Bill S.1867

[lukertin]

The provisions in question were removed by senator Levin last week........ Obama threatened a veto if they were left in.

The older version of the bill here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

 

Still nothing in there about detaining US citizens.

[lukertin]

Why don't you just take the time to look through it instead? Or are you another one who wants to comment and complain about something they didn't even read themselves?

It is kind of hard to read a entire bill to find a single part about detaining US citizens. That is why I am asking someone who supposedly has read it already and knows where it is.

No, it's really rather easy. You hold ctrl, then press F, and you type in "United States citizen" and press enter to read the context in which it appears (repeat as necessary).

 

@ lukertin

There was not the word pizza in the bill. I don't even think the word vegetable was in the bill. The point is that the new tomato sauce serving would have made pizza equal in nutrition to a serving of vegetables. Pizza is the big thing mentioned here since the bill was made to reduce fresh produce for cost purposes, and the new serving of tomato sauce worked perfectly for pizza. There is already another topic for this and you had no real reason to bring it up. If you want to continue this go to the other thread for it.

Good job, you finally admitted you were wrong.

Edited December 9, 2011 by lukertin

[IndorilTheGreat]

I'm pretty sure marharth wants to know where it is because he knows it doesn't exist.

 

It would be silly for something like that to be thought up. Things like that (usually) don't just happen over night.

 

Edit: When I say "that," I mean the ability to suddenly turn a democracy into a military dictatorship.

Edited December 9, 2011 by IndorilTheGreat

[HeyYou]

Have a look HERE. (pdf page)

 

It was the National Defense Authorization Act that has the concerning language. It's part of the defense budget bill......

[Harbringe]

Although they are specific in their language about the qualifications of people who can be taken prisoner by the military. You pretty much have to be in direct support of Al Queda, Taliban, etc. Meaning they cannot just arrest normal citizens, as suggested by this paragraph here:

 

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to

the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident

aliens of the United States or any other persons who are

captured or arrested in the United States.

 

 

I know your taking this to mean the military has no power to arrest you but I don't think its saying that at all. The key phrase is "construed to affect existing law and authorities". So the question is what are existing law and authorities , well it can't be anything contained in this bill cause its not even law yet , so as to laws it would encompass everything from the Constitution to the Patriot Act I and II and everything in between , maybe even Presidential executive orders (much of the previous is in dispute constitutionally) and authorities would have to be offices such as President or Director of the FBI or the US Attorney General or whatever . In effect what this is saying to me is that these powers that are being conferred onto the military shall in no way impinge on the powers of existing laws or authorities. Besides even if I'm wrong and it actually does mean US citizens cannot be detained ,according to this

 

pg 430

 

(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.

 

They don't have to pay attention to it anyway , cause they can just get a waiver and no indication there is any due process of law cause its not brought before a judge and before Congress the Sec Defense only has to say its in the national security interest and the Sec of State and Dir of National Intelligence are to be consulted , no mention of them actually agreeing.

 

Anyway could say more but won't til I can be certain of what the meaning is to the first section Berialord posted . So does anyone know any Constitutional lawyers or law professors or or lawyers in general they could ask for an opinion.

[marharth]

No, it's really rather easy. You hold ctrl, then press F, and you type in "United States citizen" and press enter to read the context in which it appears (repeat as necessary).

 

Good job, you finally admitted you were wrong.

I am sure every single bill that mentions US citizens will have that exact phrase. It could be phrased in a way that makes it hard to find through searching. You don't have to use the word citizen, there are other ways of putting it in.

 

If you think I am admitting I am wrong you clearly never understood my argument in the first place.

[dazzerfong]

@ Marharth:

 

Nope, you use logic: just searching 'citizen' would more than be sufficient. I cannot think of a single metaphor for 'citizen' in legal confines: 'resident' doesn't work because it also includes people with visas, 'people' is too general and flowery, I honestly cannot think of another one.

 

One thing: when debating, please adhere to the 'burden of proof' philosophy. Essentially, if you claim something is, you must provide evidence. Otherwise, if you can't prove it, your claim is dismissed. In other words, your claim is invalid unless proven by evidence. I see a lot of members dodging around this, and it's quite strange, really.

Edited December 10, 2011 by dazzerfong

[Beriallord]

Although they are specific in their language about the qualifications of people who can be taken prisoner by the military. You pretty much have to be in direct support of Al Queda, Taliban, etc. Meaning they cannot just arrest normal citizens, as suggested by this paragraph here:

 

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to

the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident

aliens of the United States or any other persons who are

captured or arrested in the United States.

 

 

I know your taking this to mean the military has no power to arrest you but I don't think its saying that at all. The key phrase is "construed to affect existing law and authorities". So the question is what are existing law and authorities , well it can't be anything contained in this bill cause its not even law yet , so as to laws it would encompass everything from the Constitution to the Patriot Act I and II and everything in between , maybe even Presidential executive orders (much of the previous is in dispute constitutionally) and authorities would have to be offices such as President or Director of the FBI or the US Attorney General or whatever . In effect what this is saying to me is that these powers that are being conferred onto the military shall in no way impinge on the powers of existing laws or authorities. Besides even if I'm wrong and it actually does mean US citizens cannot be detained ,according to this

 

pg 430

 

(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.

 

They don't have to pay attention to it anyway , cause they can just get a waiver and no indication there is any due process of law cause its not brought before a judge and before Congress the Sec Defense only has to say its in the national security interest and the Sec of State and Dir of National Intelligence are to be consulted , no mention of them actually agreeing.

 

Anyway could say more but won't til I can be certain of what the meaning is to the first section Berialord posted . So does anyone know any Constitutional lawyers or law professors or or lawyers in general they could ask for an opinion.

 

The word "consultation" in the paragraph above leaves a whole lot open to speculation. That doesn't necessarily mean the Secretary of Defense needs the cooperation of the Secretary of State and Director of Intelligence. To consult is to give advice, has nothing to do with cooperating. And also it seems all the Secretary of Defense has to do is send Congress a letter, says nothing about them having to agree with it or not.

 

And yeah, from the looks of it that paragraph looks pretty dangerous. But I could be taking it out of context.

 

The question is does the Secretary of Defense have the power to use that to paint really broad strokes with a brush?

Edited December 10, 2011 by Beriallord

[marharth]

@ Marharth:

 

Nope, you use logic: just searching 'citizen' would more than be sufficient. I cannot think of a single metaphor for 'citizen' in legal confines: 'resident' doesn't work because it also includes people with visas, 'people' is too general and flowery, I honestly cannot think of another one.

 

One thing: when debating, please adhere to the 'burden of proof' philosophy. Essentially, if you claim something is, you must provide evidence. Otherwise, if you can't prove it, your claim is dismissed. In other words, your claim is invalid unless proven by evidence. I see a lot of members dodging around this, and it's quite strange, really.

My point is that if there really is something in the bill I don't want to say for sure it is not there based on a few searches. I don't really have time to read the entire bill. It doesn't seem to me like it is there though since no one can give a straight answer on what it is.

 

Also on the second thing you are correct. People are dodging that quite a bit.

[dazzerfong]

True, Marharth. So in other words, the main point of this debate is now defunct: there is no clear evidence presented that supports this issue beyond reasonable doubt.