TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77

warhorse10_9 wrote:Here is what I received from Senator Hutchison:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding certain provisions of H.R. 1540, the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I welcome your thoughts and comments.

It has been suggested in some press accounts and commentary that certain provisions in this bill would allow the President to detain American citizens within the United States indefinitely if the President brands them as a terrorist. That is simply not accurate.

On December 15, 2011, Congress passed H.R. 1540, which contains two sections (Sections 1031 and 1032) that address the detention of suspected terrorists. Over the past decade, the Bush and Obama Administrations have detained members of terrorist organizations, both at home and abroad, in order to protect our country and our people. The federal courts have affirmed the legality, general and specific, of such detentions. Congress added Sections 1031 and 1032 to the NDAA in order to codify the limits of detention authority.

Section 1031 establishes guidelines to allow U.S. Armed Forces to detain “covered persons” captured during hostilities as unprivileged enemy combatants, under the laws of war. A “covered person” is now defined in federal law as a person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Nothing in this section authorizes U.S. Armed Forces to capture and detain U.S. citizens for any other reason.

Section 1032 requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody as an unprivileged enemy combatant any person who is a member or part of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. This section clearly states that this requirement does not extend to citizens of the United States.

These two sections of the NDAA have been the subjects of some controversy. Americans are right to be concerned and vigilant about potential threats to our civil liberties. Please be assured that I and other Members of Congress reviewed Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA very carefully and consulted with respected legal experts before giving bipartisan approval.

Should related detainee provisions come for consideration before the full Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

What that tells me is that Kay Bailey either has limited comprehension of the English language or is a liar. It's an indisputable fact than many legal professionals, from practicing attorneys to law professors, contradict KB's claim, so the BEST she can claim is that the language is ambiguous enough that its meaning can ultimately only be determined by the Courts. It's also a fact that clarifying language --language that would have made KB's claims explicitly true-- were voted down. There is no logical reason for voting against such clarifying language if the legislation really wasn't INTENDED to apply to US citizens. What actually happened is that Congress DELIBERATELY voted to preserve ambiguity that allows indefinite detention of American citizens --a power already claimed by the Executive. It's simply not plausible that KB doesn't know this, so I have to conclude she's a liar.

VMI77

Rex B wrote:Constitutional scholars are taking this on:

http://volokh.com/2011/11/30/defense-bi ... spiracy%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Senate proceedings when Senator Udall introduced his amendment:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Start at 4:42 to hear the exchange with Senator Levin which says that the bill that was voted on in the Armed Services Committee originally excluded US Citizens from the detention provision above and that White House requested that the detention of US Citizens be allowed or he would veto the bill.
Therefore, it is the President that wants the authority to detain US Citizens to be in this bill against the original intent of Congress.

The consensus among experts who are MUCH smarter than I seems to be that this is a Bad Thing.
Ironically, it looks like Obama might veto this bill, for all the wrong reasons.

Then there's this ---granted, from those leaning to the left-- but then the MSM doesn't seem to be covering this:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congres ... ingleton/#

(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

http://www.progressive.org/mccain_says_ ... anamo.html

Sen. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment to delete this section entirely, and on Tuesday, he had the following exchange with Sen. John McCain, who is co-sponsoring the bill.

Sen. Paul: “My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely.”

Sen. McCain: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the ACLU, explains the problem.

“The exclusion on Section 1032 only applies to 1032. It doesn’t apply to 1031,” he says. “And that only makes it worse, because any judge is going to say, ‘Of course, members of Congress meant for American citizens to be detained because if they didn’t, they would have put in the exception they put in one section later.’ ”

Here’s what Sen. Graham said in the Senate on Nov. 17:

“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

If it isn't intended to apply to American citizens then there should be no problem clarifying the language to make it certain....that there is no attempt to do so is telling. And then, there is also the fact that the Constititution doesn't just apply to American citizens, it applies to "people" in the US --this alone makes the legislation unequivocally unconstitutional. It is my contention that anyone using his power to so clearly violate the constitution, especially one who has taken an oath to uphold it, is a traitor.

VMI77

srothstein wrote:
VMI77 wrote: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.

That one word, "requirement," makes me read it differently than you do, principally because using another word, like power, or authority, would make it crystal clear that it doesn't pertain to US citizens. The ACLU apparently agrees with my interpretation: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur ... fine-being

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

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

But more significant is the quote from Lindsey Graham:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

07:20:00 1031, THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO DETAIN, DOES APPLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS AND IT DESIGNATES THE WORLD AS THE BATTLEFIELD, INCLUDING THE HOMELAND.

VMI77

srothstein wrote: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.

VMI77

Heartland Patriot wrote: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-112s ... 867pcs.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

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... qus_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.

VMI77

A-R wrote: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/201 ... qus_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.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 7 matches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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