TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

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

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

VMI77 wrote: 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.

Rex B wrote:One more good reason for KBH to retire. She's not doing the job we sent here there for.