About that Senate Bill Giving President Power to Arrest U.S. Citizens w/out Charge or Trial

Rate this post

UPDATE (12.14,2011): 
Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”
See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”
UPDATE (12.3.2011):
The Senate passed this bill on Dec. 1, 2011, by a 93 – 7 vote. To read about this, go here.
UPDATE (12.6.2011):
Sen. Dianne Feinstein confirms that S. 1867 indeed authorizes the President & military to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

~∞~

The Internet is ablaze today with alarming news that the Senate is set to vote on a bill that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office writes: “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”
(H/t beloved fellows Tina & Joseph)
The bill in question is S.1867: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reportedly supports the bill, saying that the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield.”
It’s always better to go to the original primary source, instead of rely on a secondary source, such as the media’s report or someone else’s (e.g., the ACLU’s) interpretation.
So I scoured the net to look for the actual text (in PDF) of S. 1867. This is what I found:
The part of the S. 1867 that has the ACLU and others concerned are Sec. 1031-1033, under Subtitle D’s “Detainee Matters” — pages 359-371 in the PDF document:

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 follow:

(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).

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 seciton 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 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.

~∞~

As you can see for yourself, the actual text of S. 1867, specifically Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033, is much more nuanced than what the ACLU claims.
The ACLU alleges that the bill will “allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.”
But the actual language of S. 1867 doesn’t say that at all. Instead, the bill specifically excludes United States citizens from the bill. The power given by S. 1867 to the President is over “covered persons.” Those “covered persons” are defined as (1) individuals who had been involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the United States; and (2) who are members or supporters of al-Qaeda and associated enemy forces who had undertaken belligerent acts against America.
We can debate about whether giving the President of the United States the authority to have our military go after those “covered persons”. We can also debate what the definitions and meanings of S. 1867’s language are. All I ask is that, in so doing, you refrain from being disagreeable while disagreeing.
UPDATE (Nov. 30, 2011): (h/t Tina)
An e-mail from Oath Keepers’ Stewart Rhodes delineates the leading supporters and opponents of this bill in Congress.
One one side are the bill’s authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who insist that Sections 1031-1032 would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with “terrorists.” Other supporters maintain that the language doesn’t necessarily include American citizens.

On the other side are Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Amash voted against the bill in the House, and believes that the bill would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.” Amash maintains that the language “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” therefore it is misleading and outrageous. For his part, Sen. Paul has proffered an amendment that strikes out Section 1031 of the bill.

Oath Keepers and the John Birch Society urge us to support Paul’s amendment. Contact your reps. and senators!

See also “Is Senate Bill 1867 Even Legal?,” Dec. 2, 2011.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

51 responses to “About that Senate Bill Giving President Power to Arrest U.S. Citizens w/out Charge or Trial

  1. Thank you, Dr. Eowyn, for this most important clarification which coincidentally, is not set out by the ACLU. Not surprised. When I was a very young person in Philosophy class, the Jesuit priest said to all of us, always, always, get terms and language defined. This is an important practice and premise for every discipline.

     
  2. (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.
    And suppose this language covering the “inapplicability” of this law to US citizens somehow mysteriously disappears, or is subtly altered between the vote and Obama signing it into law?
    Or even after it is signed?
    I mean, how many times have we seen this congress actually write bills after they were signed into law?
    I don’t mean to sound paranoid here, but I don’t trust this congress as far as I could throw it, and I trust the Herr Dear Führer even less.
    -Dave

     
    • The key word here is “REQUIREMENT”: The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
      But, what other word could be used instead of “requirement”? What if it is not a ‘requirement’ but merely a whim of the President? Or some bureaucrat with a grudge?

       
  3. You should be worried about this bill. Just like the pastor in Germany who didn’t object because they didn’t come for people of his religion, who gets to define what an “enemy” is?
    Doesn’t it scare the wits out of you that a liberal like Lindsey Graham is calling the our country “the homeland” (Nazi Germany term) a “battlefield”? No offense, but I’m a lot more afraid of a government who ignores the law on a regular basis, than I am of a few muslims who’ve been demonized by our lame stream media.

     
  4. Constitution_matters

    Only a Conservative Republican president should have this kind of power.

     
    • Why would s/he want it, if they act Constitutionally? Many thanks, Eo, for getting the “terms and language defined.” I took everything at face value, assuming that it was w/o error or misinterpretation. Once again, a life-long habit of too easily trusting has got me in trouble!

       
    • Power corrupts, left/liberalism corrupts absolutely.

       
  5. {Calling all People} some of you are still making the same mistake–not reading the information for yourself!
    Read the below paragraph it says covered persons are as defined by {Sub Section b} read it again no where in subsection b does it exclude {American Citizens}
    These supposed Conservative writers tell a half truth!
    By stating {” Those “covered persons” are defined as (1) individuals who had been involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the United States; and (2) who are members or supporters of al-Qaeda and associated enemy forces.}
    That isn’t all sub-paragraph says
    {including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces}.
    Please tell me what is a {belligerent act}
    Here is what a couple of our great leaders in the white house tried to get passed in 2010! see the following website!
    https://www.alternet.org/rights/146081/mccain_and_lieberman's_%22enemy_belligerent%22_act_could_set_u.s._on_path_to_military_dictatorship
    Warlike, Hostile, Pugnacious, Aggressive, Belicose, overbearing!
    Take your pick as to which Synonym you want put on your “arrest warrant” to justify not giving you a trial until the war on terrorism is over!
    If the super Obama can kill an “American Citizen” and bystanders with a drone bomb don’t think for a minute he would not arrest you and throw away the key!! Wake Up People!
    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 follow:
    (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.

     
    • Please explain why you left out, from your long lecture to us, S. 1867’s Sec. 1032(b)(1):
      “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

       
      • (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.
        But as I told Dave below the Great Mr. Bush said the Patriot Act was not for the American Citizens but that is exactly who it is being used on.
        I dare you to tell a TSA jerk not to grab your wife’s breasts and see what they will label you ! You can forget S. 1867′s Sec. 1032(b)(1):
        And as I stated in my above post Obama already has killed an American citizen without due process!

         
    • Andy,
      I understand your point, but as I noted above, this congress has finalized, if not actually written, large chunks of several bills after they were signed into law.
      The most prominent and far-reaching of them being Obamacare.
      What would stop them from doing the same in this instance?
      I mean, they could pass a law purportedly banning the private ownership of Howitzers, yet by the time it gets implemented, the feds are out confiscating water pistols.
      -Dave

       
      • I agree with you Dave. there were some using the last part of the bill where it said it was not to be used against American Citizens for a reason to not condemn this bill. All I can say is the Great Mr. Bush said the Patriot Act was not for the American Citizens but that is exactly who it is being used on.
        The consensus is if you are labeled a terrorist you are no longer an American Citizen!

         
  6. Truth is there have been many times parts of legislation passed into law have been taken out and the media just never reported on them. It could happen that the section excluding American citizens could be taken out at any time before or after a final Senate vote.

     
  7. I note the use of the word “requirement”, not “authorization”. See if you can tell the difference in meaning between these two versions:
    “The *requirement* to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
    “The *authorization* to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
    Has anyone else caught this? This bill authorizes the detention of anyone classified as a covered person; it requires it for non-US Citizens. Granted, this *requirement* does not apply to US Citizens; however, the detention is still *authorized*. Am I splitting hairs? Then why doesn’t the Senate modify the language from “requirement” to “authorization” and make it clear? It is their express intent to sneak in this unconstitutional “authorization” to detain US Citizens through a very carefully crafted and well-hidden back door.
    SCOTUS consistency ignores the plain meaning of the Constitution; do we really need to give them a loop-hole so large that The Powers That Be can drive a tank through it?!?
    This is a game of chess and we’re not even recognizing it as such….

     
  8. Frankly, Dr. Eowyn set out the FACTS of this bill. It excludes United States citizens. I do not understand the comments upon this blog that continue to dispute the clear language of the bill. Please do not be motivated by fear or paranoia. The bill is very clear and I thank Dr. Eowyn for defining the terms for us. Please be realistic, as this mindset of fear actually destroys conservatism. The “what if” approach is mindless, for example: “What if elephants flew, we’d all be killed by flying elephant shit!” The facts are the facts are the facts!!!!!

     
    • This is from the horses mouth John McCain!
      JOANDARC shut up and read it it isn’t my idea this is what the sponsor of the bill said
      “Paul responded by saying he was not suggesting Guantanamo Bay prisoners be released, but that “[He is] simply arguing that particularly American citizens should not be sent to a foreign prison without due process.”
      McCain finished by mentioning Paul simply had no idea the massive threat posed to the U.S. by terrorists.
      {“An individual, no matter who they are}, (McCain SAID THIS) !
      if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” McCain said. ” We need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives … in our armed services.”
      Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/senators-are-battling-it-out-over-that-secret-bill-granting-the-military-new-powers-2011-11#ixzz1f84cRHK5
      JOANDARC and the others on this blog that feel the same way! I suggest you pull your head out of the sand and see what is happening to AMERICA TODAY and then vote for Ron Paul in 2012 the only one still standing for the freedoms of the American Citizen!

       
  9. Joandarc
    Why do we as a country need to detain people and deny them due process? If you let the government open the door a crack, they will push it open all the way — that’s not my words, but the words of a very high level govn’t official I know who said the Patriot Act is not patriotic back when I thought it was a good thing. If we allow the government the “right” to deny one group of people due process, who’s to say that our government won’t make the decision to deny due process to ANYONE they chose? Slippery slope that I would hate to see offered to our already out-of-control government.

     
    • katy and Andy,
      I am baffled by the belligerence of the letter and tone of your comments to Joan, who is my best friend and this blog’s co-founder, long before any of you appeared onto this blog.
      Please re-read her comment. No where did she say that America, as you put it, “needs to detain people and deny them due process.”
      Both Joan’s and my point is about the actual language of Senate bill 1867, which specifically says U.S. citizens are excluded from the definition of those “persons” “covered” by this bill. Neither Joan nor I ever said we approved of this bill.
      As for Andy’s and Dave’s comments, claiming that our government can and will simply remove or add to a bill that’s been passed, and in so doing completely contravene the bill in question — that also has nothing to do with my and Joan’s point. We were speaking to the language of S. 1867 as we have it today, instead of what changes may or may not be made in the future.
      I have a question for you: If that’s what you believe — that they simply make things up as they go along — then why even have Congress, America’s chief law-making body? Why even have bills and laws? Why even bother to go through the trying and complicated process of getting a bill passed?
      Furthermore, how cozy it is that you don’t do the work of looking up the bill — as I had done — but all you do is sit and complain and kvetch and whine and bitch. Why don’t you try to do something constructive, if that’s what you believe our country has become?

       
      • Dr. Eowyn: I did look up the law but I didn’t leave out a portion of the description of the covered persons as you did, on your post!
        {But the actual language of S. 1867 doesn’t say that at all. Instead, the bill specifically excludes United States citizens from the bill. The power given by S. 1867 to the President is over “covered persons.” Those “covered persons” are defined as (1) individuals who had been involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the United States; and (2) who are members or supporters of al-Qaeda and associated enemy forces.}
        Dr. Eowyn you left out the rest of the description!
        {including any person who has committed a (belligerent act)
        belligerent act is the part I’m talking about would you Dr. Eowyn please with your educated mind ( tell me what a belligerent act is?)
        or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.}
        Dr. Eowyn You stated you didn’t say you are for the bill, but may I remind you, that you also didn’t say you were against the bill. We have to many politicians in Washington gifted with that same ability telling us what they think we want to hear instead of what they rely believe and where they stand or how they will vote. Also may I remind you you were criticizing those of us that didn’t like the bill, so by deduction I must believe you are for the bill and trying the best you can to disarm us with your smooth words.
        As for Joan: here is her final statement: Please be realistic, as this mindset of fear actually destroys conservatism. The “what if” approach is mindless, for example: “What if elephants flew, we’d all be killed by flying elephant shit!” The facts are the facts are the facts!!!!!
        Here are a few facts!
        Fact #1 The Patriotic was not for American Citizens! LOL now!
        Fact #2 how many American Citizens are now listed as Terrorists?
        Fact #3 The list of 25 U.S. citizens who have been charged with such offenses in the last 18 months was compiled and provided to NEWSWEEK by a U.S. law-enforcement official, who requested not to be identified because it is not an official government publication and is not meant to be exhaustive. “These cases clearly suggest that an increasing number of U.S. citizens, both native-born Americans and naturalized citizens, appear to be getting involved in the terrorist cause. It’s not an encouraging trend,” said a Justice Department official who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information.
        Fact #4 Obama has ready bombed a foreign country to kill a US citizen, he considered a terrorist without the approval of Congress, Trial, Jury or Judge.
        Joan, these are not what (ifs) they are already happening and if this bill passes it will be just like the Patriot Act Every American will be subject to it!
        Dr. I await your answer!

