Tag Archives: S. 1867

Obama Signs US Citizens Detention Bill


On the last day of 2011, with a flick of his pen, Obama shredded our 224-year-old Constitution with its Bill of Rights that protect and preserve our individual liberties.
On December 31, 2011, while still on vacation in balmy Hawaii, Obama signed into law a bill — approved by both houses in Congress — which now makes it legal for the military to detain — indefinitely — any and all U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The bill has the innocuous bureaucratic name of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). I’ve warned you about this bill under its previous guise as Senate Bill 1867. Read here, here, and especially here.
Do you think I exaggerate? Then read what Obama himself said in his signing statement issued by the White House (h/t PrisonPlanet):
————-

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed….

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists….

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary….

I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law….

In other words, Obama is telling us: “I now have the perfectly legal authority and power to detain American citizens, but trust me, I won’t!”
Yeah right….
This piece of sh*t is talking with forked tongue.
Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) who is the sponsor of SB 1867, has revealed it was the Obama administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill which would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial. (h/t PrisonPlanet)
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHaJrnlqCgo#!]
For that matter, more than two years ago, on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama had proposed a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.
Of the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, only Ron Paul recognizes the lethality of NDAA. He correctly states that the new law means the imposition of martial law on the United States.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pnSHyOG-Y&feature=player_embedded]
Here’s a good video on NDAA:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW-e7z7S6VI]
H/t our beloved May and Tina.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees met last Monday to “reconcile” the two respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 which the House (HR 1540) and the Senate (S 1867) had passed.
It appears they’ve removed U.S. citizens from S. 1867 Section 1031’s arrest and detention without charge or trial. But then, it doesn’t.
Donna Cassata of the AP reports, Dec. 13, 2011:

WASHINGTON –  Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat.

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system. […]

The lawmakers said they hoped the House and Senate could vote on the final bill by Thursday and send it to the president.

The issue of how to handle captured terrorist suspects has divided Obama’s senior national security officials and Congress, as well as Democrats and Republicans.

The administration insists that military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror. Obama points to his administration’s successes in eliminating Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

The bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States, with an exemption for U.S. citizens.

Several paragraphs after that, however, there’s this paragraph:

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.

I’m thoroughly confused. I will need to find and read the final “reconciled” version of the NDAA, but the bill is not yet available on the Library of Congress’ Thomas website.
At this point, it looks to me that this “reconciled” version has retained S. 1867’s Sections 1031 and 1032. The “exemption for U.S. citizens” pertains to Sec. 1032; the indefinite detention and denial of the right to trial to “even U.S. citizens” pertains to S.1867’s Sec. 1031 — the same Sec. 1031 that we find so problematic and threatening.
Nothing’s changed.
So much for conservatives putting our hopes in Congressman Allen West, who’s a member of the “conference committee” that produced this reconciled version of the NDAA. If you need more confirmation that Allen West is an enemy of freedom, listen to Glenn Beck’s radio interview of West on the NDAA yesterday. Go here. I heard it live and was ready to spit nails.
Allen West also voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, the passage of which immediately increased our national debt ceiling by $2+ trillion.
I will do everything I can to see that Allen West does not get re-elected.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

There Really Are FEMA Camps

If you’re like me, you probably roll your eyes whenever you hear or read some conspiracy theorist going on about the federal government setting up FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency ) camps across the United States.
But I don’t do that any more.
I only just found out a few days ago that more than two years ago (!) on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, ironically flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama declared the need for “a legal basis” to be created for the preventive detention, without trial, of Americans who might commit crimes in the future.
Don’t believe me? Just hear and see for yourself, beginning around the 1:30 mark:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7mwP5Di5NE&feature=share]
Two weeks ago, on December 1, 2011, the U.S. Senate obligingly provided that very “legal basis” when, by an overwhelming majority bipartisan vote of 93:7, our elected representatives passed a bill that gives the President of the United States the authority to have the military arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
The bill is S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Section 1031 of S. 1867 says:
“Congress affirms that the authority of the President […] includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons […] any person […] who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks […] 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 disposition of a person under the law of war […] may include […] Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities […]”
Note that nowhere in Section 1031 are U.S. citizens excluded from the category of “covered persons.” In fact, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) — like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colo)– had tried to get an amendment into S. 1867 that would “limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031″, but her proposal was rejected by the Senate 45Y – 55N.
Now that a “legal basis” for the detention without trial of American citizens has been created, the next question is:

Where will they put all those people?

