Call your Senators - We're going down the UK path

[Rex B]

Provisions to allow US military to arrest and detain US citizens on their own property without due process.

http://www.infowars.com/senate-moves-to ... out-trial/

call your senators
KBH - Phone: 202-224-5922. Fax: 202-224-0776
Cornyn - DC Phone: 202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856

[Heartland Patriot]

Already sent an email message to Senator Cornyn's office. Hopefully I will get some sort of a reply back. I have as much ill will toward ACTUAL terrorists as much as the next patriotic American (especially as a veteran who completed several desert deployments, even if I never got shot at). I didn't even care if they scoop up some "American citizen" from the battlefield overseas, since I believe it shows where those folks loyalties lie that they are fighting along side people like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But to snatch people up on American soil without charges? And to use active military forces to do so? Ridiculous...and defining terrorist being in the hands of fine folks like Holder and Napolitano? THAT is exactly the kind of thing that makes me leery of this even if nothing else did.

[RoyGBiv]

Must be a leap year if I'm on the same side as the ACLU on an issue...

[A-R]

When someone other than Alex Jones reports it I'll be more likely to a) believe it and b) be worried about it.

[Rex B]

Good point. The link came from a trusted source, but may have referred to an earlier version.
The current version has a phrase added

"Section 1032, subsection (b)(1):

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

subsection (b)(2):

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.
--------------------------------
Using the military as a domestic police force is the troubling part.

[srothstein]

The article refers to section 1031 as the bad section. That section has been removed already.

[VMI77]

When someone other than Alex Jones reports it I'll be more likely to a) believe it and b) be worried about it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/senate-defies-obama-veto-threat-terrorist-custody-/#disqus_thread

Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to preserve language that would give the U.S. military a crack at al Qaeda operatives captured in the U.S., even if they are American citizens.The White House and its Senate allies objected and tried to block the changes, instead calling for the issue to be studied further.

They argued giving the military priority could complicate investigations into terrorist suspects in the U.S., and said it opens the door to indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.

But 16 Democrats, one independent and 44 Republicans joined together to defy Mr. Obama’s threat. Two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois — voted to strip out the detainee language.

[VMI77]

The article refers to section 1031 as the bad section. That section has been removed already.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/senate-defies-obama-veto-threat-terrorist-custody-/#disqus_thread

Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to preserve language that would give the U.S. military a crack at al Qaeda operatives captured in the U.S., even if they are American citizens.

The House has already passed its version with strict detainee language, so the Senate vote makes it likely whatever final bill reaches the president’s desk will contain the provision.

[Rex B]

Wow. Looks like a showdown.

[Heartland Patriot]

To think I ALMOST got taken by the left on this one...well, fool me once, shame on you, as the saying goes. The bill actually says the OPPOSITE as far as I can tell by READING THE ACTUAL TEXT. The bill can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf The important text in Section 1032 reads thus: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." And it further says that the same applies to LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS. So, it seems as if Senator Rand Paul also got taken on this one...I should have known it was some kind of underhanded thing going on if Feinstein (TAM, please forgive me!) was involved...and it seems as if the REAL motivation is to hold up the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which funds our military. I simply cannot convey in words how sick this whole darned thing makes me, and how ticked at myself that I almost believed it.

[srothstein]

I have to apologize. I did finally find section 1031 and it is still there. But it is truly a false scare as HP posted. In addition to not applying to citizen's, sec. 1031 makes it clear that it only applies to people covered under the authorization to use the military in response to the 9/11/01 attacks.

[VMI77]

To think I ALMOST got taken by the left on this one...well, fool me once, shame on you, as the saying goes. The bill actually says the OPPOSITE as far as I can tell by READING THE ACTUAL TEXT. The bill can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf The important text in Section 1032 reads thus: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." And it further says that the same applies to LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS. So, it seems as if Senator Rand Paul also got taken on this one...I should have known it was some kind of underhanded thing going on if Feinstein (TAM, please forgive me!) was involved...and it seems as if the REAL motivation is to hold up the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which funds our military. I simply cannot convey in words how sick this whole darned thing makes me, and how ticked at myself that I almost believed it.

Maybe, but I have a problem with the language --specifically with the word "required." The sentence stating "the requirement to detain .....does not extend to citizens...." just seems to make detention discretionary, not prohibit it. Funny the word used isn't "power" or "authority" --as in the "authority" to detain does not extend to citizens"-- if the intention is to prohibit such detention. I find it hard to believe that this particular choice of wording is unintentional. Also, the provision starts off by saying that the president has the authority to detain covered persons. Section 1032 makes military detention a requirement. 1032 (b) says detaining US citizens isn't a requirement --so not only does it not prohibit such detention, by 1031 (a) the president may use all necessary and appropriate force, which includess the authority for the military to detain covered persons. Thus, it looks to me that while the detention of US citizens isn't required, it is not prohibited, and actually authorized under 1031 (a). See in my response below how easily US citizens may morph into "covered persons."

Also, you should be concerned, as a patriot, because the Southern Poverty Law Center, which officially advises DHS, already targets various patriot groups, Christian groups, and anti-immigration groups as "hate" groups. So if you are a traditional Christian or support immigration reform, or are against the Islamization of America, you're officially a "hater." That kind of "hate" might make you a "belligerent."