         
        • Andy,
          You accuse me of deliberately leaving out what you consider to be a critical sentence in S. 1867. You need to re-read my post. My post’s main purpose is to provide readers with the primary source — the actual text of the bill — instead of merely reading a secondary source, i.e, the ACLU’s interpretation of the bill. And so, I laboriously re-typed (not copy-and-paste) Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033 of S. 1867, including Sec. 1031(b)(2), which reads:

          “(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.

          The words in bold are exactly those words you claim I deliberately left out.
          As for my intention: You are new to this blog, but you couldn’t be bothered to read beyond this post (and you didn’t even do a good read of this) to read even just a few of the THOUSANDS of posts I’ve written on Fellowship of the Minds. Instead, you assumed and jumped to conclusion — accusing me of all kinds of wily and malicious motives. Nor am I going to waste any of my finite time and energy defending myself or my conservative credentials to you.
          You are rude, rash, and just plain obnoxious. But despite all that, none of us told you to “shut up” — which you said to this blog’s co-founder, Joan. How ironic it is that you say on your Facebook page that your favorite quotation is: “Be Kind to Everybody because everybody is having a tough time!”
          Yes, siree. You sure practice what you preach!
          This is my blog and you are not welcome here. Please leave.

           
  10. (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 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.

     
  11. Thank you, Dr. Eowyn, for posting the actual text to the bill. I couldn’t find it anywhere else. I see that Congressman Rand Paul was right when he claimed that American citizens may be detained indefinitely without trial. READ THE BILL!!!!!!!!!! IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY!!!!

     
    • You’re very welcome, Joe! 😀
      It is unbelievably refreshing to have a commenter actually thank me — instead of criticize, complain, nitpick, and curse me — for the work I do on this blog, at no pay or vacation time-off.

       
  12. Upon re-reading the bill, I realized that the executive branch is authorized, but not required, to detain citizens without trial indefinitely. That is exactly what the bill says in legal terms. There is an obvious difference between being authorized and being required to do something.
    This is tyranny. The wording of the Bill clearly states that the executive branch is authorized to detain citizens without trial indefinitely. If you disagree, please show me where the bill restricts the authorization.

     
  13. I would like to commend Eowyn for providing the text of S1867. It is helpful in providing the subject text, but more than that, it allows us to reflect on the nature of government. The ACLU takes the position that such legislation “could” result in violation of our constitutional protections. That could happen if the clear legislation is bowdlerized, suppressed, or misinterpreted. That is why the legislation contains a reporting requirement. Congress must regularly review application of the law. One starts with explicit legislation. If terms are not explicitly defined (i.e., “belligerent act”) that must be reviewed in reports to Congress (Sec. 1031 [e]). All terms that remain obscure may lead to Supreme Court review. That requires vigilant citizens with organized conservative, constitutionally oriented organizations (like this blog) to remain constantly jealous of our fundamental rights. That is what Eowyn, Joan, Steve, and all the rest are doing. I, personally, am grateful they are there:
    (1) to provide the relevant information concerning contested issues; and
    (2) providing a forum where all these concerns can be ventilated, so that we can all be prepared to protect our rights as Americans.

