Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Infinite Detention Bill: USA

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
89 replies to this topic
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#1

Posted 19 December 2011 - 03:53 PM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 19 December 2011 - 03:55 PM.

Yeah, been following this for the last few weeks. Not surprised.

It was difficult to say where this ought to be posted, Gen Chat or D&D yet it serves us best here, perhaps.

This is where the fangs really come out on the public. Note from December 1st 2011




A military perspective?


Admiral & Judge's opinion on the matter




Obama was all in the mix claiming he was going to veto until it was revised giving him much more dictatorial power.
http://www.politico....ill-107514.html




http://robinwestenra...tecture-of.html


Yes, it does apply to citizens.

http://www.lawfarebl...of-us-citizens/


QUOTE
S.1867
A Special Box for a Special Bil
Bill Text Versions 112th Congress (2011-2012) S.1867



ps, remember the warnings of Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura?




Just think about it........




Yeah, the whole world is going to hell. Why I even bother to point things out is beyond me.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#2

Posted 19 December 2011 - 04:19 PM

Few quotes from this for perusal-

QUOTE (S1867)
10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United State


QUOTE (S1867)
6 (a) IN GENERAL.—No amounts authorized to be ap-
7 propriated or otherwise made available to the Department
8 of Defense for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct
9 or modify any facility in the United States, its territories,
10 or possessions to house any individual detained at Guanta-
11 namo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in
12 the custody or under the control of the Department of De-
13 fense unless authorized by Congress.
14 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition in subsection (a)
15 shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United
16 States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba


I've had a brief skim-read of both versions of the document, and cannot find anywhere clauses for "infinite detention", or- as others have alleged- the ability for it to be used against dissenting citizens without evidence or trial. In fact, the first section I've posted quite clearly indicated that the new bill does not override existing legislation concerning US citizens- that is to say, the new act cannot be applied against US citizens or residents of the United States domestically.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#3

Posted 19 December 2011 - 04:23 PM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 19 December 2011 - 04:43 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 11:19)
Few quotes from this for perusal-

QUOTE (S1867)
10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United State


QUOTE (S1867)
6 (a) IN GENERAL.—No amounts authorized to be ap-
7 propriated or otherwise made available to the Department
8 of Defense for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct
9 or modify any facility in the United States, its territories,
10 or possessions to house any individual detained at Guanta-
11 namo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in
12 the custody or under the control of the Department of De-
13 fense unless authorized by Congress.
14 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition in subsection (a)
15 shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United
16 States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba


I've had a brief skim-read of both versions of the document, and cannot find anywhere clauses for "infinite detention", or- as others have alleged- the ability for it to be used against dissenting citizens without evidence or trial. In fact, the first section I've posted quite clearly indicated that the new bill does not override existing legislation concerning US citizens- that is to say, the new act cannot be applied against US citizens or residents of the United States domestically.

Of course you can't.....you're such a tool.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#4

Posted 19 December 2011 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 17:23)
Of course you can't.....your such a tool.

Oh really? You want to point out the exactly clauses of S1867 that permit the use as I described it, or are you going to continue to hurl petty insults for no good reason until I close this topic for good?

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#5

Posted 19 December 2011 - 04:48 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 11:33)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 17:23)
Of course you can't.....your such a tool.

Oh really? You want to point out the exactly clauses of S1867 that permit the use as I described it, or are you going to continue to hurl petty insults for no good reason until I close this topic for good?

I have already left plenty of expert testimony that you didn't have TIME to go over.

The legal speak for itself explains it well with the manner it enables previous bills.

If you want to close the topic, being that you are The Thought Police, and prove my point then by all means demonstrate.

It's funny, I knew when I had just posted the topic and saw you entering it that this would be the sort of total crap you would throw down.

If you don't like being called a tool then take it up with your handler.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#6

Posted 19 December 2011 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 17:48)
I have already left plenty of expert testimony that you didn't have TIME to go over.

