Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[Foxfyre]

A lot of those we used to be able to get have been pulled HG:

(NEWSER) – YouTube has pulled hundreds of videos featuring Anwar al-Awlaki, in response to pressure from British officials and a letter from New York congressman Anthony Weiner. YouTube said the al-Qaeda cleric’s videos violated the site’s policies against “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech, and incitement to commit violent acts,” as well as its prohibition against accounts “registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Weiner told the New York Times that his letter initially received a “bureaucratic” response, but that Google changed its tune after Awlaki was linked to the recent attempted mail bombings from Yemen. “It has become increasingly clear that this guy is an international terrorist that is using their service to do illegal things,” Weiner said. A YouTube spokeswoman says the company wants to protect freedom of expression, and would only remove videos that called for violence. “These are difficult issues,” she added
YouTube Pulls Videos By Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Urging Violence Against West

 

[Liability]

A lot of those we used to be able to get have been pulled HG:

(NEWSER) – YouTube has pulled hundreds of videos featuring Anwar al-Awlaki, in response to pressure from British officials and a letter from New York congressman Anthony Weiner. YouTube said the al-Qaeda cleric’s videos violated the site’s policies against “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech, and incitement to commit violent acts,” as well as its prohibition against accounts “registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Weiner told the New York Times that his letter initially received a “bureaucratic” response, but that Google changed its tune after Awlaki was linked to the recent attempted mail bombings from Yemen. “It has become increasingly clear that this guy is an international terrorist that is using their service to do illegal things,” Weiner said. A YouTube spokeswoman says the company wants to protect freedom of expression, and would only remove videos that called for violence. “These are difficult issues,” she added
YouTube Pulls Videos By Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Urging Violence Against West

1984 again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I suggest you find the post where I said anything about him getting a day in court.



Good luck. You'll need it.

Quote:
The claim that the government does not need evidence because one doesn't get a day in court is a fallacy.

Look at your post.

Look at it? I wrote it. And I said NOTHING suggesting that the dead guy gets a day in court. I said your ARGUMENT is a fallacy.

Reading comprehension problem here...and the problem is entirely yours.

You did say the government would have to prove that you were a terrorist I asked you why it would have to prove anything because you do not get a day in court. and there is no burden of proof on the accuser, According to sec. 1031 you can be locked up just on an accusation from the president.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lot of those we used to be able to get have been pulled HG:

(NEWSER) – YouTube has pulled hundreds of videos featuring Anwar al-Awlaki, in response to pressure from British officials and a letter from New York congressman Anthony Weiner. YouTube said the al-Qaeda cleric’s videos violated the site’s policies against “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech, and incitement to commit violent acts,” as well as its prohibition against accounts “registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Weiner told the New York Times that his letter initially received a “bureaucratic” response, but that Google changed its tune after Awlaki was linked to the recent attempted mail bombings from Yemen. “It has become increasingly clear that this guy is an international terrorist that is using their service to do illegal things,” Weiner said. A YouTube spokeswoman says the company wants to protect freedom of expression, and would only remove videos that called for violence. “These are difficult issues,” she added
YouTube Pulls Videos By Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Urging Violence Against West

1984 again?

No, I see this as more of Youtube attempting to be responsible by not allowing al-Awlaki to use its service to organize terrorism. I am pretty sure that's where Weiner and the British authorities were coming from too. These videos were what al-Awlaki himself had posted. There are others of his available on various subjects, but not the ones in which he was especially calling his comrades to arms against the West.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A lot of those we used to be able to get have been pulled HG:

(NEWSER) – YouTube has pulled hundreds of videos featuring Anwar al-Awlaki, in response to pressure from British officials and a letter from New York congressman Anthony Weiner. YouTube said the al-Qaeda cleric’s videos violated the site’s policies against “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech, and incitement to commit violent acts,” as well as its prohibition against accounts “registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Weiner told the New York Times that his letter initially received a “bureaucratic” response, but that Google changed its tune after Awlaki was linked to the recent attempted mail bombings from Yemen. “It has become increasingly clear that this guy is an international terrorist that is using their service to do illegal things,” Weiner said. A YouTube spokeswoman says the company wants to protect freedom of expression, and would only remove videos that called for violence. “These are difficult issues,” she added
YouTube Pulls Videos By Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Urging Violence Against West

and still anyone can upload a video on you tube even if those video's were still there thats not proof enough to kill him on the spot. In my opinion. Bring him in and face his accusers, to see if those are his actual videos.