     
  14. First of all, I am so sorry I was unable to continue with the dialogue, as I had an important errand to run. I extend my gratitude and solidarity to Dr. Eowyn, my best friend and sister, and to Steve, my good friend who is also a wonderful patriot, for coming to my defense and for most importantly, setting out and reiterating the real issues in this post. Thank you also, Joe, for your wise communication!
    It never ceases to amaze me how individuals cannot stay on point with the actual issue presented, and in this case, it was the language used in the bill which Dr. Eowyn presented with accuracy. I incorporate by reference the communications of Dr. Eowyn, Steve and Joe, so as not to duplicate them, and I reiterate them. Frankly, one of my absolute “no-no’s” is never to hang up on someone over the phone, and never to tell someone to “shut up.” Really, it is the epitomy of disrespect.
    The purpose of FOTM is to bring conservatives together in this fight against the evils occurring in America. We are brothers and sisters together, we are a Fellowship. We must remember to balance our passion with our intellect and good judgment in the use of our free will, God’s great gift. Dr. Eowyn, especially, devotes so very much of her valuable time, energy, talent and brilliance to FOTM, and I thank her for everything she does; nevertheless, she is attacked on a daily basis which to me, is mind boggling. This is the problem with instant communication. There seems to be more of a tendency to have lapses of courtesy, because the communication avenue is easy and immediate. And, it also seems that oftentimes people are ruled by their feelings and emotion, instead of being more thoughtful in trying to understand what is being said as to the particular purpose and point in a post. Believe me, I am a mere freshman when it comes to the internet. But, I do know how to stay on point and to recognize when communication about a point has gone astray.
    As to Dr. Eowyn and Steve, we are all for one, and one for all!

     
  15. Dr. Eowyn, I believe that you and your friends are acting in good faith, presenting this information with the intent to educate us to the relevant facts as you see them and forming opinions based primarily upon reason and principle rather than emotion and pragmatics (though not to the exclusion of them). From reading other posts on this blog, I generally tend to agree with the substance of most of the opinions expressed herein. While I am solidly in the classical liberal school of thought with a noticeable libertarian bent (as opposed to the traditional “(modern) liberal” vs. “conservative” false dichotomy), I appreciate the service that you and the other bloggers are providing. Thank you. To the point of this post, kudos for actually posting relevant sections of the bill.
    I disagree with your analysis of the text of this bill. I believe that you may have failed to notice and consider one very important aspect. To wit, you state that this bill “specifically excludes United States citizens”. I note that in your proper attempt to bring a measure of civility back to this discussion, you did not specifically address the concerns between the use of “requirement” and “authorization” as noted by myself and touched upon by others. My understanding is that while you are correct in that this bill exempts US Citizens from the “requirement” to detain, it still “authorizes” detention per the definition of “covered persons”. Do you see this distinction? Do you agree with my analysis of it? Why or why not?
    I would appreciate reading your comments in this regard.

     
    • Thank you, Jim, for your civility. I so appreciate it. 🙂
      In truth, I did not notice the different words used in the bill — of “authorization” vs. “requirement” — nor do I know if the difference has significance. I appreciate you and Joe spotting this with your eagle eyes and bringing this matter up. While I am a scholar, with a Ph.D. and a full Professorship, my training is not in law. I will look into this — by doing some research about those two words and by asking my friends who are attorneys.
      Will get back to you on this!

       
  16. TWO logic problems with your assessment:
    What good is this bill if it does not cover American citizens in sleeping terrorist cells? It will have to apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS.
    The other thing is the language in 1031 is open-ended:
    “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, OR ASSOCIATED FORCES 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.”
    The feds will be able to define “associated forces” “hostilities against the U.S.” “a belligerent act” and “enemy forces”
    By defining these terms, the feds could include ANY PERSON they wish as a covered person.
    Do you have any imagination? Think of a fed takeover of citizens’ IRAs or pensions to redistribute. Would a person who protested suddenly become and enemy of the state???

