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

[rcawdor57]

http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11...-to-arrest-americans-without-charge-or-trial/

http://www.infowars.com/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/


What has happened to this country? What has happened to our "representatives"?

More links: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...erican-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

http://occupywallst.org/forum/s1867-allows-military-to-intern-americans-without-/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/show

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...-on-american-soil-and-hold-them-indefinitely/

http://aattp.blogspot.com/2011/11/us-senate-to-vote-on-bill-that-will.html

http://politisite.com/2011/11/27/is-the-senate-undermining-us-citizens’-rights/

http://www.carrollstandard.com/the-...ns-on-us-soil-and-hold-them-indefinitely.html

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News...ilitary-to-intern-americans-without-trial.htm

There are literally dozens of sites with this information. I have linked quite a few. I will leave the "believe it or not" up to the individual.

 

[oak1971]

A link to the text of the bill would be helpful. No offense, but I don't put much stock in Alex Jones.

 

[RetiredOC]

A link to the text of the bill would be helpful. No offense, but I don't put much stock in Alex Jones.

He talks about a lot of legit topics, but he always makes everything sound too spooky, like there is a black van sitting directly outside my house..

 

[cyras21]

I don't have the link but after hearing Alex talk about this I read the bill, well the sections he talks about, and it specifically excludes American citizens from the grasp!

 

[skidmark]

Repost without formatting errors

The link is above, but here it is again: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:</FONT></A><BR><BR>Sections

Sections 1031 and 1032 are the parts everybody seems to be going paranoid about. From the text of Section 1032 (section 1031 is the other supposedly horrible part):

[h=3]

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.[/h](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.

Anybody can accuse anybody else of being Taliban or al-Qaeda (or communist, fascist, Martian or anything else). Just being accused is not going to mean you are going to be picked up and imprisoned at Gitmo, although I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there who woulds like to drop a dime on some other folks and see them whisked away to a dark dungeon, never to be seen again.

Most of the folks on OCDO have no personal memory of Sen. Eugene McCarty and the Red Scare, but this seems to be a knee-jerk response in the other direction from what went on in the 1950's. While I have no problems with folks being very mindful of how legislation can be perverted, I am continually amazed at the level of paranoia some folks drum up where it is not warranted.

I "know" my name is on any number of government watch lists (for a variety of reasons, some of which having to do with RKBA advocacy, others having to do with other political activism, and others being none of your business) but if I were to actually believe THEY were going to use this legislation to come and get me I'd check myself in ahead of their sending out the flying squad. One day THEY might actually come for me, but that day will be one well after I had a whole lot of warning by watching THEM rounding up other folks ahead of me.

stay safe.

 

[Daylen]

I still find it funny that people talk bad about McCarthy with the implication that he was wrong about the communists. Sure his methods were abhorrent, but he has been proven to be largely right by history.

 

[MilProGuy]

(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.



This certainly suits me.:dude:

 

[Aknazer]

Dang, and here I was looking forward to getting to arrest people for no reason! I was thinking of starting with both state and federal government officials who have turned their back on the Constitution (both state and federal) and work to subvert and twist its meaning, but I guess the kabosh has been put on that.

 

[DrakeZ07]

Could someone please clearify what exactly "(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" means? I don't understand political jargon; as to me it sounds like it means either US Citizens are exempt and protected FROM this law or whatever it is... OR US Citizens are NOT exempt/protected from it.

Thanks~

<3

 

[KYGlockster]

With proposed legislation such as this, and the laws already on the books, it would certainly seem that we are heading down a road towards a tyrannical government, a government that we could not use our second amendment rights to overthrow, (like the supreme court stated we were granted such a right for in hellar vs. D.C.,) because they would use legislation like this to arrest us before we ever had the opportunity. The men that founded our great nation would absolutely go ballistic to see where it's headed today, in fact, I'd say, they would have already stopped the madness that has been done, and regained constitutional control over their country! I'm 100% for stopping every known terrorist, but the wording of this bill means anyone that attacks the U.S. Government, or is about to, can be detained and held on suspicion alone. Our freedoms are slowly slipping away, and soon we won't be worrying about fighting for our 2A rights, but worrying about whether we are going to upset the government that controls every aspect of our lives. ( a little far-fetched, but honestly, this could be around the corner if we keep going like we are.)

 

[Daylen]

(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.