Then your idea of "expert testimony" is very different to mine. I don't know about you, but I don't need partisan media to translate my sources for me, I'd rather do it myself and cut all the politically-motivated crap. I'm just stating that, from a quick perusal, I can't actually see any indication of either an "infinite detention bill", or that, if such a bill were to occur, it would be applicable to US citizens and/or residents inside the territorial borders of the United States. You may not like that, but I'm not calling you or your precious partisan sources liars- just pointing out that I can't see what they're referring to.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 17:48)
The legal speak for itself explains it well with the manner it enables previous bills.

Sorry, in English please?

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 17:48)
If you want to close the topic, being that you are The Thought Police, and prove my point then by all means demonstrate.

I have no intention of closing this topic for it's content- your welcome to discuss whatever you wish as long as it's within the bounds of the rules, and I'll happily contribute, whether I agree or not. But one-line personal attacks against other posters is the preserve of the V forum, not D&D, so either take it there or debate like an intelligent human.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 17:48)
It's funny, I knew when I had just posted the topic and saw you entering it that this would be the sort of total crap you would throw down.

Oh, excellent, more attacks and no discussion or sensible, evidence-based rebuttals of what I've been saying to speak of. Do you want to have an intelligent debate, or do you just like throwing your toys out of the pram and pissing all over yourself in the futile hope that you'll hit someone else? You may not agree with my assessment that S1867 doesn't de facto give the military right of indefinite detention of citizens, but your own sources appear to confirm what I've been saying. Take a gander-

QUOTE (LawWarfare)
So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side’s view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide.

Think about that last bit for a moment.  It seems to me this is quite typical of the role Congress has played in recent years in relation to detention policy.  Rather than actually state explicitly whether it wishes detention authority to extend to some circumstances or entities, the general pattern has been to simply leave in place the generic language of the AUMF (and, now, the only slightly-more-specific language of section 1031), with the government and detainee lawyers then fighting over their preferred readings and the judiciary eventually making the ultimate decision.

Basically, the content of S1867 does not provide any additional clause over the arrest and detention of US citizens by military authorities beyond that which already exists on the statute books. Which is, for want of a better way of putting it, exactly the argument I've been making.

You object to what I do in this sub-forum, take it up with the other staff.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#7

Posted 19 December 2011 - 05:34 PM

Oh, your opinion is completely flawless? orly.gif





Imprisonment without due process with the ability to do so indefinitely.


Like the natural world, law abides by a rule of that which is not prohibited is mandatory.

This is in the arena of Murphy's Law, which falls to the root in logic.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#8

Posted 19 December 2011 - 05:48 PM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 18:34)
Oh, your opinion is completely flawless?  orly.gif

Did I ever say that? This isn't a debate of opinions, it's a debate of facts. I have stated, factually, that I see no clause in S1867 that permits either indefinite detention without trial, or, in the case of the latter, makes it applicable to US citizens and residents inside the US. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but an opinion piece isn't proof. Proof comes from the original document.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 18:34)
Imprisonment without due process with the ability to do so indefinitely.

Point to me where in S1867 it permits indefinite imprisonment without trial. Show me which clause permits it.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 18:34)
Like the natural world, law abides by a rule of that which is not prohibited is mandatory.

I don't think the law works like that. That's why there's a judiciary, to decide on culpability, applicability and criminality in the event that existing legislation does not cover a circumstance. That which is not expressly forbidden is not therefore permissible, that goes against the basic principals of law. Besides, that implies that the arrest and detention of US citizens without trial and indefinately is not forbidden in legislation; it is, is it not? It contravenes the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the US constitution, does it not? Ergo, it is expressly forbidden by law.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Boob groper

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#9

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:33 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 18:19)
I've had a brief skim-read of both versions of the document, and cannot find anywhere clauses for "infinite detention", or- as others have alleged- the ability for it to be used against dissenting citizens without evidence or trial. In fact, the first section I've posted quite clearly indicated that the new bill does not override existing legislation concerning US citizens- that is to say, the new act cannot be applied against US citizens or residents of the United States domestically.