This is where KBR, a top US federal contractor, comes in.
KBR, Inc., formerly called Kellogg Brown & Root, is an engineering, construction and private military contracting company, and the largest non-union construction company in the United States. Formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, KBR is headquartered in Houston. KBR and its predecessors have won many contracts with the U.S. military, including during World War II, Vietnam War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Recently, a 4-page KBR document has surfaced (leaked?) online, which provides the first solid piece of evidence that there really are FEMA camps. The document carries the bland title of “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements.” [To read the document in pdf, click here.]
So what’s the project?
This is how KBR describes the project:

“KBR is establishing a National Quick Response Team for our current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) work, and for anticipated future contracts. Upon completion of evaluation, certain subcontractors may be invited to establish a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with pre-established lease rates and terms and conditions.”

The KBR document is a solicitation for bids from subcontractors to provide services and supplies for FEMA camps, including:

  • Catering Services
  • Temporary Fencing and Barricades
  • Hand Washing Stations
  • Laundry Services
  • Medical Services
  • Office Trailers / Administration Area
  • Potable Water
  • Power Generation, Fuel Delivery / Supply & Electrical Distribution
  • Refuse Collection
  • Shower and Toilet Units
  • Tentage, Flooring, Electrical & HVAC/ECU
  • Waste Water Removal

The document says “services will be required in each State within each of the five regions of the continental United States.” Each camp is estimated to “range in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days in length.”
Here’s a screen-shot of the map of the five regions from the pdf KBR document:
FEMA camps in 5 U.S. regions
One thing I learnt when I was professionally active in military-strategic matters is that it’s capabilities that matter, not intentions.
That is, when it comes to a potential enemy of the United States, e.g., China, any increase in the quality and quantity of its military hardware and capabilities should be of concern to us, no matter the rhetoric of its government. For today, the regime may have no hostile intent towards us, but that can all change with the wind. When its intent turns malicious, our opponent’s enhanced military capabilities can be used against us.
That is why America’s defense policy must always heed other countries’ capabilities, instead of their intentions.
The same principle applies at home, in our relations with government.
The KBR document lodges its solicitation for subcontractors to provide “services” to FEMA camps in the context of “emergency responses” – whatever that means:

“Establish services listed below within 72 hours for initial set-up and respond within 24 hours for incremental services. This is a CONTINGENCY PROJECT and it should be stressed that lead times will be short with critical requirements due to the nature of emergency responses. Subcontractors must be flexible and able to handle multiple, shifting priorities in an emergency environment. Supply lines needed must be short but not necessarily pre-positioned.”

But once the FEMA camps are in place, as the KBR document describes, “in each State within each of the five regions of the continental United States,” who’s to say the deployment of those same FEMA camps will only be confined to “emergency responses”?
Now we know what Obama meant by those “shovel-ready” projects….
H/t Joseph, Tina, & Steve.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Beware of the Senate's and House's Internet Censorship Bills

The United States Senate is shaping up to be a killer of freedom.
On December 1, 2011, by a bipartisan 93:7 vote, the Senate passed a bill — S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 — that, in Sec. 1301, gives the President of the United States the authority to have the military arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial. All in the name of combating “terrorism.”
Now, the Senate is considering a bill — S. 968, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) (sponsored by Patrick Leahy, D-Vt) — that, in the name of combating Internet theft of intellectual property, can be misused by government to censor us. The House version — HR 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) — is similarly flawed.

Jennifer Rubin writes for the Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2011, that PIPA and SOPA are unnecessarily overbroad and a formula for a host of undesirable and unintended consequences, including:

  • Give copyright holders and government the power to cut off Web sites unreasonably. They could be shut down, and search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo could be stopped from linking to them. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, said PIPA “would require ISPs [Internet service providers] to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.” [Source: ABC News] r
  • Harvard law professor and Supreme Court advocate Laurence Tribe has submitted a memo detailing the multiple ways in which SOPA runs afoul of the First Amendment. For example, “SOPA provides that a complaining party can file a notice alleging that it is harmed by the activities occurring on the site ‘or portion thereof .’ Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement. Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.”
  • Tribe also points out that “The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the ‘prior restraint’ doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being ‘dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ — even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt.”

This is what Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) says about PIPA:

“I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. […] By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.”

There is an alternative to PIPA and SOPA.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have introduced a competing bill, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (the “Open Act”), which seeks to address legitimate concerns about SOPA/PIPA and focus more specifically on the real problem without knocking down robust, protected speech in an indiscriminate fashion. Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Mozilla, Yahoo!, and Zynga have signed on to support this alternative to SOPA/PIPA.
The Hill recently reported on OPEN: “The draft proposal would instead authorize the International Trade Commission to investigate and issue cease-and-desist orders against foreign websites that provide pirated content or sell counterfeit goods. The ITC would have to find that the site is ‘primarily’ and ‘willfully’ engaged in copyright infringement to issue the order.” Rather than take down entire websites and potentially interfere with perfectly legitimate and protected speech OPEN, would, after a court order, “compel payment providers and online advertising services to cease providing services to the offending website. The approach comports with current copyright law and hews to the ‘follow the money’ approach favored by Google and other tech companies.”
Jennifer Rubin concludes:

“In short, this is not a fight between protectors of copyrights and Internet anarchists. Rather, there is a legitimate policy dispute about how broad and how disruptive government enforcement powers should be when core First Amendment rights are at issue. No doubt the Motion Picture Association of America, headed by disgraced former Connecticut senator Chris Dodd, has spread plenty of money around Congress to try to give the government the bluntest, heaviest weapon to fight piracy. But that doesn’t make it good policy. And it sure doesn’t make for constitutional legislation.”

