first see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7mwP5Di5NE
Is this change in the law needed because the government knows that it
must 'be prepared' to detain people in the US?
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in
this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention
for the broad definition of "covered persons" discussed above in the
prior point. And that section does provide that "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." So that section contains a disclaimer
regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens,
but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More
important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens
"captured or arrested in the United States" — meaning that the powers
of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens
captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this
point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the
detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured
abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section
specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad
group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is
"a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force" and
"participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or
attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."
For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires
(absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held "in military custody
pending disposition under the law of war." The section title is
"Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists," but the definition
of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any
requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding
U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the
requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but
it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to
hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the
"requirement" of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of
being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S.
citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens
from the presidential power of military detention: only from the
requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in
the prior two points: the "compromise" reached by Congress includes
language preserving the status quo. That's because the Obama
administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes
them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they
have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they
believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy
combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S.
citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by
Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected.
The "compromise" was to preserve the status quo by including the
provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to
American citizens, but that's because proponents of broad detention
powers are confident that the status quo already permits such
detention.
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite
detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it
significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror
and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of
application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that's
why Feinstein's amendments were rejected — and there is consequently
no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under
this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is
empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial
(NYT Editorial: "The legislation could also give future presidents the
authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without
charges or a trial"; Sen. Bernie Sanders: "This bill also contains
misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism
essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens
without charges").
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to
how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the
powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from
having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a
GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers
previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That
codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial
today put it: the bill contains "terrible new measures that will make
indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American
law."
What's particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that
former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker's Jane
Mayer back in February, 2009 that it's "hard to imagine Barack Obama
as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-
detention law." Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly
such a law — one that The New York Times described as "a departure
from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the
grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free" —
and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
On Dec 26, 6:28 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just in case you missed it:
>
> *(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.
> *
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Good Morning.
>
> > I am genuinely hoping that you will respond to this post. As a side note,
> > last week, we had Crackpots and Moonbats claiming that this piece of
> > legislation, (which is renewed every year since 1961, with various
> > modifications) was setting up camps to imprison American citizens, (I
> > assume Ron Paul supporters) until level heads pointed out to these
> > Moonbats and Crackpots that the legislation didn't say anything of the
> > sort.
>
> > What in particular, are you, and others who oppose this legislation,
> > opposed to? Here is the section that you reference, (which by the way,
> > does not say what you claim it says). I suggest that all of the Moonbats,
> > and all of the Crackpots read the legislation before they listen to other
> > Crackpots and Moonbats, and get their proverbial panties in a wad:
>
> > Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
>
> > SEC. 1021. 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; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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.
>
> > (c) 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. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
>
> > (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 1021 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 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph
> > (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements
> > of section 1028.
>
> > (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the
> > requirement of paragraph (1) if the President 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.
>
> > (c) Implementation Procedures-
>
> > (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
> > of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures
> > for implementing this section.
>
> > (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall
> > include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
>
> > (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make
> > determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such
> > determinations are to be made.
>
> > (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody
> > under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing
> > surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already
> > in the custody or control of the United States.
>
> > (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2)
> > is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an
> > interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and
> > does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
>
> > (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody
> > under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement,
> > or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an
> > individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
>
> > (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security
> > interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of
> > transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in
> > the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
>
> > (d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
> > the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the
> > Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement
> > agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered
> > person is held in military custody.
>
> > (e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is
> > 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with
> > respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the
> > custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that
> > effective date.
>
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Constitutional.Reset <
> > constitutional.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, A Very Merry Christmas! The remembrance of close friends in high
> >> places is right on time - We need the guidance, courage and help.
> >> There is lower business that needs attending.
>
> >> While there is still time, Please ask BHO to veto the H.R.1540, AKA
> >> NDAA & 'Indefinite Citizen Imprisonment w/o Trial Act' legislation for
> >> cause of its provisions not pursuant to our US Constitution in:
> >> "Subtitle D. SEC. 1021 (c)(1)Detention under the law of war without
> >> trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization
> >> for the Use of Military Force" where covered persons are defined by
> >> the administration's assignment of guilty status not by properly
> >> sufficient evidence in a proper civilian court of law - the option to
> >> apply that to US Citizens is retained by omission of the exclusion.
> >> See Subtitle D. SEC. 1022 (b)(1)
> >> ===========================
> >> Contact BHO at
>
> >>http://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/comment-legislation?billname=H.R.+1...
> >> View legislation pending a POTUS signature (non-void) at
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment