Bill S.1867

[Sumwun]

What I have noticed in the past, is that Anonymous tends to dramatize many situations.

 

Sure, this bill could lead to a military dictatorship, but there is a reason U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms.

 

 

If you read the bill, you'd see it's not exaggerated at all. Anonymous's explanation is pretty accurate this time. It's a real shame what this country has become.

[Sumwun]

Still don't see anything about detaining US citizens.

 

Exactly. Because there is nothing in there about detaining US citizens.

 

Unless someone would like to prove otherwise, as well as point me to the spot in there that says it.

 

Unless you read the actual bill, stop commenting on it.

[Sumwun]

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.

 

ctrl+f -> "detain"

 

Hey, that was easy!

 

Part 1

1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

 

Part 2

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de

16 termined—

 

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

 

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

 

 

So basically: US citizens can't be detained under normal circumstances, so they're "protected". However, they can if they are deemed to be terrorists. If deemed to be terrorists, no due process is required and the original protection for US citizens is overwritten. The mere accusation of terrorism can get you jailed, tortured, killed, etc.

 

So this means that you're "immune" from this happening to you, until the government points at you. Then that "immunity" all of a sudden disappears. It's like trying to wear a bulletproof vest, but then being forced to take it off whenever someone wants to shoot you. The "immunity" does not exist in reality, only on paper.

 

Again, if you did not read the bill yourself and understand the gravity of what it means, do not comment on it being blown out of proportion. You have no clue what you're talking about. This bill is a huge f***ing deal. It basically cancels out the constitution. Nice to see how many of you are totally unaware of what this bill actually means. Just goes to show where Americans' priorities lie.

 

I guess it doesn't really matter if I pointed it out to you or not. The sheeple will always be asleep. Keep grazing.

 

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

 

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

 

Am I the only one who knows how to use ctrl+f?

 

ctrl+f

 

Type "citizen" in the little box.

Like magic, it finds the word for you!

Edited December 12, 2011 by Sumwun

[marharth]

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.

 

ctrl+f -> "detain"

 

Hey, that was easy!

 

Part 1

1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

 

Part 2

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de

16 termined—

 

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

 

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

 

 

So basically: US citizens can't be detained under normal circumstances, so they're "protected". However, they can if they are deemed to be terrorists. If deemed to be terrorists, no due process is required and the original protection for US citizens is overwritten. The mere accusation of terrorism can get you jailed, tortured, killed, etc.

 

So this means that you're "immune" from this happening to you, until the government points at you. Then that "immunity" all of a sudden disappears. It's like trying to wear a bulletproof vest, but then being forced to take it off whenever someone wants to shoot you. The "immunity" does not exist in reality, only on paper.

 

Again, if you did not read the bill yourself and understand the gravity of what it means, do not comment on it being blown out of proportion. You have no clue what you're talking about. This bill is a huge f***ing deal. It basically cancels out the constitution. Nice to see how many of you are totally unaware of what this bill actually means. Just goes to show where Americans' priorities lie.

 

I guess it doesn't really matter if I pointed it out to you or not. The sheeple will always be asleep. Keep grazing.

 

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

 

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

 

Am I the only one who knows how to use ctrl+f?

 

ctrl+f

 

Type "citizen" in the little box.

Like magic, it finds the word for you!

I was referring to this link http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/Section1031-NDAA.pdf

[dazzerfong]

@ SumWun:

 

Part 1

1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

 

Part 2

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de

16 termined—

 

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

 

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

 

Determined means (you don't have to include it in most contexts) BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. But then again, think about it: why would the government want to silent you? Also, by law of Burden of Proof (God, I love it!), WE DON'T HAVE TO READ IT TO DENY IT. You have to read it to claim it. Doesn't work the other way around, this is not a science class, this is philosophy.

[Harbringe]

Determined means (you don't have to include it in most contexts) BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. But then again, think about it: why would the government want to silent you? Also, by law of Burden of Proof (God, I love it!), WE DON'T HAVE TO READ IT TO DENY IT. You have to read it to claim it. Doesn't work the other way around, this is not a science class, this is philosophy.

 

Well your going to have to provide some evidence that BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT applies in the determination process of detention.The only thing I can find for beyond reasonable doubt and burden of proof is that they apply in the trial phase of the law as in prosecution and conviction.

 

One legalism that I did find that would apply to the determination phase of detention is probable cause.

 

Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit.

 

Furthermore

 

There are some exceptions to these general rules. Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to Stop and Frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.

 

Still all this is within the civilian sphere and this bill is attempting to move much of this to a military sphere.

[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.

 

ctrl+f -> "detain"

 

Hey, that was easy!