So, tell your senators and representative that you want the Issa-Wyden Open Act, instead of the Senate’s PIPA and the House’s SOPA!
UPDATE: Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales is threatening to turn off the site to protest against PIPA and SOPA.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama Proposed "Preventive" Indefinite Detention of Americans


We are living in a waking nightmare.
On December 1, 2011, by a bipartisan 93:7 vote, the Senate passed a bill that, in Sec. 1301, gives the President of the United States the authority to have the military arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
The bill is S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.
Obama has said he means to veto the final version of NDAA, produced by the House and Senate reconciling their respective versions of the bill. (The House version is HR1540.)
Don’t be fooled by Obama’s veto. He’s not doing it because he disagrees with S. 1867’s Sec. 1301. He’s not doing it because he cares about the Constitution and our civil liberties. (To find out why he’ll veto the bill, go to my post here.)
The truth is that Obama completely agrees with S. 1867’s Sec. 1301 — and more.
The truth is the Senate, in approving S1867, was merely doing his bidding.
More than two years ago, on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama outlined a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.
He said that more than two years ago! Did you hear/read/know about it? No? Join the crowd. I consider myself well-informed, with my ear to the ground. But I only found out about Obama’s “preventive detention” speech early this morning when I got an email tip about the Maddow video below, which has no date or year. So I went on the web to look for when Obama had made that speech.
Here’s MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (yes, liberal Rachel Maddow! — which goes to show this issue transcends political parties) telling us what Obama is proposing — the “preventive” and indefinite detention/incarceration of Americans. “Preventive detention” means detaining people for crimes they haven’t yet but may commit in the future.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7mwP5Di5NE&feature=share]
H/t beloved fellow Tina.
What can we do about this?
A committee, called a “conference,” of House and Senate members is being assembled, whose job is to “reconcile” the two versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 1540 and S 1867).
The House is our hope, because HR 1540 does not contain a section like S 1867’s Sec. 1301. We already know Congressman Allen West (R-Florida) has been appointed to that conference. Tell your Congressman/woman you strenuously, vehemently object to the arrest and detention of U.S. citizens without due process — without charge or trial!!!!
Your very life depends on it.
UPDATE:
No cigar. Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, and US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”
See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Allen West is on the National Defense Authorization Act committee

UPDATE:
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 my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”
See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”


Congressman Allen West (R-Florida) has been named a member of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) Conference, reports Right Side News, Dec. 9, 2011.
The Senate version of the NDAA, S. 1867, is that obscene piece of legislation that authorizes the President to have the military arrest and detain, without charge or trial, certain “covered persons” (in S 1867’s Sec. 1031) “at war” with the United States. But those “covered persons” can include U.S. citizens.
S. 1867 also contains Sec. 551(d) that, by repealing Art. 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, effectively legalizes sodomy and bestiality in the U.S. military.
It should be noted that the House version of the NDAA, HR1540, does neither.
The NDAA Conference is a select group of bipartisan members from both the U. S. House of Representatives and the Senate which will begin hammering out the final provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
If you think the appointment of Allen West to the NDAA Conference automatically means he will seek to eliminate S. 1867’s Sec. 1301 and 551(d), don’t. This is the comment West made on his appointment:

“It is an honor to be a member of the conference setting policies for the Department of Defense to be successful in keeping our country safe. As a 22-year United States Army Veteran, I look forward to sharing my insight on what I believe is most important in this bill – a bill that will ultimately determine the future of our Armed Services. It is important the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act include the cuts to wasteful defense spending I proposed. It is also just as important that the NDAA protect essential Defense programs. I am confident my 22 years in the United States Army will provide insight to the conference.”

That suggests all West cares about are defense spending and cuts. Forget not that West had voted in favor of the debt deal Obama made with Congress, aka the oxymoronic Budget Control Act of 2011, which raised the debt ceiling of the already heavily indebted federal government by $2+ trillion.
Please contact Congressman West to convey to him your concerns about the detention without trial of U.S. citizens and the legalization of sodomy and bestiality in the U.S. military. Here’s his contact info:

1708 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
ph: 202-225-3026 • fx: 202-225-8398

H/t beloved fellow Tina.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

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

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:
error0