 

[Liability]

Look at your post.

Look at it? I wrote it. And I said NOTHING suggesting that the dead guy gets a day in court. I said your ARGUMENT is a fallacy.

Reading comprehension problem here...and the problem is entirely yours.

You did say the government would have to prove that you were a terrorist I asked you why it would have to prove anything because you do not get a day in court. and there is no burden of proof on the accuser, According to sec. 1031 you can be locked up just on an accusation from the president.

The evidence, as I already said, is what gets considered by the President and his staff (including the CIA, etc.) BEFORE he makes a decision. So, yes. Of COURSE there would have to be evidence.

And no, I never said, suggested or implied that the "evidence" would get tested in the crucible of a quality cross-examination.

And there is no "burden of proof" at all. The President and the Administration are the ones who would be held accountable for making such a call, and (as I also have said) I support Congressional oversight (even if it is after the fact).

As for "Section 1031" you seem not to have either read it or you have failed to understand what it says:

3 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU7
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author9
ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per13
sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com18
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon20
sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
360
•S 1867 PCS
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.
3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis4
position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis11
sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun17
try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.
22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).
3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
5 WAR.—
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
12 under the law of war.
13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de15
tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de16
termined—
17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co19
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.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
362
•S 1867 PCS
1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For
2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per3
son under the law of war has the meaning given in
4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be
6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec7
tion 1033.
8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In11
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
14 interests of the United States.
15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.
3 (c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after
5 the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
6 shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for
7 implementing this section.
8 (2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for imple9
menting this section shall include, but not be limited
10 to, procedures as follows:
11 (A) Procedures designating the persons au12
thorized to make determinations under sub13
section (a)(2) and the process by which such
14 determinations are to be made.
15 (B) Procedures providing that the require16
ment for military custody under subsection
17 (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongo18
ing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
19 regard to persons not already in the custody or
20 control of the United States.
21 (C) Procedures providing that a determina22
tion under subsection (a)(2) is not required to
23 be implemented until after the conclusion of an
24 interrogation session which is ongoing at the
25 time the determination is made and does not
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
364
•S 1867 PCS
1 require the interruption of any such ongoing
2 session.
3 (D) Procedures providing that the require4
ment for military custody under subsection
5 (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law en6
forcement, or other government officials of the
7 United States are granted access to an indi8
vidual who remains in the custody of a third
9 country.
10 (E) Procedures providing that a certifi11
cation of national security interests under sub12
section (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose
13 of transferring a covered person from a third
14 country if such a transfer is in the interest of
15 the United States and could not otherwise be
16 accomplished.
17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect
18 on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
19 of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons de20
scribed in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
21 or brought under the control of the United States on or
22 after that effective date.

excerpted from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

What part of the legislation where Congress DEFINED which persons are covered seems to trouble you?

Why?

 

[Liability]

A lot of those we used to be able to get have been pulled HG:

1984 again?

No, I see this as more of Youtube attempting to be responsible by not allowing al-Awlaki to use its service to organize terrorism. I am pretty sure that's where Weiner and the British authorities were coming from too. These videos were what al-Awlaki himself had posted. There are others of his available on various subjects, but not the ones in which he was especially calling his comrades to arms against the West.

Oh, I agree. But in the process, some of the "evidence" of what al-Awlaki was all about gets more difficult to find and to rely upon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look at it? I wrote it. And I said NOTHING suggesting that the dead guy gets a day in court. I said your ARGUMENT is a fallacy.

