McCain's Terror Bill: American citizens will be sent to military prisons

[steveh_131]

It's pretty much the same as the espionage laws.
For further information I suggest you contact your elected Representatives.

So you don't know?

 

[UncleMike]

So you don't know?

I didn't say that.
You are inserting false premises into my statements.
That is being disingenuous.
I've stated the facts as I understand them.
I again refer you to your elected Officials for further clarification.

 

[KG1]

I noticed that nobody answered my previous question.

That exemption only applies to section 1032. What about section 1031?

[/LIST]
Then what is the purpose of section 1031?

So all of this can be applied to U.S. citizens? Why specifically exclude U.S. citizens in section 1032 but not in section 1031?

I'll try to take a shot at this. Sec. 1031 simply authorizes military custody. Sec. 1032 defines the requirements for that authorization of military custody.

Now lets take a look at Sec. 1032 and pay attention to subsections (a) and (b). Subsection (a) spells out Custody Pending the Disposition under Law of War and defers to Sec. 1031 to define the conditions. Subsection (b) deals with the Applicability to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens as it pertains to Subsection (a). That seems to me to be the connection.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't say that.
You are inserting false premises into my statements.
That is being disingenuous.
I've stated the facts as I understand them.
I again refer you to your elected Officials for further clarification.

If you don't know the answer you can just say so. Even old people aren't expected to know everything.

I'll try to take a shot at this. Sec. 1031 simply authorizes military custody. Sec. 1032 defines the requirements for that authorization of military custody.

Now lets take a look at Sec. 1032 and pay attention to subsections (a) and (b). Subsection (a) spells out Custody Pending the Disposition under Law of War and defers to Sec. 1031 to define the conditions. Subsection (b) deals with the Applicability to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens as it pertains to Subsection (a). That seems to me to be the connection.

That makes a little more sense. Thanks.

 

[KG1]

That makes a little more sense. Thanks.

I agree that this bill is way to confusing and open to much interpretation especially considering it could have such potential to circumvent civil liberties.

I just offered my own honest interpretation from studying the bill of what I think ties Sec.1032 to Sec.1031 in an attempt to shed some light on the legit questions you posed.

 

[rambone]

Reality Check: Did the US Senate just give away your right to due process?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkcrWrjUm4

 

[rambone]

Senators Graham & McCain discuss killing Americans and using drone strikes

All these Senators, including the authors of the bill, seem to think that this bill does apply to American citizens. McCain wants to be able to use Predator drones on suspects inside the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tavj7Jhko

 

[KG1]

Just a side note: There was an amendment that was voted on and approved to be inserted into Sec.1031 before S.1867 was passed.

The amendment (No. 1456) was agreed to. The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1

Feinstein Amendment No. 1456
(The 'compromise' amendment.)

On p 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Here is a link describing that amendment and some text of the debate that took place further down in the article and it provides some interesting insight on Sec.1031

National Defense Authorization Act - Detention of US Citizens - Feinstein Amd Text & Debate

 

[KG1]

Here's another link that discusses amendment #1456 and basically what it suggests is that with this last minute compromise the Senate voted to punt the question of whether it applies to U.S. citizen's and they are leaving it up to the courts to decide should the need arise. Senate Votes Not To Vote On Indefinite Detention On Americans

Can Americans be indefinitely detained by the military on suspicion of terrorism if arrested on American soil? Thursday evening the Senate added a compromise amendment to the defense spending bill that states: Maybe. Specifically, it says the bill does not alter current authorities relating to detention, leaving either side free to argue whether current law allows or prohibits indefinite military detention of Americans captured in the US.

The reason the compromise amendment worked is that it leaves the question of domestic military detention open, leaving the matter for Supreme Court to resolve should a future president decide to assert the authority to detain a US citizen on American soil.

 

[KG1]

All these Senators, including the authors of the bill, seem to think that this bill does apply to American citizens. McCain wants to be able to use Predator drones on suspects inside the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tavj7Jhko

I think it would be disingenuous to interpret from this clip that McCain is advocating the use of predator drones on suspects inside the United States.

The way I saw it he was attempting to point out the disparity between the two extremes when it comes to enemy combatants of taking out terror suspects abroad with drones but then giving those same types of suspects miranda rights here in the U.S.

In any event it looks like he went off on a tangent and interjected himself and they all kinda gave him a wtf? and went back to the discussion at hand.

 

[rambone]

LOL

 

[rambone]

McCain confirms our fears

From the horse's mouth once again. If they give you a "designation" of being a "terrorist" - your rights are null and void.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm7mXMOP9tw

 

[thebishopp]

If this actually is signed into law (not sure on it's exact status) then people should be worried. There is much talk about how the military wouldn't actually obey orders of this nature, but as shown on another thread, the rationale would be that such orders were in fact lawful and must be obeyed.

 

[cqcn88]

If this actually is signed into law (not sure on it's exact status) then people should be worried. There is much talk about how the military wouldn't actually obey orders of this nature, but as shown on another thread, the rationale would be that such orders were in fact lawful and must be obeyed.

When one swears into the military they swear to support and defend the constitution. This law is unconstitutional.

 

[beararms1776]

To be honest Rambone, I don't think you have anything to worry about if your not a terrorist.

 

[cqcn88]

To be honest Rambone, I don't think you have anything to worry about if your not a terrorist.

I thought sarcasm was supposed to be in purple....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

From The Hill, White House backs down:

White House backs down from threat to veto Defense bill over detainee language - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

 

[Pocketman]

When one swears into the military they swear to support and defend the constitution. This law is unconstitutional.

Not to be antagonistic, but who says this is unconstitutional?

 

[KG1]

Looks like it's gonna become law now. Don't get caught aiding and abetting al-Qaeda.

 

[Expat]

Looks like it's gonna become law now. Don't get caught aiding and abetting al-Qaeda.

Could be too late. There was someone saying he had a Constitutional right to fund aQ on here just this past week.