You can be really naive sometimes. Or you really don't know how to read between the lines. Laws such as this one will inevitably be abused by the government. The government doesn't need any more power. This is a pretty fascist legislation. I mean come on, they were actually able to ignore the first amendment right to peaceful assembly by saying how the protesters are polluting the area (wall street protesters). It's that easy to abuse laws and legislation.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#10

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:41 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 20:33)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 18:19)
I've had a brief skim-read of both versions of the document, and cannot find anywhere clauses for "infinite detention", or- as others have alleged- the ability for it to be used against dissenting citizens without evidence or trial. In fact, the first section I've posted quite clearly indicated that the new bill does not override existing legislation concerning US citizens- that is to say, the new act cannot be applied against US citizens or residents of the United States domestically.

You can be really naive sometimes. Or you really don't know how to read between the lines. Laws such as this one will inevitably be abused by the government. The government doesn't need any more power. This is a pretty fascist legislation. I mean come on, they were actually able to ignore the first amendment right to peaceful assembly by saying how the protesters are polluting the area (wall street protesters). It's that easy to abuse laws and legislation.

Is it really fascism if it's directed against unpopular targets? And that's an honest question. Let us say, for example, that members of the Westboro Baptist Church were locked up without charge and left to rot in a cell despite having committed no crime. Would you, with such passionately atheistic views, care about their rights?
Hopefully not. Because it's only right and proper to welcome misfortune on those who hate you.

So isn't the key issue here that the legislation should target the right sort of people? Fascism is a negative, loaded label. So can it be fascistic in the modern sense of the word if it has the backing of the people?

Call me crazy, but I support laws like this which allow society to strike back against those who abuse our tolerance and compassion. Religious fundamentalists, harmful political crackpots, unwashed Communist students. We have given them nothing but love, in your country and ours. We gave them freedom, they wished it gone. We gave them liberty, they derided us. We gave them acceptance, they shunned us.

Using fascistic means to protect a truly democratic society is absolute genius. The country remains free but has a far greater ability to wage war against internal parasites. Because that's what Western civilisation as a whole is facing.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Boob groper

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#11

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 22:41)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 20:33)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 18:19)
I've had a brief skim-read of both versions of the document, and cannot find anywhere clauses for "infinite detention", or- as others have alleged- the ability for it to be used against dissenting citizens without evidence or trial. In fact, the first section I've posted quite clearly indicated that the new bill does not override existing legislation concerning US citizens- that is to say, the new act cannot be applied against US citizens or residents of the United States domestically.

You can be really naive sometimes. Or you really don't know how to read between the lines. Laws such as this one will inevitably be abused by the government. The government doesn't need any more power. This is a pretty fascist legislation. I mean come on, they were actually able to ignore the first amendment right to peaceful assembly by saying how the protesters are polluting the area (wall street protesters). It's that easy to abuse laws and legislation.

Is it really fascism if it's directed against unpopular targets? And that's an honest question. Let us say, for example, that members of the Westboro Baptist Church were locked up without charge and left to rot in a cell despite having committed no crime. Would you, with such passionately atheistic views, care about their rights?
Hopefully not. Because it's only right and proper to welcome misfortune on those who hate you.

So isn't the key issue here that the legislation should target the right sort of people? Fascism is a negative, loaded label. So can it be fascistic in the modern sense of the word if it has the backing of the people?

Call me crazy, but I support laws like this which allow society to strike back against those who abuse our tolerance and compassion. Religious fundamentalists, harmful political crackpots, unwashed Communist students. We have given them nothing but love, in your country and ours. We gave them freedom, they wished it gone. We gave them liberty, they derided us. We gave them acceptance, they shunned us.

Using fascistic means to protect a truly democratic society is absolute genius. The country remains free but has a far greater ability to wage war against internal parasites. Because that's what Western civilisation as a whole is facing.

America is far from being the land of the free. It's the land of the wealthy. Unless you're an idiot and can't see what's in front of you. And yes, you are crazy. And no, I wouldn't just lock up WBC members. I would simply ignore them. That's the worst thing you can do to those people. Ignore everything they say. The more we talk about them the more powerful they get. Just by saying this I'm giving them attention they don't deserve.