Reading comprehension problem here...and the problem is entirely yours.

You did say the government would have to prove that you were a terrorist I asked you why it would have to prove anything because you do not get a day in court. and there is no burden of proof on the accuser, According to sec. 1031 you can be locked up just on an accusation from the president.

The evidence, as I already said, is what gets considered by the President and his staff (including the CIA, etc.) BEFORE he makes a decision. So, yes. Of COURSE there would have to be evidence.

And no, I never said, suggested or implied that the "evidence" would get tested in the crucible of a quality cross-examination.

And there is no "burden of proof" at all. The President and the Administration are the ones who would be held accountable for making such a call, and (as I also have said) I support Congressional oversight (even if it is after the fact).

As for "Section 1031" you seem not to have either read it or you have failed to understand what it says:

3 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU7
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author9
ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per13
sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com18
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon20
sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
360
•S 1867 PCS
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.
3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis4
position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis11
sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun17
try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.
22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).
3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
5 WAR.—
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
12 under the law of war.
13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de15
tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de16
termined—
17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co19
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.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
362
•S 1867 PCS
1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For
2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per3
son under the law of war has the meaning given in
4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be
6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec7
tion 1033.
8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In11
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
14 interests of the United States.
15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.
3 (c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after
5 the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
6 shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for
7 implementing this section.
8 (2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for imple9
menting this section shall include, but not be limited
10 to, procedures as follows:
11 (A) Procedures designating the persons au12
thorized to make determinations under sub13
section (a)(2) and the process by which such
14 determinations are to be made.
15 (B) Procedures providing that the require16
ment for military custody under subsection
17 (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongo18
ing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
19 regard to persons not already in the custody or
20 control of the United States.
21 (C) Procedures providing that a determina22
tion under subsection (a)(2) is not required to
23 be implemented until after the conclusion of an
24 interrogation session which is ongoing at the
25 time the determination is made and does not
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
364
•S 1867 PCS
1 require the interruption of any such ongoing
2 session.
3 (D) Procedures providing that the require4
ment for military custody under subsection
5 (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law en6
forcement, or other government officials of the
7 United States are granted access to an indi8
vidual who remains in the custody of a third
9 country.
10 (E) Procedures providing that a certifi11
cation of national security interests under sub12
section (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose
13 of transferring a covered person from a third
14 country if such a transfer is in the interest of
15 the United States and could not otherwise be
16 accomplished.
17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect
18 on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
19 of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons de20
scribed in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
21 or brought under the control of the United States on or
22 after that effective date.

excerpted from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

What part of the legislation where Congress DEFINED which persons are covered seems to trouble you?

Why?

You quoted sec 1032 which is not sec. 1031

Subtitle D--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.
(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) 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).
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No mention of protection of U.S.Citizens here.

And again we go back to being accused and not having a right to defend against the accusation.

 

[Liability]

You did say the government would have to prove that you were a terrorist I asked you why it would have to prove anything because you do not get a day in court. and there is no burden of proof on the accuser, According to sec. 1031 you can be locked up just on an accusation from the president.

The evidence, as I already said, is what gets considered by the President and his staff (including the CIA, etc.) BEFORE he makes a decision. So, yes. Of COURSE there would have to be evidence.

And no, I never said, suggested or implied that the "evidence" would get tested in the crucible of a quality cross-examination.

And there is no "burden of proof" at all. The President and the Administration are the ones who would be held accountable for making such a call, and (as I also have said) I support Congressional oversight (even if it is after the fact).

As for "Section 1031" you seem not to have either read it or you have failed to understand what it says:

3 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU7
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author9
ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per13
sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com18
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon20
sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
360
•S 1867 PCS
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.
3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis4
position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis11
sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun17
try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.
22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).
3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
5 WAR.—
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
12 under the law of war.
13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de15
tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de16
termined—
17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co19
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.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
362
•S 1867 PCS
1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For
2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per3
son under the law of war has the meaning given in
4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be
6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec7
tion 1033.
8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In11
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
14 interests of the United States.
15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.
3 (c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after
5 the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
6 shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for
7 implementing this section.
8 (2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for imple9
menting this section shall include, but not be limited
10 to, procedures as follows:
11 (A) Procedures designating the persons au12
thorized to make determinations under sub13
section (a)(2) and the process by which such
14 determinations are to be made.
15 (B) Procedures providing that the require16
ment for military custody under subsection
17 (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongo18
ing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
19 regard to persons not already in the custody or
20 control of the United States.
21 (C) Procedures providing that a determina22
tion under subsection (a)(2) is not required to
23 be implemented until after the conclusion of an
24 interrogation session which is ongoing at the
25 time the determination is made and does not
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
364
•S 1867 PCS
1 require the interruption of any such ongoing
2 session.
3 (D) Procedures providing that the require4
ment for military custody under subsection
5 (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law en6
forcement, or other government officials of the
7 United States are granted access to an indi8
vidual who remains in the custody of a third
9 country.
10 (E) Procedures providing that a certifi11
cation of national security interests under sub12
section (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose
13 of transferring a covered person from a third
14 country if such a transfer is in the interest of
15 the United States and could not otherwise be
16 accomplished.
17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect
18 on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
19 of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons de20
scribed in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
21 or brought under the control of the United States on or
22 after that effective date.

excerpted from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

What part of the legislation where Congress DEFINED which persons are covered seems to trouble you?

Why?

You quoted sec 1032 which is not sec. 1031

Subtitle D--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.
(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) 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).
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No mention of protection of U.S.Citizens here.

And again we go back to being accused and not having a right to defend against the accusation.

Way to focus on a difference without a distinction.

The legislation focuses on DETENTION of the enemy.

For acts of war, such individuals are held accountable pursuant to the law of war, as the legislation correctly states.

So tell us all again, why exactly would a U.S. citizen get criminal law "due process" under such circumstances?

And contrary to what you just said, I read the Act a bit differently:

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis
4 position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis
11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun
17 try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.

And it does provide for the transfer of certain detainees' matters to alternative courts. That could include the civilian courts, for example.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The evidence, as I already said, is what gets considered by the President and his staff (including the CIA, etc.) BEFORE he makes a decision. So, yes. Of COURSE there would have to be evidence.

And no, I never said, suggested or implied that the "evidence" would get tested in the crucible of a quality cross-examination.

And there is no "burden of proof" at all. The President and the Administration are the ones who would be held accountable for making such a call, and (as I also have said) I support Congressional oversight (even if it is after the fact).

As for "Section 1031" you seem not to have either read it or you have failed to understand what it says:



excerpted from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

What part of the legislation where Congress DEFINED which persons are covered seems to trouble you?

Why?

You quoted sec 1032 which is not sec. 1031

Subtitle D--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.
(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) 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).
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No mention of protection of U.S.Citizens here.

And again we go back to being accused and not having a right to defend against the accusation.

Way to focus on a difference without a distinction.

The legislation focuses on DETENTION of the enemy.

For acts of war, such individuals are held accountable pursuant to the law of war, as the legislation correctly states.

So tell us all again, why exactly would a U.S. citizen get criminal law "due process" under such circumstances?

And contrary to what you just said, I read the Act a bit differently:

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis
4 position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis
11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun
17 try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.

And it does provide for the transfer of certain detainees' matters to alternative courts. That could include the civilian courts, for example.

Did you miss number 6?

 

[Foxfyre]

1984 again?

No, I see this as more of Youtube attempting to be responsible by not allowing al-Awlaki to use its service to organize terrorism. I am pretty sure that's where Weiner and the British authorities were coming from too. These videos were what al-Awlaki himself had posted. There are others of his available on various subjects, but not the ones in which he was especially calling his comrades to arms against the West.