 

Part 1

1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

 

Part 2

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de

16 termined—

 

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

 

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

 

 

So basically: US citizens can't be detained under normal circumstances, so they're "protected". However, they can if they are deemed to be terrorists. If deemed to be terrorists, no due process is required and the original protection for US citizens is overwritten. The mere accusation of terrorism can get you jailed, tortured, killed, etc.

 

So this means that you're "immune" from this happening to you, until the government points at you. Then that "immunity" all of a sudden disappears. It's like trying to wear a bulletproof vest, but then being forced to take it off whenever someone wants to shoot you. The "immunity" does not exist in reality, only on paper.

 

Again, if you did not read the bill yourself and understand the gravity of what it means, do not comment on it being blown out of proportion. You have no clue what you're talking about. This bill is a huge f***ing deal. It basically cancels out the constitution. Nice to see how many of you are totally unaware of what this bill actually means. Just goes to show where Americans' priorities lie.

 

I guess it doesn't really matter if I pointed it out to you or not. The sheeple will always be asleep. Keep grazing.

 

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

 

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

 

Am I the only one who knows how to use ctrl+f?

 

ctrl+f

 

Type "citizen" in the little box.

Like magic, it finds the word for you!

 

HERP DERP MORE

 

(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.

[lukertin]

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.

(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)).

Hamdi v Rumsfield specifically ruled against this.

No, because Hamdi v. Rumsfield only applies to US Citizens. It does not apply to foreign nationals. Since Section 1031 does not apply to US Citizens, this legislation does not purport to overrule Hamdi v. Rumsfield, and Hamdi v. Rumsfield is irrelevant. Furthermore, since Hamdi v. Rumsfield is good law, it is legislated into Section 1031(e) as a limit to how the gov't can detain a US Citizen.

 

The only part in the bill I see about waiver is in Section 1032(a), which does not apply to US Citizens in any way. It waives the requirements of Section 1032(a)(1) when national security interests are concerned, but 1032(a)(1) does not and cannot apply to US Citizens. Waiving the requirement of 1032(a)(1) for detention does not effect allowable detention of US Citizens. The clauses aren't even in the same subsection, so there is no indication they are meant to interact with each other.

Edited December 15, 2011 by lukertin

[Harbringe]

@ Lukertin

 

I don't think your seeing that clearly.

 

So to set this up might be a good idea for people to use the actual bill passed by the Senate that's in the Library of Congress, instead of all these drafts being put up all over the web.

 

Bill S.1867 On that page says there are 2 versions ,its the second one that says [Passed Senate] .Then go down to Sec 1032 , above it is Subtitle D--Detainee Matters that's actually Sec 1031 and will give you subsequent sections that concerns us. But I'm just gonna copy and paste what concerns us if no one wants to go look.

 

 

Detainee Matters

 

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

• (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

• (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

• • (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

• • (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

• © Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition 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.

• • (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

• • (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

• • (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

• (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• (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.

• (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

• (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

• • (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

• • (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

• • • (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

• • • (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

• • (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031©, except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

• • (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.

• (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

• • (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

• • (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- 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.

There is a © and (d) to sec 1032 but they deal with procedures and when it all becomes effective.Anyhoo onward.

 

1) Sec 1032 (b) (1) and (2) I'm not 100% (anyone know any lawyers , law profs , judges) sure about this but I don't think the word requirement is to be taken in a normal sense , its a legalism within the bill itself and to understand that legalism you have to go to the sec that details what a requirement is which is just above this

 

2) Sec 1032 (a) (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4) First in check paragraph (4) What is it

 

3)Sec 1032 (a) (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY so the very first thing they have done is institute a provision that allows them to waive the requirement but continuing on

 

4)Sec 1032 (a) (1) IN GENERAL- At the end of the paragraph there is something called disposition under law of war which is

 

5)Sec 1032 (a) (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR tells you to go to section 1031©

 

6)Sec 1031 © Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition 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.
     
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

• • (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

• • (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Sec 1031 © (1) Hamdi v Rumsfeld - Supreme Court has said no

(2) Codifying military law over civilian law

(3) New to this section

(4) New to this section

 

So when I said before that it basically ends you up back at Sec 1031 © this is how they do it . This bill you read down and then have to bounce your way back to understand fully what they are saying .Actually it kinda reminds me of the way insurance policies are written when you think your covered and then find out your not because of something previously given. Like I said make work project for lawyers.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Harbringe

[lukertin]

@ Harbinge

 

the second draft is the one I am using.

 

The meaning of what a requirement is appears to be ambiguous given the language of section 1032(a)(1), but requirement within the meaning of 1032(a)(1) is later defined in 1032(b)(1) and (b)(2). Requirement is not a 'legalism' its meaning is the normal dictionary definition of the word, i.e., a condition which must be satisfied.

Edited December 16, 2011 by lukertin