Taking any of these things as complete pictures and then crying foul is what gets people labeled as tinfoil hatters. However, taking all of the following as pieces of a big jigsaw puzzle can only point one direction - absolute empowerment of the govt at the expense of individual Liberty:
War on Drugs
War on “Terror”
Patriot Act
ACORN type meddling in the election process
All-encompassing “health care” laws
Economic policies that seem to be purposely screwing things up
Fast & Furious
“perpetual war for perpetual peace”
NDAA
SOPA and PIPA (shackles on the internet)
murmurs of reviving the “Fairness Doctrine”
etc…
All it will take is some kind of catalyst - another 9/11, bank runs, stock market crash - and the America we all grew up in will be gone.
There seems to be a lot of tinfoil and little reading comprehension.
“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.”
What the above means is that someone arrested in the USA would be held and charged under existing laws, in the normal justice system, with all their Rights.
It’s not designed to be. POW’s are normally held until the end of hostilities. They don’t have to be convicted of a crime but you capture and hold them so you don’t have to fight them again. What this does is clarify that we will hold enemy combatants in much the same way as a POW would be, even though they are not POW’s.
Burry your head in the sand, and it WILL all go away, and never effect you!
What I’m wondering about is, IF it pertains to POW’s, THEN WTF DOES IT NEED TO BE NOW, CONSIDERING WE HAVE BEEN IN SEVERAL WARS ALREADY? What, we NEVER had our own POW’s?
They; the Emperor’s, know they have to act quick, and catch sheople off guard.
It’s not good for two wolves and one sheep to vote on whats for dinner!
Some people are going to look pretty silly, when they find out the “Tin Foil Hats” were right after all. Kinda like laughing at Noah, and his Ark.
I rarely disagree with you Todd (this may be the 1st time actually), but the sentence you quoted is a red herring. I cannot envision that the writers of the NDAA have such poor english language skills that they intentionally put that sentence in one place, and then unintentionallly placed this language in there as well:
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Now why wouldn’t they instead phrase it in this way:
The authority to detain a person in military custody under this section shall not apply to citizens of the United States.
I deal with federal regulations all day, every day. I recognize clever wording when I see it. This clever wording can be used to either emasculate or solidify a requirement. In this case, it does not prohibit an action, it merely exempts it from mandatory action. In our vague, gray world, this can easily be argued to “not specifically prohibit” the detention of US citizens. The way I re-worded it would not prohibit military detention of U.S. citizens either, it would merely excluse the use of this document to do so.
The 2012 NDAA specifically targets Al-Quaeda, the Taliban and anyone who materially supports them. There’s no way this could be applied to 99.99% of U.S. citizens. The Obama administration has stated that if signed, it will not be interpreted to apply to U.S. citizens, by his administration (if they don’t go back on their word). This bill isn’t the threat to our civil rights itself. It’s the Halligan tool used to breach the door on our civil rights. After that, we’re left vulnerable to whatever might enter.
Take a look at the Fast and Furious thread and some of the links Irish posted. Then look at some of the so-called FBI terrorism operations.
Now think of how this can be applied to some of those people who were U.S citizens.
Our government has shown repeatedly that they can be very deceitful. I’m sorry, I don’t trust them or this legislation. Think about all of the “well intenioned” legislation that has become law that later back fired.
Quoting myself from that thread so people can find it easier.
Take a look at these articles relating to the FBI’s PATCON (OKC bombing) and foiling their own terrorist plots. The first one relates directly to Belmont’s post and is written by the guy who has brought a lot of the F&F information into the light. The other 2 are about the FBI and the “terrorist plots” that they stop from happening.
I have not read the entire law, just what was quoted here. I cannot find any language that allows for the detainment of anyone in the USA. There may be something in parts not quoted here, but my bet is that some people saw a few words and jumped to conclusions.
As I already said, the current war does not have us fighting uniformed members of a Nation State. The law of war is based on conflict between Nation States, so no, there is not enough law defining the way we treat enemy combatants that do not wear a uniform.
They will be held indefinitely (just like POW’s) until the end of hostilities. This is normal conduct of war, just adding combatants without a uniform.