Oh, I agree. But in the process, some of the "evidence" of what al-Awlaki was all about gets more difficult to find and to rely upon.

Yes, but some of us did see some of those videos when they were still up. And they were calling on people to do some really dangerous stuff. It has always been the case in times of war--and we still are fully engaged in the War on Terrorism--that the people's right to know has to be balanced against the ability of the enemy to communicate and/or the ability to protect our own people and troops. As I previously posted, I would not seek or want the authority to make a decision to take somebody out, but I can appreciate the President being in the position of making that decision. And I choose not to second guess him when we know it is somebody engaged in treason against the United States or otherwise intending extreme harm to innocent citizens. Even when the President is somebody I have a really difficult time respecting or appreciating in much of anything.

 

[Liability]

You quoted sec 1032 which is not sec. 1031

Subtitle D--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.
(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) 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).
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

No mention of protection of U.S.Citizens here.

And again we go back to being accused and not having a right to defend against the accusation.

Way to focus on a difference without a distinction.

The legislation focuses on DETENTION of the enemy.

For acts of war, such individuals are held accountable pursuant to the law of war, as the legislation correctly states.

So tell us all again, why exactly would a U.S. citizen get criminal law "due process" under such circumstances?

And contrary to what you just said, I read the Act a bit differently:

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis
4 position of a person under the law of war as described
5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis
11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
12 84)).
13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun
17 try, or any other foreign entity.
18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.

And it does provide for the transfer of certain detainees' matters to alternative courts. That could include the civilian courts, for example.

Did you miss number 6?

No. I endorse it, in fact.

If we capture an enemy soldier in time of war, we can put him in a POW camp until the cessation of hostilities. Why the fuck would we want to put him in our civilian courts if (in the process) that would entail his getting some "right" to "discovery" and if that "discovery" might have to include classified intel?

 

[Liability]

No, I see this as more of Youtube attempting to be responsible by not allowing al-Awlaki to use its service to organize terrorism. I am pretty sure that's where Weiner and the British authorities were coming from too. These videos were what al-Awlaki himself had posted. There are others of his available on various subjects, but not the ones in which he was especially calling his comrades to arms against the West.

Oh, I agree. But in the process, some of the "evidence" of what al-Awlaki was all about gets more difficult to find and to rely upon.

Yes, but some of us did see some of those videos when they were still up. And they were calling on people to do some really dangerous stuff. It has always been the case in times of war--and we still are fully engaged in the War on Terrorism--that the people's right to know has to be balanced against the ability of the enemy to communicate and/or the ability to protect our own people and troops. As I previously posted, I would not seek or want the authority to make a decision to take somebody out, but I can appreciate the President being in the position of making that decision. And I choose not to second guess him when we know it is somebody engaged in treason against the United States or otherwise intending extreme harm to innocent citizens. Even when the President is somebody I have a really difficult time respecting or appreciating in much of anything.

Yup. I saw some of al-Alkai's handiwork, too. That's why I endorse what President Obama did in his case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Way to focus on a difference without a distinction.

The legislation focuses on DETENTION of the enemy.

For acts of war, such individuals are held accountable pursuant to the law of war, as the legislation correctly states.

So tell us all again, why exactly would a U.S. citizen get criminal law "due process" under such circumstances?

And contrary to what you just said, I read the Act a bit differently:



And it does provide for the transfer of certain detainees' matters to alternative courts. That could include the civilian courts, for example.

Did you miss number 6?

No. I endorse it, in fact.

If we capture an enemy soldier in time of war, we can put him in a POW camp until the cessation of hostilities. Why the fuck would we want to put him in our civilian courts if (in the process) that would entail his getting some "right" to discovery" and if that "discovery" might have to include classified intel?

And we go back to on who's word? do we detain U.S. Citizens? all the president needs to do is deem that you are a terrorist

 

[Liability]

Did you miss number 6?

No. I endorse it, in fact.

