Watch out it's coming, The political elite are going to take your rights away

I'd like someone to tell me exactly where in the bill it states the US is part of the battlefield, and which hostilities the OWS protestors are part of, that would allow them to fall under this bill.



sections 1031 and 1032 would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

they'd have to be part of the hostilities against the US or it's coalition in order for that to apply.

are you this naive in real life? really? :rofl:
 
That may make you an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act into law in 2009. Why are you just now crying about it?

Just now? Where have you been? maybe you need too wake up and see that I have been talking about this shit since I have been here, maybe it because nobody responded to my threads or the thread was moved to the conspiracy boards but yes I have mentioned it.

Yes just now. The OP was created TODAY!

And if you have ranted about this before and got no response, that should tell you that very few people have a problem with it.


Fact is the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law two years ago.

they pass a National Defense Authorization Act every fiscal year, fuckwit.

try again
 
sections 1031 and 1032 would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

they'd have to be part of the hostilities against the US or it's coalition in order for that to apply.

are you this naive in real life? really? :rofl:

re-read the edited post.
 
That may make you an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act into law in 2009. Why are you just now crying about it?

Just now? Where have you been? maybe you need too wake up and see that I have been talking about this shit since I have been here, maybe it because nobody responded to my threads or the thread was moved to the conspiracy boards but yes I have mentioned it.

Yes just now. The OP was created TODAY!

And if you have ranted about this before and got no response, that should tell you that very few people have a problem with it.


Fact is the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law two years ago.

I added the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act as a continuation with the new bill that will be voted on.
 
sections 1031 and 1032 would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

they'd have to be part of the hostilities against the US or it's coalition in order for that to apply.

are you this naive in real life? really? :rofl:

Show where an American has been indefinitely imprisoned without charge that wasn't engaged in hostilities against the US.
 
they'd have to be part of the hostilities against the US or it's coalition in order for that to apply.

are you this naive in real life? really? :rofl:

Show where an American has been indefinitely imprisoned without charge that wasn't engaged in hostilities against the US.

So now it's show where this and that. Look all that as to be done is deem a threat by the president. That's all and in the court of public opinion you are a terrorist if the president deems a citizen a terrorist. No matter if you did or didn't do anything.
 
here is the whole section (linked earlier) that seems to be the problem child...

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(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) 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 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.

1...
who is captured in the course of hostilities
For someone to be detained they would have to actually be part of hostilities.

2...
(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.
The only way to waive the first section requirements (meaning someone NOT actually part of the hostilities could be detained) is if the Sec. of Defense, Sec. of State and the Director of NI waive the requirement in that case, and submit it in writing to Congress.

3...
(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.
It's all moot, as it DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS.
 
I doubt this bill will pass constitutional muster.

It's bad law, but I see it as an attempt to clarify the legalities of detaining or killing American citizens who are enemy combatants (i.e. al Awlaki).
 
I'd like someone to tell me exactly where in the bill it states the US is part of the battlefield, and which hostilities the OWS protestors are part of, that would allow them to fall under this bill.



sections 1031 and 1032 would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

Yeah, the whole "fuck you Habeas corpus" spirit of the bill bothers me too. In fact, the suspension of habeas corpus for non-citizens bothers me as well.

It is clear that we need to establish legal framework to address the fact that American citizens have, are, and will continue to facilitate Al Queda and be out of the reach of law enforcement.

This is not the answer.
 
I doubt this bill will pass constitutional muster.

It's bad law, but I see it as an attempt to clarify the legalities of detaining or killing American citizens who are enemy combatants (i.e. al Awlaki).

You're right, but this will depend on how justices interpret the bill The patriot act according to the Constructional muster should never have been signed into law nor should it continue. But it's still here
 
are you this naive in real life? really? :rofl:

Show where an American has been indefinitely imprisoned without charge that wasn't engaged in hostilities against the US.

so you're okay with the govt indefinitely imprisoning people without charge.

do you look good in brown?

The thing about it is, and what you fail to realize, is that no one would be imprisoned indefinitely without evidence. You seem to think the govt. would just throw people in prison without just cause.

If there are people whether they're Americans or not, plotting to terrorize/kill Americans, then yes they should be stopped before they do harm.
 