There's also this little bit of wisdom. I usually hate these old sayings but this one is a rare exception.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#12

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:57 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Monday, Dec 19 2011, 21:33)
You can be really naive sometimes. Or you really don't know how to read between the lines. Laws such as this one will inevitably be abused by the government. The government doesn't need any more power. This is a pretty fascist legislation. I mean come on, they were actually able to ignore the first amendment right to peaceful assembly by saying how the protesters are polluting the area (wall street protesters). It's that easy to abuse laws and legislation.

Are you misusing "fascist" to mean "authoritarian"? In which case, I'd agree somewhat- there's plenty of scope for abuse of these new legislations. My argument hasn't been "oh, this legislation is all okay", it's been "nowhere does it say or imply to anyone with an understanding of law that these new laws will impact civil liberties in the way certain elements of the media has portrayed them to". That doesn't mean I agree with the basic principal of it- far from it. What's being discussed here operates basically at odds with the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Geneva Convention. I think it's incredibly immoral to judge "terrorists"- or, more often and more accurately, "insurgents", as enemy combatants when it's advantageous to do so, and then civilians when it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, the moment you start involving the military in the trying of individuals, they're combatants, plain and simple, and no amount of legal wrangling is going to change that. I also happen to think that it's entirely the wrong way to go about it- militarising the adversary lends them more "power" than they should deservedly have; in fact, one of the defining moments of the longest running insurgency in living memory- Northern Ireland- was the criminalisation of combatants; the denying of their right to recognition as true warriors; and, by most measures, it was damn successful as a disincentive to the misguided youth. I honestly struggle to believe that the US would fall into such a trap.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#13

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:08 AM

We've always had that retarded " enemy combatant" bullsh*t. It hasn't served us well back when we initiated it and it won't now. The idea that this bill is giving the government some vast new power is ridiculous though. Call me when a bill is about to pass granting the military the ability to start acting on American soil, then we'll have a problem.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#14

Posted 20 December 2011 - 04:20 AM

I just found out about this area of the forum and I must say I like it. This is something that the old timers can tell you about if you can refrain from calling them coots.

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=acLW1vFO-2Q

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#15

Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:18 AM

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 05:20)
I just found out about this area of the forum and I must say I like it. This is something that the old timers can tell you about if you can refrain from calling them coots.

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=acLW1vFO-2Q

I'm glad you've just "found" this section of the forums, but the rules here are slightly different from elsewhere. One-line posts and youtube videos without intelligent discussion are a no-no; basically, you've gotta contribute to the debate, or the sub-forum rapidly starts looking like V. As its your first time here I'll let it slide, but keep it in mind for future posts.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#16

Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:44 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 10:18)
QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 05:20)
I just found out about this area of the forum and I must say I like it. This is something that the old timers can tell you about if you can refrain from calling them coots.

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=acLW1vFO-2Q

I'm glad you've just "found" this section of the forums, but the rules here are slightly different from elsewhere. One-line posts and youtube videos without intelligent discussion are a no-no; basically, you've gotta contribute to the debate, or the sub-forum rapidly starts looking like V. As its your first time here I'll let it slide, but keep it in mind for future posts.

I'm sorry but I didn't know the rules. Your right I should have read them but I figured this was a "freedom of expression" thread. The youtube video that I gave is relevant to the discussion but I can see how it is left to interpretation so I will not defend it with my own. My apologies.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:11 AM

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 05:44)
I figured this was a "freedom of expression" thread.

Are you implying that he's trying to stifle your view?

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#18

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:12 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 11:11)
QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 05:44)
I figured this was a "freedom of expression" thread.

Are you implying that he's trying to stifle your view?

No. That is for the mods. to determine.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#19

Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:17 PM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 20 December 2011 - 08:07 PM.

The sections that interest me the most are these two sections.

QUOTE
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.

    © 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.

            © Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

            (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) 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.


Now, to the least I can say that I find these two sections quite interesting.

I just love double speak!

Now, there are over three hundred people that I believe ought to be arrested under those pretenses, many of them bankers and congressmen......yet me mustn't forget those previously excused members of the CIA and NSA and Homeland Security that have thus far escaped any scrutiny.