If we capture an enemy soldier in time of war, we can put him in a POW camp until the cessation of hostilities. Why the fuck would we want to put him in our civilian courts if (in the process) that would entail his getting some "right" to discovery" and if that "discovery" might have to include classified intel?

And we go back to on who's word? do we detain U.S. Citizens? all the president needs to do is deem that you are a terrorist

No. That's clearly NOT "all" that is required.

Among OTHER things, there's

22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).

And then there's THIS:

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

does not extend to citizens of the United
States.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. I endorse it, in fact.

If we capture an enemy soldier in time of war, we can put him in a POW camp until the cessation of hostilities. Why the fuck would we want to put him in our civilian courts if (in the process) that would entail his getting some "right" to discovery" and if that "discovery" might have to include classified intel?

And we go back to on who's word? do we detain U.S. Citizens? all the president needs to do is deem that you are a terrorist

No. That's clearly NOT "all" that is required.

Among OTHER things, there's

22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
361
•S 1867 PCS
1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
2 subsection (b)(2).

And then there's THIS:

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

does not extend to citizens of the United
States.

Go back to 1031 there is no protection in that section for U.S. Citizens.


Section 1032
(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[/B] 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.

This only applies to section 1032 it does not apply to section 1031 and in section 1031 there is no protection for U.S. Citizens.

And as for going before Congress that is not your peers is it? You do not get to face you accusers in a court of law

 

[Liability]

And we go back to on who's word? do we detain U.S. Citizens? all the president needs to do is deem that you are a terrorist

No. That's clearly NOT "all" that is required.

Among OTHER things, there's

And then there's THIS:

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

does not extend to citizens of the United
States.

Go back to 1031 there is no protection in that section for U.S. Citizens.


Section 1032
(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[/B] 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.

This only applies to section 1032 it does not apply to section 1031 and in section 1031 there is no protection for U.S. Citizens.

And as for going before Congress that is not your peers is it? You do not get to face you accusers in a court of law

1031 specifically invokes disposition under the law of war. 1032 then addresses that concept more fully.

I see nothing in the Act that removes 1031 from the coverage (and non coverage) spelled out FOR the law of war under 1032.

It seems clear that the intent of the act was to specifically define in 1032 what they had addressed in 1031.

(BTW: the final version of the bill renumbered these provisions. You and I have been addressing the Senate Version, but that was not exactly the same as the final version.

I suppose we should discuss the final version for future purposes: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

The relevant sections begin around 1021, in the final version of the Act.)

 

[saveliberty]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[High_Gravity]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A trial in absentia accomplishes what exactly though? while this is going on the guy is still out there plotting attacks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. That's clearly NOT "all" that is required.

Among OTHER things, there's

And then there's THIS:

does not extend to citizens of the United
States.

Go back to 1031 there is no protection in that section for U.S. Citizens.


Section 1032
(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[/B] 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.

This only applies to section 1032 it does not apply to section 1031 and in section 1031 there is no protection for U.S. Citizens.

And as for going before Congress that is not your peers is it? You do not get to face you accusers in a court of law

1031 specifically invokes disposition under the law of war. 1032 then addresses that concept more fully.

I see nothing in the Act that removes 1031 from the coverage (and non coverage) spelled out FOR the law of war under 1032.

It seems clear that the intent of the act was to specifically define in 1032 what they had addressed in 1031.

(BTW: the final version of the bill renumbered these provisions. You and I have been addressing the Senate Version, but that was not exactly the same as the final version.

I suppose we should discuss the final version for future purposes: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

The relevant sections begin around 1021, in the final version of the Act.)

Yet both 1031 and 1032 both have (b) Covered Persons written in both, also 1032 refers you back to section 1031(c)

(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.

Also in the amendment section the amendment that would have given U.S. Citizens protection was voted down. the link will not allow you access to the amendment page anymore but if you find a link look at numbers 61 and 62 it was written something like this to give U.S. Citizens protection under section 1031 which was voted down.
,