NDAA Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Mad Scientist, May 16, 2012.

  1. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    From Bloomberg:
    Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge - Bloomberg
    But how could this be? I've been told by SFC Ollie that indefinite detention of US Citizens has "been debunked"! Liability says I "continue to misunderstand the bill".If so then why did a Judge just temporarily block the Bill?
    Exactly the section I pointed out previously.

    Ollie, Liability, joo got some splainin' to do!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    I gots no 'splainin' to do.

    YOU and those "plaintiffs" are the ones contending that the section allows for some bizzaro-world interpretation.

    It doesn't.

    In reality, the law very clearly EXCLUDES Americans from the indefinite detention component. There really is no other coherent way to read that specific exclusion.
     
  3. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

    (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) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.

    (2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be--

    (A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and

    (B) a participant 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(c), 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) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.


    If they are niot required to do it to Americans, the nay-sayers insist the interpretation is that they MAY choose to do so just the same.

    But that's silly.

    Without a requirement to do so, who says that they are even ALLOWED to do so?
     
  4. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    "Not Required" does not mean "Prohibited". The EXACT reason the suit was filed.

    Not Required means the arresting Officer has the discretion whether to arrest or not.
     

Share This Page