[VMI77]

I have to apologize. I did finally find section 1031 and it is still there. But it is truly a false scare as HP posted. In addition to not applying to citizen's, sec. 1031 makes it clear that it only applies to people covered under the authorization to use the military in response to the 9/11/01 attacks.

Doesn't look like that's true to me --there are two categories of "covered persons." One applies to people covered under the authorization to use the military in response to the 9/11 attacks. The other, paragraph 2, applies to people who have supported associated forces or committed a "belligerent" act against the US or it's coalition partners. Supported could mean giving money to a charity, that unbeknownst to the contributor, funnels money to one of those "associated" forces, something it is entirely possible to do without the knowledge or intent of aiding such forces. Posting inflammatory comments on the internet could be construed as a "belligerent" act.

Also, where does it say the law doesn't "apply" to US citizens? It says the "requirement" to detain doesn't extend to US citizens, which merely seems to make such detention discretionary. Nowhere does it say such detention is prohibited. If the intention is really to exclude US citizens, why doesn't the language say so in no uncertain terms?

The other significant element here is that detention comes without any presentation of evidence, since there is no trial; nor is there any limit on the length of detention, since we all know that the WOT is never going to end. So essentially, the law allows people to be placed in prison, indefinitely, on nothing more than an allegation (and no doubt, the claim will be made that there is evidence, but it's secret and can't be disclosed). Finally, I will point out that the Constitution doesn't grant the right to trial only to "citizens" --it says "persons."

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This says no one, citizen or not, can be denied a trial, unless they're serving in the military in time of war.

[srothstein]

Doesn't look like that's true to me --there are two categories of "covered persons." One applies to people covered under the authorization to use the military in response to the 9/11 attacks. The other, paragraph 2, applies to people who have supported associated forces or committed a "belligerent" act against the US or it's coalition partners. Supported could mean giving money to a charity, that unbeknownst to the contributor, funnels money to one of those "associated" forces, something it is entirely possible to do without the knowledge or intent of aiding such forces. Posting inflammatory comments on the internet could be construed as a "belligerent" act.

You need to read the whole section as it reads. The first paragraph says it applies to covered persons as defined by the next paragraph if they are authorized under the mentioned law. The second paragraph then defines who a covered person is. This means that the person must meet one of the requirements in paragraph b to be a covered person and the requirement in paragraph a of being covered by the law.

Also, where does it say the law doesn't "apply" to US citizens? It says the "requirement" to detain doesn't extend to US citizens, which merely seems to make such detention discretionary. Nowhere does it say such detention is prohibited. If the intention is really to exclude US citizens, why doesn't the language say so in no uncertain terms?

Again, you need to read the whole section. In this case, you also need to understand some legal wording. Paragraph A says the military shall hold a person. This makes it a requirement, not just an authority. So, in paragraph b when it removes the requirement, it also means all other laws become applicable. This includes posse comitatus that denies the military the authority unless otherwise specifically authorized.

So, the way I read the law, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors being thrown around about it. I do not find the law to allow detention of US citizens based on this law. I could be wrong of course, as I disagreed with some of the other legal rulings to come out of the Attorney General's office in the past few years (both the current and previous AGs).

The other significant element here is that detention comes without any presentation of evidence, since there is no trial; nor is there any limit on the length of detention, since we all know that the WOT is never going to end. So essentially, the law allows people to be placed in prison, indefinitely, on nothing more than an allegation (and no doubt, the claim will be made that there is evidence, but it's secret and can't be disclosed). Finally, I will point out that the Constitution doesn't grant the right to trial only to "citizens" --it says "persons."

This is a point I wholeheartedly agree with. The Constitution applies to the US government and limits it no matter who it is dealing with. One of the rulings I disagreed with that I referred to is the concept that the Constitution does not apply to the US government when it has its agents operating outside the US. The best way to protect my rights is to protect everyone else's rights also.

Anyone who wants to argue against this law on this basis has my full support. I don't like this law or the authority to use military force to begin with. But I strongly dislike the partisan debate that is full of untruths, half-truths, and misdirection. We need to debate on the basis of actual facts.

[Heartland Patriot]

Thank you both VMI77 and srothstein. So, it seems that what it really comes down to is imprisonment without trial of ANY individual, per the Constitution. However, I think the biggest problem is that most of the people that have been captured from groups like Al Qaeda or the Taliban aren't actual POWs (as they are not members of an actual military force), but neither are they simply criminals like Johnny Bad Guy who robs a liquor store and shoots the night clerk. I don't pretend to be smart enough to personally figure this one out. And I don't think the Founding Fathers could have foreseen this kind of argument, though I have full faith that they did their best to future proof the Constitution (amendment process). I am obviously concerned with things being utilized in inappropriate and dangerous ways against citizens of the United States of America. But on the other hand, I put absolutely NOTHING past the leftist politicians in this country to hold up ANYTHING military related just to do so, utilizing any tactic or pretense they can come up with...its all about buying votes and they really NEED the money to shore up their base in this coming year...taking money from the NDAA (preventing the funding thereof) and getting it shunted off into some other avenue is certainly within the realm of possibility.