Ben Swann: Obama Demanded Power of Indefinite Detention

Ben Swann has probably got a big target on his back for posting this one.  It was not part of his Reality Check tv spot.  He’s speaking at a Libertas Meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio.

8 responses to “Ben Swann: Obama Demanded Power of Indefinite Detention

  1. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s plan for Rush Limbaugh and the TEA Party…

  2. SEC. 1021. 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;
    50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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) AUTHORITIES.—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.
    (f) 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).

    I’m NOT arguing with you about you’re stating that Sec. 1021 allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens…but when I read it, it almost sounded like ONLY “COVERED PERSONS(ie. (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.) were in this group that could be indefinitely detained without rights to a trial and such…..BECAUSE in part E ((e) AUTHORITIES.—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.” it makes one think that if you’re an American citizen, indefinite detention would not be acceptable. Please understand, I am TOTALLY against obama. TOTALLY. I border on thinking he’s satan or his disciple….I just want to understand so I can explain it to everyone who will listen to me. If someone reads this and asks the question I’m asking, I want to be able to answer it. Could you help me understand this legal jargon(which I think ought to be AGAINST the law anyway. If it’s not written so that an average person can understand it, THAT’S a point ripe for corruption….probably their intention, and I am multiple graduate degree’d and consider myself fairly intelligent and informed….just have never been political until now….sorry, I know I’ve probably been part of the problem. :( Thank you, Sunny

  3. If Obama signs this, he should immediately be arrested and detained, without counsel for the deaths of for Americans, and for aiding and abetting the enemy. Go ahead, make my day!

  4. I have the same question as Darin. However, I can read into it that it could have application against anyone that the government wanted it to based on the corruption of interpretation based on the lack of clarity in the law. Namely the area where it says “(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.)”
    Homeland security just has to put the tea party or Rush or Lavin or anyone for that matter on the terrorist list which they can do at will without congresses approval. That is where I see a potential issue. However, I agree with Darin that it would not appear to be the intention of the law to an average citizen. We need some clarity on this, please.

    • Darin and Richard, you may want to take a look at the 2009 DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

      In addition to mentioning numerous behavior categories, it specifies returning veterans as possible threat.

      What do you think of this footnote?

      Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

  5. Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    Ben Swann: Obama Demanded Power of Indefinite Detention

  6. (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
    the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
    Use of Military Force.—
    The President has been “given” this power by the Congress. ANY President from now on can say they won’t misuse this power, BUT they can, “legally” if they choose to. Cut away the legalese and look for the INTENT. This gives FULL power to the Executive branch of our government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s