I doubt this bill will pass constitutional muster.

It's bad law, but I see it as an attempt to clarify the legalities of detaining or killing American citizens who are enemy combatants (i.e. al Awlaki).

You're right, but this will depend on how justices interpret the bill The patriot act according to the Constructional muster should never have been signed into law nor should it continue. But it's still here

Actually, it's in the Senate. The White House opposes it (because they think it is too restrictive - though I think on other issues).

To be clear, I don't think the intent of this bill is to strip Americans of their rights and start detaining Americans at the slightest provocation. In fact, I think the people who drafted it had good intentions.

However, it's too broad. It's bad law. It should be quashed.
 
Show where an American has been indefinitely imprisoned without charge that wasn't engaged in hostilities against the US.

so you're okay with the govt indefinitely imprisoning people without charge.

do you look good in brown?

The thing about it is, and what you fail to realize, is that no one would be imprisoned indefinitely without evidence. You seem to think the govt. would just throw people in prison without just cause.

If there are people whether they're Americans or not, plotting to terrorize/kill Americans, then yes they should be stopped before they do harm.

Hold on a second.

When did the standard for imprisonment move from "a jury trial of your peers" to mere "evidence".

They had "evidence" that Richard Jewell set off the bomb in Atlanta during the Olympics. They were wrong. (However, not before the whole world knew about his porno habits, and I hope that guys sued this shit out of CNN and won a ton of money).

There is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed here. This is not the way to do it.
 
Just now? Where have you been? maybe you need too wake up and see that I have been talking about this shit since I have been here, maybe it because nobody responded to my threads or the thread was moved to the conspiracy boards but yes I have mentioned it.

Yes just now. The OP was created TODAY!

And if you have ranted about this before and got no response, that should tell you that very few people have a problem with it.


Fact is the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law two years ago.

they pass a National Defense Authorization Act every fiscal year, fuckwit.

try again

So? That doesn't negate what I stated.
 
Yes just now. The OP was created TODAY!

And if you have ranted about this before and got no response, that should tell you that very few people have a problem with it.


Fact is the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law two years ago.

they pass a National Defense Authorization Act every fiscal year, fuckwit.

try again

So? That doesn't negate what I stated.

Yes it does.
 
I doubt this bill will pass constitutional muster.

It's bad law, but I see it as an attempt to clarify the legalities of detaining or killing American citizens who are enemy combatants (i.e. al Awlaki).

You're right, but this will depend on how justices interpret the bill The patriot act according to the Constructional muster should never have been signed into law nor should it continue. But it's still here

Actually, it's in the Senate. The White House opposes it (because they think it is too restrictive - though I think on other issues).

To be clear, I don't think the intent of this bill is to strip Americans of their rights and start detaining Americans at the slightest provocation. In fact, I think the people who drafted it had good intentions.

However, it's too broad. It's bad law. It should be quashed.

Yes good intentions always end up good don't?
 
are you this naive in real life? really? :rofl:

Show where an American has been indefinitely imprisoned without charge that wasn't engaged in hostilities against the US.

So now it's show where this and that. Look all that as to be done is deem a threat by the president. That's all and in the court of public opinion you are a terrorist if the president deems a citizen a terrorist. No matter if you did or didn't do anything.

I think you're being a little paranoid.

Show me one instance where an American citizen has been indefinitely imprisoned without just cause.

You're making the claim that the President can imprison anyone without evidence. Show me the proof!

Oh and you might wasnt to read the part of the bill that has the "definitions".
 
You're right, but this will depend on how justices interpret the bill The patriot act according to the Constructional muster should never have been signed into law nor should it continue. But it's still here

Actually, it's in the Senate. The White House opposes it (because they think it is too restrictive - though I think on other issues).

To be clear, I don't think the intent of this bill is to strip Americans of their rights and start detaining Americans at the slightest provocation. In fact, I think the people who drafted it had good intentions.

However, it's too broad. It's bad law. It should be quashed.

Yes good intentions always end up good don't?

I think, when drafting law, it's reasonable to ask: "How can this be perverted by the less then stellar individual".
 

Forum List

Back
Top