• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Arrest Americans Without Charge Or Trial

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Not just "some other law," but rather, the Law of the United States. Meaning, the citizen is either going to be tried by the civilian, or military court. It didn't appear to me that where the U.S. citizen is captured is referenced. I mean, if a U.S. citizen is captured, say, in Iraq, would the same apply as if they were captured in Colorado? It seems that if they were captured in Iraq, then they would see a military court; Colorado, a civilian court.

Nope, they are brought here and tried in civilian court John Walker Lindh
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It never ceases to amaze me how some jump on the bandwagon without actually reading the text of the "offending" bill.

There is no there there.

I suspect that this bill is intended to fill a legal hole created by the authorization for the use of force as opposed to a formal declaration of war. We need to return to formal declarations, but that is another discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
1031(b)(1) - Did you aid the 9-11 terrorists? No? Then this legislation if passed into law does not apply to you.

1031(b)(2) - Are you a person who has committed a belligerent act (against the US for al-Qaeda/Taliban or associated forces) or directly supported (materially) al-Qaed/Taliban? No? Then this legislation if passed into law does not apply to you.

If you qualify as a 'covered' person AND are a US citizen, then 1032 comes into play regarding your 'detention'.

1032(b)(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.

So, non issue for We The People.

Outstanding post, my friend.
 

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
Simple - If you take up arms against the United States, then you are a combatant against the United States and will be treated the same as any other combatant agains the United States.

If I had a neighbor, friend, or family member that would take up arms against the US, join then enemy, and attempt to harm the rest of my family, friends, or countrymen, I would meet them to the battlefield myself and win.

All enemies, foregn and domestic will get the same treatment when it comes to war.

The end.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html SNIP:

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.


The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45.

So which is it? We're exempt from the legislation or not? Ordinarily I would say ANYTHING Feinstein promotes has too be bad just by the nature of the beast she is, but Rand Paul was with her on this. I don't want our ability to shut down islamofascist sociopaths retarded, but I don't want the next moonbat messiah who cons his way into the WH to be able to make a few changed to the law and wake up to find any NRA member can be detained indefinately.
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
Simple - If you take up arms against the United States, then you are a combatant against the United States and will be treated the same as any other combatant agains the United States.

If I had a neighbor, friend, or family member that would take up arms against the US, join then enemy, and attempt to harm the rest of my family, friends, or countrymen, I would meet them to the battlefield myself and win.

All enemies, foregn and domestic will get the same treatment when it comes to war.

The end.

Great, common sense insights!

Thanks for sharing them with us.
icon14.png
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
This doesn't apply to American citizens.


For a group of people who are VERY knowledgeable about the Law with regards to Civil Rights, Firearms Law, and the Us Constitution, it never ceases to amaze me just how naive some of y'all are on topics like this new law, and things like the Patriot Act, and the unrelenting, universally similar, and 100% predictable historical precedent of such laws throughout the ENTIRE HISTORY of civilization...

There is a written-in exemption for this "doesn't apply to US Citizens" clause. If the President, the Joint Cheifs, or the head of DHS decides that a person would otherwise meet any of the requirements for detainment under this bill--EVEN IF THEY ARE A US CITIZEN--then they can instruct whatever LEA is applicable to detain that person.

In other words, "it doesn't apply to Us Citizens, unless we SAY it does, and then it does..."

Sort of like the way the "State Preemption" in North Carolina works (Cities can't pass ordinances about carry more strict than State law--unless they PASS ORDINANCES, then it's OK...) or the issuance of Carry Permits in MD ( You have to have a "justifiable reason" unless you donate a LOT of money to the governor's re-election campaign, or are a well-connected cronie, or are a radical leftist nationally-visible anti-gun politician)...

Two laws for two classes. This new bill is just another step in the direction of completely arbitrary law in the US, based on the capricious whims of the Ruling Oligarchy, which they can selectively invoke to silence, punish, or even eliminate opposition.

Just like the Patriot Act has been used to go after US Citizens for everything from growing pot to violating restraining orders.

Just like the Federal Asset Forfeiture Laws are being used to steal property and bank accounts of people who are NEVER EVEN CHARGED with crimes.

Just like the Telecommunications Act is being used to shut down websites and forums that publish embarrassing political information, or to harass and arrest teenagers for sharing music.

Our nation is being run by criminally insane sociopaths, who will stop at nothing to turn the entire planet into their own twisted, perverted, playground of evil degradation, power and control.

The sooner that good people come to this realization, the better. WTFU people...
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
If I had a neighbor, friend, or family member that would take up arms against the US, join then enemy, and attempt to harm the rest of my family, friends, or countrymen, I would meet them to the battlefield myself and win.


Well, the fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment pretty much states that the reason that ALL law-abiding Citizens have the RKBA is so that, if needed, we could take them up to "preserve the security of a Free State".

It is, in fact, the DUTY of every law-abiding citizen to not only KEEP, but to BEAR arms whenever they can, in public, and in the plain view of our "government" so that they know we are not serfs or slaves.


