Bill S.1867

[lukertin]

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.

Yes, you are right. Maybe you should consult Hamdi v. Rumsfield so you get an idea of just what the law is.

[lukertin]

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.

I am sure that every single bill mentioning US citizens will in fact, use that exact phrase.

 

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

You didn't have an argument to begin with.

[marharth]

I am sure that every single bill mentioning US citizens will in fact, use that exact phrase.

 

You didn't have an argument to begin with.

Once again you didn't understand my point.

 

If you are saying I didn't have an argument to begin with you are simply wrong.

[lukertin]

Once again you didn't understand my point.

Your point is clearly not worth understanding, since you have repeated failed to make one.

[marharth]

Once again you didn't understand my point.

Your point is clearly not worth understanding, since you have repeated failed to make one.

If you don't see my point you are not reading this thread. Other members could explain my point if you can't seem to understand it.

 

Like seriously my posts are on this page, scroll up. If you don't understand it that is your issue. dazzerfong understands it, there is no reason you should be having so much trouble.

[lukertin]

If you don't see my point you are not reading this thread. Other members could explain my point if you can't seem to understand it.

 

Like seriously my posts are on this page, scroll up. If you don't understand it that is your issue. dazzerfong understands it, there is no reason you should be having so much trouble.

It's a shame you couldn't use that philosophy when you claimed that Congress passed a bill labeling pizza a vegetable.

 

Also: I'm being sarcastic. I know full well what you're trying to do, and you're failing pretty bad.

Edited December 10, 2011 by lukertin

[marharth]

If you don't see my point you are not reading this thread. Other members could explain my point if you can't seem to understand it.

 

Like seriously my posts are on this page, scroll up. If you don't understand it that is your issue. dazzerfong understands it, there is no reason you should be having so much trouble.

It's a shame you couldn't use that philosophy when you claimed that Congress passed a bill labeling pizza a vegetable.

 

Also: I'm being sarcastic. I know full well what you're trying to do, and you're failing pretty bad.

Since you clearly can't read properly (or have a problem with scrolling) I will just copy paste what I wrote.

 

"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."

 

Wasn't too hard was it?

 

 

Maybe we have a misunderstanding and you are still referring to the pizza thing, which is not for this topic. I was under the assumption you were referring to the proper on topic subject though. If you still insist on derailing this thread, I can also copy paste my other posts about pizza being nutritionally equal to vegetables.

[HeyYou]

Go back to my last post in this thread. Link to the relevant section is there. Its part of the NDAA legislation.

[marharth]

Go back to my last post in this thread. Link to the relevant section is there. Its part of the NDAA legislation.

Well that proves my point considering it didn't say citizen anywhere.

 

Sorry about missing your post, I will read that now.

[Harbringe]

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.

Yes, you are right. Maybe you should consult Hamdi v. Rumsfield so you get an idea of just what the law is.

 

Actually I am aware of Hamdi v Rumsfield , though I did have to go look it up again to refresh my memory on what context of due process they intended. Irregardless its a rather moot ruling in the face of this when they can just seek a waiver if they need to.

 

Really this bill comes down to one section and one concept that is not contained in the bill.

 

Section 1031

© DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-

position 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.

 

Hamdi v Rumsfield specifically ruled against this.

 

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United 9

States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-

sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 11

84)).

 

Which is a codification of the trying of persons under military law.

 

The concept that is not really laid forth is that this power to determine belligerents and detain them has heretofore been the sole power of the President when it came to US citizens (and maybe the US Attorney General not sure) and this bill attempts to extend that power to the military , headed by unelected officials .In a democracy where rule of law and civilian dictate is supposed to take precedence over the military that's a big no no , in fact there are quite a number of prohibitions written in your laws against it.

 

When I read this bill I think one of two things . Its either a make work project for lawyers , cause no doubt there is going to be a whole slew of court challenges to this if they ever passes it into law or its an attempt to create another funding stream for the military, cause it will require a whole new level of bereaucracy (big government) to implement.Can you say deficit spending.