The America I grew up in, is already gone…As a example… As a 15yr old kid,I would gather up my .22 rifle and ammo, go up the street (mind you, walking on the sidewalk openly)to a friends house, where we would meet up, go up a couple other streets, to a dirt road that led to the city dump, where we would proceed to shoot rats at our leisure…And no one cared…Today, if a 15yr old kid walked up the street with a .22 and ammo,He would’nt get a block before he’d be picked up, most likely charged with some sort of terrorist activity, and if the media got wind of it they’d make it look like the kid was on his way to start the next mass murder. I’m 57, and the amount of freedom that has been eroded from us, the citizens, within the last 42 yrs is shocking…Polticians are now much more brazen, willingly voting away more freedoms in exchange for more money and of course, immunity from the bastard laws they put in place.How’s the old saying go,“Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” I only see this ending one way…
The law requires the military to hold enemies of the US, the sentence above would allow for example US citizens to be transferred to the US justice system.
This will draw more fire, but there is no reason to prohibit the detention of US citizens caught on the wrong side of a battlefield. I have no problem with them being held in exactly the same manner as other “covered persons” (or POW if they were in uniform), your US citizenship is not a get out of jail free card.
War outside the US and crimes committed in the US are different.
War and crime are different.
The NDAA is the most recent of the seditious pieces of legislation to be implemented by our omnipotent Federal government. They seem to be creating more and more out of thin air with greater frequency.
A part from the ones that have already been listed in this thread thus far. . .
That’s just it, Allow is permissive. Shall or must is a requirement. While one person can view the phrase as allowing the transfer, another can and will view it as neither required nor expected.
I have no issue with allowing detention of a US citizen, acting as an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield in lieu of transfer to civilian authorities stateside, particularly until all obtainable intel can be gathered from the individual. However, once that’s exhausted, I see no reason to continue indefinite military detention beyond that. Send them off to prison for a long stretch, and/or until hostilities cease.
I do take issue with those who claim dual citizenship, such as Awlaki, who commit treasonous acts in the name of their “other” country. Upon conviction, (in absentia if necessary) of committing such acts, US citizenship should be stripped so they may be legally recognized as an enemy combatant.
Any US person caught committing treason inside the US should be interrogated by civilian authorities, then have a speedy trial as is their right. That’s regardless of whether their treason can be viewed as terrorism. The only exception should be US service members, such as Hasan. They would obviously fall under military tribunal.
I find it odd that we have such restrictive use of force policies on our troops “policing” foreign lands, yet we have a virtual “weapons free” policy on indefinite detention without judicial review, even for US persons? Ground troops cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own defense, but we can trust others to deny a persons rights indefinitely? I have a problem with that personally.
What I find so disturbing is that some are claiming the sky is falling, but it SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING about treatment of US citizens or arrest in the US. The law is about conduct of war. It’s purpose is to clearly define our non uniformed enemy and apply the normal indefinite military detention for enemy we capture, just like the uniformed enemy from a Nation State.
This should have been the end of wild speculation:
“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.”
I think you are missing the reason to require military detention. By defining the enemy we can apply the same law of war to them as used for POW’s. Remember the reason for GTMO was to keep them out of the US justice system, because their status did not fit into existing law. There was no such concern during WWII when we had POW camps in the US. They were clearly POW’s not entitled to the US justice system, and did not need to be charged with a crime under the US justice system to be held until the end of hostilities.
Indefinite military detention = Prison until the end of hostilities
The US Govt. will apply it to whomever they damn well wish, FOR whatever reason they damn well wish. And it is open to THEIR interpretation. LOOK at how DC interprets an "Automatic Weapon! Just one example. Who makes the rules? Us, or the runaway Govt. now running US? THIS is why we NEED to keep ALL guards UP! It is not good for two wolves and one sheep, to decide whats for dinner!
Powers of Congress, Article 1 Section 8. I see no limit on the length of a war being specified.
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
You should contact your Representatives if you don’t like what they are doing, but nothing is being done outside of the powers specifically granted to them and I don’t see anything that infringes on any Rights.
You are correct that the enemy we fight is not a Nation State and it will be hard to end. But it seems absurd that we should just release enemy that were captured, knowing they will likely continue to be a threat to the US. There are some other options in the law that seem consistent with the normal conduct of war.
"(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."