So I guess it really comes down to how you define "against the US". If you define it as harming individual citizens, for no reason but to cause terror, then yeah, I'm with you.

But if one were to define "against the US" as ANY action that disrupts, impedes, criticizes, or demeans the operation of the Government (toward whatever goals it was marching), then I'd have to STRONGLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree.

And THAT is what some of us are a little freaked out about--that the definitions of these terms--enemy non-combatant, against the US, terrorist, planning, etc--which are NOT defined in the body of this bill--will be later defined at the whim and capricious will of people in the Government who wish to destroy Liberty and Freedom.

When will the Law-abiding citizens of the US open their eyes (and perhaps a few history books) and admit that everything that the government is attempting today in the USA follows a standard "battle march" toward tyranny that we have seen over and over again in human history. Germany, Russia, Cambodia, China, Ancient Rome, The Aztecs, The Pueblo, etc, etc, etc...
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
I don't want our ability to shut down islamofascist sociopaths retarded...

Would those be the "Islamofascists" in the Saudi Royal Family" who funded Bin Laden and the Mujahideen?

Or maybe you mean the "Islamofascists" in the Bush administration who gave clearance on September 12 2001 for members of the Bin Laden family to take private jet flights out of the US when EVERY OTHER airplane was grounded?

Or perhaps you mean the "Islamofascists" in the CIA, NSA, and DOD who funded, trained, equipped, and supplied intelligence and logistical support to the Mujahideen when they were our BFF's, fighting against the USSR (in a war that they, BTW, PROVOKED and False-flagged just like the Gleiwitz incident at the beginning of WWII) ?

Or perhaps you mean the "Islamofascists" like Anwar Al-Awlaki, who had a top-secret briefing lunch meeting IN THE PENTAGON a few weeks after 9-11, and was a known CIA operative...

OR maybe you mean the "Islamofascist" Adam Yahiye Gadahn, who's grandfather was on the Board of Directors of the ADL...



This whole thing gets pretty dicey when they start making up laws about arrest, detainment, and execution, but DO NOT define the meanings of the terms used to qualify a person for these treatments. That's all we are saying...
 

bowb

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Idaho
There is a written-in exemption for this "doesn't apply to US Citizens" clause. If the President, the Joint Cheifs, or the head of DHS decides that a person would otherwise meet any of the requirements for detainment under this bill--EVEN IF THEY ARE A US CITIZEN--then they can instruct whatever LEA is applicable to detain that person.

In other words, "it doesn't apply to Us Citizens, unless we SAY it does, and then it does..."
+1000
This is what I read into the section in question.

Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Really?!? Can you cite the words in that section that you read this into?

Gladly...

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.


  • (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(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.


and also:

SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.


  • (c) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.


So, yeah, it doesn't apply to US Citizens, unless the Secretary of State, the Director of DNI, or SecDef decides that for "matters of national security" it should, and then they can just, by passing a little note to Congress, make it apply to anyone they want...
 
Last edited:

bowb

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Idaho
Really?!? Can you cite the words in that section that you read this into?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

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.
(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on 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 date.

Reading this section paragraph (a)(4) jumps out at me.

(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.

So paragraph (a)(2) can be thrown out if a waiver is given.
Paragraph (b) and Section 1032 are listed as requirement and required. What paragraph (b) does not say is what bothers me. It states that the requirement is inapplicable to US Citizens. What meaning do we give to requirement here? One definition could mean that it is not necessary to detain US Citizens, but given (a)(4) a US Citizen could be classified as a risk and though it is not necessary to detain them it might be decided to be prudent.

Maybe a stretch, but I am not a politician or a lawyer but I do think these sections could be made clearer as to explicitly not apply to US Citizens.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The part to which you worry about a waiver being give is in (b), not (a)(1). (b) is not subject to the waiver. So, again, what words in the law led you to infer what you did?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
The part to which you worry about a waiver being give is in (b), not (a)(1). (b) is not subject to the waiver. So, again, what words in the law led you to infer what you did?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Again, you simply don't grasp the insidiously subtle wording of this law. Apparently you have not had the displeasure to work with sociopathic bureaucrats much in your life. (I have...)

Section 4(b) that says this does not apply to US citizens is NOT a broad-spectrum, general exemption. Read it closely--it says that the REQUIREMENT to detain does not apply to US Citizens. It does NOT say that this entire thing can't be applied, or that waivers don't apply to US citizens. It says that there is no REQUIREMENT to detain a US Citizen. If someone who is NOT a citizen meets the benchmarks outlined in this law, there is a REQUIREMENT that they be detained.

But for US citizens, apparently, there is a little leeway given--detainment is up to the discretion of the arresting officer--it is NOT required, but NOWHERE does it say it is not allowed.

And as we all know, that which is not specifically prohibited in law is allowed... :)
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
They can only detain folks who are al-Qaeda/al-Qaeda allies/supporters who have actually participated in planning or carrying out an attack/attempted attack on the US or a US coalition partner.


Under your interpretation, large parts of the US State Department, CIA, and DOD could be subject to detainment, because they CERTAINLY have met that requirement.

Just sayin'...
 
Top