It must really suck to be in on it and pass a piece of legislation just to find out that you have exposed your weakness along the way and now you have just signed your own torture warrant, albeit death warrant.....without trial.....or any right to council.

The fact that the rest of the populace has to put up with this incompetence is disturbing.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#20

Posted 20 December 2011 - 08:24 PM Edited by sivispacem, 20 December 2011 - 08:32 PM.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 20:17)
QUOTE
        (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.


Now, there are over three hundred people that I believe ought to be arrested under those pretenses, many of them bankers and congressmen......yet me mustn't forget those previously excused members of the CIA and NSA and Homeland Security that have thus far escaped any scrutiny.

Please read again. I think you'll find the appropriate authority clause excludes those individuals you target your abhorrence against. You really should read these things more thoroughly before you stark making presumptions.

Also...

QUOTE
        (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.

So...yeah, no.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#21

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:09 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 15:24)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 20:17)
QUOTE
        (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.


Now, there are over three hundred people that I believe ought to be arrested under those pretenses, many of them bankers and congressmen......yet me mustn't forget those previously excused members of the CIA and NSA and Homeland Security that have thus far escaped any scrutiny.

Please read again. I think you'll find the appropriate authority clause excludes those individuals you target your abhorrence against. You really should read these things more thoroughly before you stark making presumptions.

Also...

QUOTE
        (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.

So...yeah, no.

Wow....Was my sarcasm that unclear?

It is pretty obvious that it was.

Those people are "obviously" above being prosecuted for anything.

Wait....are they?

Not really but spurring discussion on the topic is interesting enough for me to grab any position that you decide I ought to.

No office in the country makes you above prosecution for criminal behavior.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#22

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:20 PM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 22:09)
Wow....Was my sarcasm that unclear?

It is pretty obvious that it was.

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. I thought you'd be old and wise enough to understand that?

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 22:09)
Those people are "obviously" above being prosecuted for anything.

Wait....are they?

...Please don't derail the topic. You want to discuss S1867, then go ahead, do so. But if you want to use it as a microcosm for everything else and go off on mini-diatribes, then keep it somewhere else.

Rown
  • Rown

    weltvolkzeit

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#23

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:36 PM

QUOTE
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


This bugs me because it does circumvent constitutional law as I would like to interpret it. Meaning that when the Constitution says it protects "persons" I don't think that language is limited to Citizens. I read it at face value: people have certain rights, not "American Citizens" have certain rights and everyone else is out of luck.

QUOTE
        (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.


I feel these phrases are a bit ambiguous. While the military is not required to arrest/detain a citizen or legal resident it does not forbid it, and while preceding language would seem to strike an ability of indefinite detention it's not perfectly clear as it punts to previous legislation that I don't have knowledge of.

The language shouldn't remove the restrictions on armed services operating in the states... so I guess if you're a US national abroad the military might be able to detain you for some period of time dependent on what previous legislation says.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#24

Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:31 PM

QUOTE (Rown @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 22:36)
I feel these phrases are a bit ambiguous. While the military is not required to arrest/detain a citizen or legal resident it does not forbid it, and while preceding language would seem to strike an ability of indefinite detention it's not perfectly clear as it punts to previous legislation that I don't have knowledge of.

The language shouldn't remove the restrictions on armed services operating in the states... so I guess if you're a US national abroad the military might be able to detain you for some period of time dependent on what previous legislation says.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Basically, as I can see it, it maintains the existing status quo. It doesn't provide any new mandate for military detention that doesn't already exist, but nor does it provide any additional clarification besides a basic caveat ensuring that individual cases are treated on a case-by-case basis. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a case of US citizens being detained abroad by US military forces for terrorist activity to provide any legislative direction in the circumstances described, save for habeas corpus and the existing sixth and eight amendments. The rest of the document is relatively specific about conditions under which individuals can be detained, in my view- it's only in this area it's vague. Still, raises a number of important questions about the ideas of combatant versus non-combatant for the purposes of trial and detention. I mean, has the US taken a definitive stance on whether militants and insurgents are treated as combatants? The bill suggests that they are treated as such for the purpose of detention (I.E, they're seen as combatants in the eyes of the US service personnel they fight) but does not entitle them to their rights under the Geneva Convention. Can anyone give a little more clarity on this?