     
  17. And by the way: the link to the TEXT of the bill has disappeared or “timed out” since you and others posted it. What do you think of THAT?

     
  18. Excellent, well balanced article.

     
  19. In my defense, I absolutely did not tell Joandarc to “shut up” or any such thing. I sincerely apologize if there was a “tone” intrepreted by my statements which simply stated my strong concerns about how very dangerous it is to deny anyone of their right to due process under the law.
    I also agree with Soapbox Jill in that she points out that this legislation, as written, allows the government the latitude to define who is a terrorist based on “associated forces” “hostilities against the U.S.” “a belligerent act” and “enemy forces”.
    In a country that values individual rights and equal protection under the law, this bill opens the door for the government to deny due process to anyone they want based strictly on accusation. VERY DANGEROUS.

     
  20. Please see my Update at the end of this post. Oath Keepers and John Birch Society are urging us to support Sen. Rand Paul’s amendment to S. 1867 which would delete Sec. 1031 from the bill.

     
  21. Not specifically to the point of S.1867, but there is a PROBLEM. I believe our Founders spoke of the necessity for laws to be written so as to be understandable to the average citizen. With increasing length and use of “legalese” we apparently find laws much harder to easily understand than ever before. THIS IS A CONCERN. Just look at the comments here. Lose the ability to write laws so they can be clearly understood to the literal meaning and we may as well not have any law at all. How many disagree when I say Military Custody does not apply to US citizens not affiliated with terrorists?

     
  22. Thank you very much for the actual text of the bill in this article. It really helped me have the “whole” picture. I too have seen a bunch of “opinions”, but no “actual text” on different web sites the last couple days.
    Ok – so here’s my thoughts. After many long years of research, in every venue possible, here is what I have discerned through information and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. First of all, 9/11 was planned and executed by the elite (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc), in cooperation with the governments of the world…had nothing to do with a few “Muslim terrorists – laughably – with umm – ‘box cutters’? lol All of this was done to further their (the elite’s) plan for world domination (New World Order). Oh – and FYI – Bin Laden died of kidney failure back in Dec of 2001 in an American hospital in Dubai. Do I believe there is some true terrorism in the world? Sure! Do I think one terrorist group planned and executed 9/11 all by themselves? I find that hilarious. But to believe what the government told us about 9/11 simply shows ignorance of the truth. “Al-CIA-da” – is just a front made up by the CIA to be the excuse to continue all the wars for profit. And this information is simply one tiny tip of the iceberg.
    So – that said – every and any bill that has been put out since 9/11, having anything to do with terrorism – Millitary having more power – gun control – and anything else having to do with this, is to simply put us another step closer to Martial Law so that the New World Order can take over.
    I think – now – you know my opinion about this bill…of COURSE it’s written in ridiculously vague language, because they want it passed to gain more power. I don’t know why this is even debatable. Well, I guess people debate it because they refuse to break out of their “happy boxes” and do some real research about what’s going on in the darkness underneath all this.
    Research it people….don’t take a single word they tell you for any type of truth. DIG…DIG…DIG for the truth.

     
  23. PS – Please guys – as far as politics – stop falling for the false “left/right” – “Conservative/Liberal” – “Republican/Democrat” game. It has nothing to do with these “sides”, and has EVERYTHING to do with the “person” and their own thoughts, views, beliefs, morals, values, and opinions.
    The elite simply want you to think you have any kind of say it anything. They have chosen, put into office, and used as a puppet, just about every president in history. The only 2 exceptions I have found are JFK & Lincoln. Each chose to stand up to the “powers that be”…and look where each of them ended up. Interesting isn’t it?

     
  24. I am an attorney who has practiced law for 31 years of which approximately a decade was evenly split as a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I believe you miss the point. Section 1301 is a “separate” section from section 1302. If you read the exclusion of of US Citizens and lawful resident aliens in section 1302, it clearly states they are excluded from “…military custody under this section…” Thus, the exclusion in section 1302 does not apply to the “separate” section 1301 which does not exclude US Citizens or lawful resident aliens. They are only excluded from section 1302, not section 1301. Lastly, the terms are different in each section: 1301 speaks of “detention” and 1302 speaks of “military custody”. Different terms, different meanings. Bottom line, different sections. I believe US Citizens and resident aliens can be “detained” under section 1301.

     
  25. Excellent legal analysis Gregory! Thank you!!

     
  26. I take this opportunity to extend my Thanks to Dr. Eowyn for posting this article. THIS article is among the very best available that cuts through the hype to explain the legislation. Thanks.
    I wonder how many “Alarmed” American Citizens followed advice from other blogs and posts to rush their support to Mr. Udall of Colorado, as recommended by statements said to be from the ACLU, as a Savior effort to protect Americans from this legislation. Mr. Udall of Colorado had SEVERAL amendments proposed toward S.1867. SA 1107 seems to have been the amendment the ACLU was pushing toward. Senate vote number 210 defeated inclusion of SA 1107.
    Among other amendments proposed by Udall were the following:
    (INCLUDES AMERICAN CITIZENS)
    SA 1112…
    At the end of section 1031, add the following:
    (f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
    And ANOTHER proposed amendment…
    (REMOVES ENTIRE “DETAINEE MATTERS”)
    SA 1113…
    Strike subtitle D of title X.
    Now consider this piece sent to me by another:
    “The devil, as they say, is in the details.
    My wife and I, by their definition of what a “terrorist” is, as likely you are too by their definition, are “terrorists”.
    I have 7 days of food stored. I am a “terrorist”. I have more than 3 firearms and some weatherproofed ammunition, I am a terrorist. I have survival provisions, which clearly make me a “terrorist”…..
    If you read closely, even if a person is not deemed a “terrorist”, American citizens can also be subjected to the same provisions as “terrorists” with a mere waiver.”

     
  27. Indeed… Thank you Mr. Hammel.
    As we all point our efforts toward the specific letter of the law, I ponder the value considering the powerful and authoritative choosing Cloward-Piven and Alinsky methods to bring about change amidst greed and corruption in high places.
    Keep the faith. Continue working toward the Good. Time will heal all.
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All.
    God Bless America!

     
  28. Udall and Rand Paul amendments were defeated!

     
  29. Just one problem with the above interpretation. It does not say us citizens are exempt from being detained by the military. Read the entire sentence. It says us citizens are exempt from the REQUIREMENT to be detained by the military. Nowhere does it say the military SHALL NOT detain a us citizen. In short, they’re not REQUIRED to detain, but its PERMISSIBLE for them to detain.

     
  30. This is a very serious Bill with some even more serious wording and i’m in the process of printing the bill out to show an on staff attorney to get there opinions. With that said i would appreciate any insight on my opinion on the bill to hopefully clarify any misinterpretations i may have, or agree with my point.
    It seams to me through various definitions and paragraphs that this bill does not extend to US citizens nor gives the President any more Authority than he already has.
    The problem lays in the National Securtiy Waiver which appears to give the secretary of Defense a Road to go through Secretary of state and congress to go after US citizens. But then it clearly states under this section that is does not extend to us citizens. If we take one part of this bill as undeniable law than why not the other?
    I believe this is a bill to prevent a US citizen from hiding behind there rights when caught in affiliation with known terrorists. I think it is worded wrong and should simply stay with our current methods of dealing with treason and not try to adjust for the word terrorist.
    In closing, i’m against this bill and its wording, but i do believe it has safeguards in it to protiect a U.S citizen should the situation arrise of possible detention.
    I look forward to some insight on my opinions.

     
  31. I just don’t trust this administration. Mr. Obama said on video/audio that his administration would protect those who did not want their taxes to go toward abortion costs. Then proceeded to do just the opposite.
    The words in question just might make a huge difference. It depends on who is using the words. I know, I am paranoid and untrusting.
    Good article here. Will be watching the issue.

     
    • Brianna, join the paranoid club! ha….none of us trust him either. He’s always saying one thing then doing another. And so is his wife.

       

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *