss the USA ending impact of the legislation.
#86
Krisken
Krisken
Ok, how about how it makes the United States world police? How is this going to help our image in the world? The CIA already performs the shadowy duties of the United States, is this giving the military the same duties?
#87
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
They're not required to indefinitely detain; there's just nothing stopping them from doing so.The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
#88
@Li3n
It's ok people, we're only depriving foreigners of any rights...
@Li3n
does not extend to citizens of the United States.
It's ok people, we're only depriving foreigners of any rights...
#89
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Hey. Gusto.
Come here.
Come here.
#90
D
Dubyamn
1. The ACLU doesn't agree with you http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
2.Amnesty international doesn't agree with your interpretation of the bill http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/house-passes-ndaa-white-house-wont-veto-indefinite-detention/
3. The president of the United States of America doesn't agree with your interpritation of the bill http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/04/promises-promises-president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement/
4. Congress and the senate stripped out wording that would have explicitly said that the NDAA indefinite detention doesn't apply to US citizens. http://gulagbound.com/24690/obama-announces-he-can-imprison-anyone-he-chooses-if-he-chooses-to-do-so/
So Congress disagrees with you, Obama disagrees with you, ACLU disagrees with you and Amnesty international disagrees that not requiring indefinite detention of American citizens isn't real protection from the NDAA. I think I'll go with their interpritations over yours no offense.
D
Dubyamn
Now here is the problem that I am having with your arguement.There is no face palm macro big enough. Why are you guys lambasting the bill without reading it? Do you seriously eat the slop others are shoveling into your gaping maw?
Let's break this down:
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
does not extend to citizens of the United States.
1. The ACLU doesn't agree with you http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
2.Amnesty international doesn't agree with your interpretation of the bill http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/house-passes-ndaa-white-house-wont-veto-indefinite-detention/
3. The president of the United States of America doesn't agree with your interpritation of the bill http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/04/promises-promises-president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement/
4. Congress and the senate stripped out wording that would have explicitly said that the NDAA indefinite detention doesn't apply to US citizens. http://gulagbound.com/24690/obama-announces-he-can-imprison-anyone-he-chooses-if-he-chooses-to-do-so/
So Congress disagrees with you, Obama disagrees with you, ACLU disagrees with you and Amnesty international disagrees that not requiring indefinite detention of American citizens isn't real protection from the NDAA. I think I'll go with their interpritations over yours no offense.
#91
Terrik
I have my own reservations about the bill, but I never think "What will foreigners think?" when dealing with national interests and security.
Terrik
Why are people always harping on this (post not directed at you Krisken!)? Most people abroad already have a fairly set opinion on the US. If you look at worldwide nation approval polls, the numbers are pretty consistent. And contrary to popular belief, I've never been harassed or discriminated against abroad for being American. There will always be people who dislike the US for having overseas bases, for its espousal of universal rights, for its power over economic and political issues, for its "shadowy" CIA and so on. Those things rarely change no matter who's in power. I had a Chinese taxi driver bitch about the US government to me for Libya a few months back, without even realizing it wasn't even the US who initially spearheaded the idea. So you know what? The US should first and foremost look out for its own interests, whether or not it'll offend some dude in Greece, because you best believe that's what nearly every other nation does out there.How is this going to help our image in the world?
I have my own reservations about the bill, but I never think "What will foreigners think?" when dealing with national interests and security.
#92
strawman
strawman
See, this is why I wish people would post the actual text of the bill.
The bill, as passed by Obama, does allow them to indefinitely detain American citizens if they are suspected of terrorism.
You can read the relevant section of the bill, as passed by the house, the senate, and the president here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:5438
The funny thing is that this merely codifies what we were already doing.
The nice thing is that this makes it easy for the judicial branch to weigh in on the process and test the constitutionality of it, whereas it was more difficult in previous cases to deal with this.
The bill, as passed by Obama, does allow them to indefinitely detain American citizens if they are suspected of terrorism.
You can read the relevant section of the bill, as passed by the house, the senate, and the president here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:5438
The funny thing is that this merely codifies what we were already doing.
The nice thing is that this makes it easy for the judicial branch to weigh in on the process and test the constitutionality of it, whereas it was more difficult in previous cases to deal with this.
#93
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
Holding prisoners indefinitely is no different than what is allowed by the Geneva Conventions. POWs can be held for as long as hostilities last -- whether 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years. Why aren't you all protesting that? Why aren't you protesting the "depriving foreigner's of their rights" such as that prisoners lose their right to communication if they are a spy or saboteur considered a military security risk under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 5?
As far as U.S. citizens? It's right in the Constitution:
As far as U.S. citizens? It's right in the Constitution:
I'll now open the floor for discussions of what is meant by "aid and comfort" and how evil the US Constitution is because a section uses vague language like "aid and comfort" to charge people with treason.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
#94
D
Dubyamn
As for the indefinite detention of foriegners I don't really see anybody in the thread saying that it's a good thing. I've opposed the practice ever since it came out that the military was utterly incompotent in choosing who they would keep in GITMO. But that has long since been beaten into the ground where as their new ability to capture and hold any US citizen not captured in the US indefinitly is a new a troubling turn.
D
Dubyamn
Yes yes treason which requires a person to go in front of a jury of his peers to be convicted is the exact same as allowing indefinite detention of US citizens with no oversight or chance to prove the innocence of the accused or even be put in front of a judge to see if there is any real evidence of their wrongdoing. Once again unlike charges of treason that require at least 2 witnesses.Holding prisoners indefinitely is no different than what is allowed by the Geneva Conventions. POWs can be held for as long as hostilities last -- whether 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years. Why aren't you all protesting that? Why aren't you protesting the "depriving foreigner's of their rights" such as that prisoners lose their right to communication if they are a spy or saboteur considered a military security risk under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 5?
As far as U.S. citizens? It's right in the Constitution:
I'll now open the floor for discussions of what is meant by "aid and comfort" and how evil the US Constitution is because a section uses vague language like "aid and comfort" to charge people with treason.
As for the indefinite detention of foriegners I don't really see anybody in the thread saying that it's a good thing. I've opposed the practice ever since it came out that the military was utterly incompotent in choosing who they would keep in GITMO. But that has long since been beaten into the ground where as their new ability to capture and hold any US citizen not captured in the US indefinitly is a new a troubling turn.
#95
Sara_2814
As for treason:
Sara_2814
I really doubt that the ability to take action against US citizens engaging in hostile actions against the US while outside of the US is a "new ability". What do you think happened to Americans who fought for Germany, Japan, or Italy during WWII? Did they flash their passport over the trench and the American infantry went, "Oh, wait! We can't shoot that guy without a trial! He's an American!" Holding them indefinitely as a POW probably never came up because they ended up with a bullet in the brain as a traitor first.their new ability to capture and hold any US citizen not captured in the US indefinitly is a new a troubling turn
As for treason:
If joining al-Qaeda and Friends isn't an overt act of treason, I don't know what is. And if you join a foreign enemy force engaged in hostilities against the U.S., I see that as not only an overt act of treason, but as essentially denouncing your U.S. citizenship and any protections it offers. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for you if you "adhere yourself to an enemy" of the U.S., and then cry about how your rights aren't being protected when you have to face the consequences of that choice. You're an American who wants to join al-Qaeda? Fine. Then you can suck it up and face the consequences with the rest of your new friends.In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
#96
D
Dubyamn
I say how the US government can now capture a US citizen in a foriegn country and then throw them into prison without ever having to justify their actions and then you respond with non sequitor bullshit about how there have always been actions that the government can take against traitors.
Can you explain exactly where this non sequitor came from? I would love to point out exactly where your logic train went off the rails.
D
Dubyamn
Excuse me what the fuck are you talking about?I really doubt that the ability to take action against US citizens engaging in hostile actions against the US while outside of the US is a "new ability". What do you think happened to Americans who fought for Germany, Japan, or Italy during WWII? Did they flash their passport over the trench and the American infantry went, "Oh, wait! We can't shoot that guy without a trial! He's an American!" Holding them indefinitely as a POW probably never came up because they ended up with a bullet in the brain as a traitor first.
I say how the US government can now capture a US citizen in a foriegn country and then throw them into prison without ever having to justify their actions and then you respond with non sequitor bullshit about how there have always been actions that the government can take against traitors.
Can you explain exactly where this non sequitor came from? I would love to point out exactly where your logic train went off the rails.
Great and once they have even a slight amount of judicial oversight I'd be happy to toss them into a pit myself. However with the NDAA there are no safeguards against grabbing a person off the streets of France and throwing them in prison without an ounce of proof that they ever "adhered themselves to an enemy.As for treason:
If joining al-Qaeda and Friends isn't an overt act of treason, I don't know what is. And if you join a foreign enemy force engaged in hostilities against the U.S., I see that as not only an overt act of treason, but as essentially denouncing your U.S. citizenship and any protections it offers. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for you if you "adhere yourself to an enemy" of the U.S., and then cry about how your rights aren't being protected when you have to face the consequences of that choice. You're an American who wants to join al-Qaeda? Fine. Then you can suck it up and face the consequences with the rest of your new friends.
#97
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
An American joins the German army in WWII and there is no distinction made on the battlefield: they are treated as any other German soldier. Why should an American who joins al-Qaeda be treated as anything other than a member of al-Qaeda? Why should there be a distinction made between citizen and non-citizen when dealing with al-Qaeda? Like the guy who joined the German army, the American in al-Qaeda made his choice to "switch sides".Excuse me what the fuck are you talking about?
#98
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
you can't declare war on terrorism, there is literally no battlefield
#99
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
Which is part of the problem, and is why they have to put stuff like this into bills. It's not to "invent new ways to take away our freedoms!!!!", it's to codify what the procedures are in a situation that the Rules of Engagement haven't caught up to yet. Which is why I mentioned that "indefinite detainment" is also allowed by the Geneva Conventions in war between states: this is not a new thing.you can't declare war on terrorism, there is literally no battlefield
#100
Necronic
<At this point an eagle call pierces the air and your computer screen turns into an american flag that the eagle tears through. There's also fire and stuff, and Foreigner is playing in the background.>
Necronic
I'm sorry I think you forgot that the battlefield is in the hearts and minds of American people.you can't declare war on terrorism, there is literally no battlefield
<At this point an eagle call pierces the air and your computer screen turns into an american flag that the eagle tears through. There's also fire and stuff, and Foreigner is playing in the background.>
#101
@Li3n
@Li3n
Except it's not indefinite, is it... while i don't recall anyone mentioning anything about "until the war on terror is over" even... and PoW's aren't considered criminals by default...Which is why I mentioned that "indefinite detainment" is also allowed by the Geneva Conventions in war between states: this is not a new thing.
#102
Sara_2814
And maybe you don't recall anyone mentioning it because you didn't read anything that Steinman linked to/posted in this thread (this was already posted on the first page of this discussion):
TitleX, SubtitleD, Section 1031.c -
Once again, the text of the bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540:/ if you want to read it for yourself.
Sara_2814
I can't think of any war that had an end date planned ahead of time, so, yes: "until end of hostilities" is indefinite. And is allowed by the Geneva Conventions.Except it's not indefinite, is it... while i don't recall anyone mentioning anything about "until the war on terror is over" even... and PoW's aren't considered criminals by default...
And maybe you don't recall anyone mentioning it because you didn't read anything that Steinman linked to/posted in this thread (this was already posted on the first page of this discussion):
TitleX, SubtitleD, Section 1031.c -
I can't find anything in the bill that mentions "criminals by default".(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) 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.
Once again, the text of the bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540:/ if you want to read it for yourself.
#103
ElJuski
ElJuski
did America end yet
#104
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
America's been dead for yearsdid America end yet
#105
ElJuski
ElJuski
dang
#106
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
yeah.
#107
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Here's a really good piece to read http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
#108
D
Dubyamn
And no I don't think the Americans captured fighting along side the Nazi forces were treated the same as the Germans. You know since they were probably tried for treason while the Germans were probably held till the end of WWII and then released. So even you bullshit metaphor is wrong.
D
Dubyamn
It is odd how you decided to respond to the single sentance rather than the actual question which is where the fuck your non sequitor came from.An American joins the German army in WWII and there is no distinction made on the battlefield: they are treated as any other German soldier. Why should an American who joins al-Qaeda be treated as anything other than a member of al-Qaeda? Why should there be a distinction made between citizen and non-citizen when dealing with al-Qaeda? Like the guy who joined the German army, the American in al-Qaeda made his choice to "switch sides".
And no I don't think the Americans captured fighting along side the Nazi forces were treated the same as the Germans. You know since they were probably tried for treason while the Germans were probably held till the end of WWII and then released. So even you bullshit metaphor is wrong.
#109
strawman
strawman
What does that have to do with the NDAA 2012 bill we're discussing in this thread? Not that I'm complaining about you putting it here, but I'd like a little context if there is any...Here's a really good piece to read http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
#110
@Li3n
But ok, until end of hostilities can be considered indefinite, and the actual problem comes from the difference between aregular war and something as generic as "the war on terror"...
But there is a difference between actual officially identified troops and "terror suspects", otherwise they wouldn't need a new law for it... you know, they already had the ones they used for all those previous wars.
@Li3n
You do realise that's a reference to another law, right?TitleX, SubtitleD, Section 1031.c -
But ok, until end of hostilities can be considered indefinite, and the actual problem comes from the difference between aregular war and something as generic as "the war on terror"...
But there is a difference between actual officially identified troops and "terror suspects", otherwise they wouldn't need a new law for it... you know, they already had the ones they used for all those previous wars.
#111
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
It was to the "Obama is such a liberal" discussion.
#112
Sara_2814
Since this bill section is specifically aimed at al-Qaeda and Taliban (not a generic "war on terror"), wouldn't agreements with either party bring an end to hostilities? There are talks amongst the U.S., Afghanistan, and Taliban being worked out now.
Sara_2814
I linked to H.R.1540, which is the House of Representatives version of S.1867 (the Senate version). The House is where the bill originated and that link has the most recent version of the bill. Actually, now that it's been signed it is Public Law No: 112-81 (but they don't yet have the text uploaded on Thomas under that title).You do realise that's a reference to another law, right?
That's why we have to put this stuff into defense bills. Because combatants who aren't acting on behalf of a state is a situation that laws and treaties need to be updated for. Are we supposed to just give al-Qaeda a free pass until we work it out?But ok, until end of hostilities can be considered indefinite, and the actual problem comes from the difference between aregular war and something as generic as "the war on terror"...
But there is a difference between actual officially identified troops and "terror suspects", otherwise they wouldn't need a new law for it... you know, they already had the ones they used for all those previous wars.
Since this bill section is specifically aimed at al-Qaeda and Taliban (not a generic "war on terror"), wouldn't agreements with either party bring an end to hostilities? There are talks amongst the U.S., Afghanistan, and Taliban being worked out now.
#113
@Li3n
@Li3n
Doesn't the Geneva Convention cover guerrillas?
#114
Sara_2814
It seems the US Supreme Court did rule on the Geneva Conventions being applied to detainees:
Sara_2814
Wikipedia has an article on "unlawful combatants" that goes into that.Doesn't the Geneva Convention cover guerrillas?
The rest of the article goes into more detail of defining "unlawful combatants" and the various legal challenges and rulings.The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
It seems the US Supreme Court did rule on the Geneva Conventions being applied to detainees:
And also:In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.
And regarding U.S. Citizens:On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, 5-4 that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.
#115
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
As for foreigners: Red Cross worker held in Guantanamo for seven years, no trial, no explanation.
So yeah, steinman has a point; they're codifying shit they already do. Woo-fucking-hoo, applause all around, what a great job everyone's doing. Bet you'll never see this happen again, or to an American citizen--it's going to happen. Great work, Congress, President. You shitheads keep patting yourselves on the back, just like with Iraq, just like with Katrina. Oh, that was the Bush era? We switched Presidents in 2008? Could've fucking fooled me. The only difference is that with Bush, we knew what we were getting. I honestly believed in Obama. I was wrong.
So yeah, steinman has a point; they're codifying shit they already do. Woo-fucking-hoo, applause all around, what a great job everyone's doing. Bet you'll never see this happen again, or to an American citizen--it's going to happen. Great work, Congress, President. You shitheads keep patting yourselves on the back, just like with Iraq, just like with Katrina. Oh, that was the Bush era? We switched Presidents in 2008? Could've fucking fooled me. The only difference is that with Bush, we knew what we were getting. I honestly believed in Obama. I was wrong.
#116
Terrik
Terrik
#117
Krisken
Krisken
If you posted that picture from China, that is fucking EPIC.
#118
@Li3n
But hey, i was right, they convention already had rules for detaining them... but i guess the word "trial" showed up too much for the goverments tastes...
@Li3n
Weird, i'm pretty sure waterboarding isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention...It seems the US Supreme Court did rule on the Geneva Conventions being applied to detainees:
But hey, i was right, they convention already had rules for detaining them... but i guess the word "trial" showed up too much for the goverments tastes...
#119
strawman
strawman
http://invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2007/12/13/on-waterboarding-and-the-geneva-conventiWeird, i'm pretty sure waterboarding isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention...
#120
@Li3n
@Li3n
Oh right, i forgot, it's not torture... unless you actually experience it, then it sure feels like it is...