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#25

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:51 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 17:31)
Basically, as I can see it, it maintains the existing status quo.

For the most part, yes. I'd say while it does maintain that status quo, it codifies what they've been doing for the past 10 or so years as law.

Is this unconstitutional? Absolutely. There are a lot of unconstitutional laws. Look at DOMA. It basically says states are required to give full faith and credit for laws of other states, except for gay marriage. The constitution's full faith and credit clause does not make an exception for gay marriage. Yet it's only what? 15 years later that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, not the courts, have declared it unconstitutional? Come on.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#26

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:52 AM

When they talk about detention for detainees being held up to the end of the war, I wonder what that is. I mean what does the end of the "War on Terror" look like since it is global and not confined between two armies like traditional warfare? I know that they can do rendetions like the movie with the same name that came out a few years ago. They already can take a U.S. citizen a transport them to another country and "enhance interegate" them to the point of organ failure or near death. For a decade now they have passed legislation like this new one and for the most part we look the other way. I guess it is safer not to question important men doing important things. It's the new American way.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#27

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:57 AM

They can't legally do that though. The Bush Administration was out of its f*cking mind. They did not have the legal authority to do what they did with Jose Padilla and whoever else is currently sitting in some black site in Eastern Europe, end of story. And yeah, those enhanced methods sure as hell worked great rolleyes.gif

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#28

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:03 AM Edited by Jeeebuuus, 21 December 2011 - 01:12 AM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 00:57)
They can't legally do that though. The Bush Administration was out of its f*cking mind. They did not have the legal authority to do what they did with Jose Padilla and whoever else is currently sitting in some black site in Eastern Europe, end of story. And yeah, those enhanced methods sure as hell worked great  rolleyes.gif

Once it is signed into law then they can legally do it. They have signed several of these things and legally anyone of us can get picked up off of the street and never heard from again if they think it is in their best interest to do so. I am starting to feel nervous typing these words. smile.gif
http://www.youtube.c...e&v=hG_R6U_Ffes

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#29

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:14 AM

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 20:03)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 00:57)
They can't legally do that though. The Bush Administration was out of its f*cking mind. They did not have the legal authority to do what they did with Jose Padilla and whoever else is currently sitting in some black site in Eastern Europe, end of story. And yeah, those enhanced methods sure as hell worked great  rolleyes.gif

Once it is signed into law then they can legally do it. They have signed several of these things and legally anyone of us can get picked up off of the street and never heard from again if they think it is in their best interest to do so. I am starting to feel nervous typing these words. smile.gif
http://www.youtube.c...e&v=hG_R6U_Ffes

Again, no. There is no law on the books that makes US citizens susceptible to extraterritorial rendition.

That youtube video is probably staged. If you know anything about law enforcement, or how counterterrorism works, you'd never have uniformed soldiers appear in a 90s Crown Victoria and throw the guy into the back of a car like a bunch of unprofessional dickwads. Please don't fall for such bullsh*t.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#30

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:19 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 01:14)
QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Tuesday, Dec 20 2011, 20:03)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 00:57)
They can't legally do that though. The Bush Administration was out of its f*cking mind. They did not have the legal authority to do what they did with Jose Padilla and whoever else is currently sitting in some black site in Eastern Europe, end of story. And yeah, those enhanced methods sure as hell worked great  rolleyes.gif

Once it is signed into law then they can legally do it. They have signed several of these things and legally anyone of us can get picked up off of the street and never heard from again if they think it is in their best interest to do so. I am starting to feel nervous typing these words. smile.gif
http://www.youtube.c...e&v=hG_R6U_Ffes

Again, no. There is no law on the books that makes US citizens susceptible to extraterritorial rendition.

I know we went over this in the other post, but yes there is. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows the president to label U.S. citizens "enemy combatants" and deny them due process of law. By the way I haven't been watching t.v. lately, has any of the american news channels reported on the kind of fears that this new bill raises?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users