This certainly suits me.:dude:

Ok, so you trust Obama to make that determination? I don't. That needs to be done by the courts, and not military courts. Its not the place of the executive branch to make such a determination. That language does not stop the feds from arresting someone claiming the person fit those qualifications and then not giving them the protections of the bill of rights and privileges of being a citizen. No citizen should be stripped of either without a trial.

 

[skidmark]

Could someone please clearify what exactly

"(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"

means? I don't understand political jargon; as to me it sounds like it means either US Citizens are exempt and protected FROM this law or whatever it is... OR US Citizens are NOT exempt/protected from it.

Thanks~<3

You need to go back a bit to get the meaning -

(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.

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.

Then we get to your question - basically it says that the requirement to detain folks even if they are a "covered person" does not apply to US citizens. That pretty much translates into meaning that if a US citizen is going to be detained for being al-Qaeda or supporter who planned or carried out an attack/attempted attack the US citizen must be detained under some other law.

Bottom line? All the paranoia about violations on Constitutional rights is just that - paranoia.

stay safe.

 

[Daylen]

Bottom line? All the paranoia about violations on Constitutional rights is just that - paranoia.

Paranoia is not always unjustified. Many times they are out to get you.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

He talks about a lot of legit topics, but he always makes everything sound too spooky, like there is a black van sitting directly outside my house..

Don't worry, that's just me .

I question this type of fear-mongering. Individuals actually believe that it is President Obama's personal quest to arrest all of us, throw us all into prison, and begin gassing us by the millions.

I would be surprised if the Senate were presented with such a bill, that they would actually have the backing of their constituents to pass it.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Then we get to your question - basically it says that the requirement to detain folks even if they are a "covered person" does not apply to US citizens. That pretty much translates into meaning that if a US citizen is going to be detained for being al-Qaeda or supporter who planned or carried out an attack/attempted attack the US citizen must be detained under some other law.

Bottom line? All the paranoia about violations on Constitutional rights is just that - paranoia.

stay safe.

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.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

If polling data can ever be believed.

Obama care; the $800+ billion 2nd 'stimulus'; the Senate has passed bill(s) that the majority, a clear majority, of their constituents did not want passed.

I am encouraging all individuals who are concerned about this potential Law to read-up on it. If you are an individual who believes, concluded, or whatever, that the potential Law will deprive U.S. citizens of anything, well, there are a number of variables that must be established to know whether or not it would be the case. From what I understand is President Obama has told the Senate that if they do not remove that portion of the potential Law, that he will veto it.

"Obama-care" was a short step that should have been taken further, much further.

 

[Daylen]

...
"Obama-care" was a short step that should have been taken further, much further.

Just do away with all freedom?

 

[skidmark]

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.

Forgive me for not stating the patently obvious, as contained in the bill itself - yes, of course they would be dealt with by "the Law of the United States" whatever the heck that is. There is, and was, no real possibity of any rational inference that a US citizen would be dealt with by the law(s) of some other country or some international tribunal. But some folks seem to want to have the obvious stated. I will try to remember that but will probably not be very sucessful as I tend to operate as if others are able to perform rudimentary thinking without such prompts being needed. I recommend getting and studying this book http://www.nolo.com/products/legal-research-LRES.html . Sometimes just browsing through places like http://public.findlaw.com/moretopics/ can help you get a grip on how to understand and interpret law.

This bill does not make any reference to "enemy combatants". Therefore, a US citizen would have to be handled and treated the same way regardless of where they were detained (as opposed to "captured"). In fact, as the bill specifically says that US citzens are not to be detained under the provisions of this act it would be a logical reading to say that the location of where they committed te violation of other provisions of the act are not materal.

stay safe.

 

[jbone]

SNIP...it would certainly seem that we are heading down a road towards a tyrannical government,...

We've been there a long time! History tells us that we only transferred the tyrannical elitist power of Great Britain over to the tyrannical elitist power of America. It's a far better tyrannical elitist power we enjoy our freedom under, but still the same elitist with different faces, and minus the wigs who control.

 

[okboomer]

I question this type of fear-mongering. Individuals actually believe that it is President Obama's personal quest to arrest all of us, throw us all into prison, and begin gassing us by the millions.

Well, if not his personally, certainly in a general way many of his counsellors and supporters have espoused these agendas in their writings and public statements.

I would be surprised if the Senate were presented with such a bill, that they would actually have the backing of their constituents to pass it.

Depends on which party is in control ... as for whether their constituents back something, may I remind you of Obamacare and Nancy Pelosi's infamous statement, "You have to pass it to find out what's in it"?