Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Military forces allowed to imprison people without trial on American soil?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Military forces allowed to imprison people without trial on American soil? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Military forces allowed to imprison people without tria... - 11/28/2011 2:39:26 PM   
Ishtarr


Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
This just hit my inbox.

Has anybody else heard anything about this?
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-rushed-detainee-provisions-of-ndaa

quote:


The U.S. Senate is about to take some law enforcement powers from the Justice Department, and give greater policing powers to the Department of Defense. These policing powers can (and will) be used on American soil. It appears that, under just two small sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867). . .

1. American citizens and lawful resident aliens, could be held, INDEFINITELY, jailed.
2. Other persons can be DISAPPEARD by the military, without benefit of habeas corpus or trial. And worse...
3. These other persons can also be shipped off to a foreign judicial system that might deliver a result the Justice Department wants.

The sponsors of this bill claim that this bill contains no new powers -- that they're merely codifying the behavior of two (renegade) administrations.

Yet two of the bill's Senate backers admit there is a new power: The ability of the military to engage in police work on American soil -- Posse Comitatus be damned.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backs the bill, indicated that the bill "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial "American citizen or not." Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because "America is part of the battlefield."

Here's a link to a copy of the two offending sections, 1031 and 1032, which must be removed by amendment.

In 1031 the Federal State gains the power of indefinite imprisonment without trial. In 1032, American citizens and lawful resident aliens must be given civilian jails for their potentially permanent stays, and cannot be shipped off for a show trial by a convenient foreign power.

The sponsors of this bill, Senators Levin and McCain, are forgetting their Article I role as a protection against an overreaching and potentially tyrannical Executive Branch, and are instead rapidly inventing powers for that branch. They're trading Liberty for Security because we've become so scared of the boogeyman.

We should stop being so cowering and fearful. We should tell Congress, loud and clear, "I Am Not Afraid."

And the debate is occurring as I write this, Monday afternoon.

Why are we getting this crucial information to you so late?

There are lots of things to monitor. DownsizeDC.org doesn't have the staff to follow all of it. Not many groups do. The Federal Leviathan is a large, unwieldy organization that moves in criminally clandestine ways. We've addressed this fact . . .

* This bill is over 600 pages long, and even according to its sponsors, covers a wide variety of issues. Something as important and unique as criminal justice should not be part of a military authorization bill, but should be the subject of its own bill, consistent with DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act."

* And these offending sections of this bill didn't come to light until the ACLU published an article about it on the day before Thanksgiving. http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/Carl%20Levin We found out about that article on Friday night. Every bill should be published online, after the entire bill has been read aloud to the Congress, for at least seven days before its final vote. These provisions of DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act" would give watchdog groups and media personalities time to digest and disseminate the information to you, with sufficient time to register your dissent.

When we first read 1031 and 1032, we didn't understand them fully. We believe due diligence is important. We wanted to make sure that WE were telling the truth, not someone else's incomplete opinion or ill-advised version. That's one reason you read the Downsizer-Dispatch, isn't it?

But it was hard to find adequate help to understand how these sections related to each other, on a holiday weekend -- a weekend where our staff was also, "over the river and through the woods."

We didn't figure out how these sections related to each other until today.

Usually, we prepare our Dispatches the evening in advance, and sometimes even days earlier. Why? Because we want to be sure they're properly researched, accurate, and tightly written. We don't ever want to waste your time.

But you're reading something, today, that's been written in a hurry, just moments before it hit your inbox.

I cannot express, in polite words, how frustrated I am with the Senate Armed Services Committee, which brought this bill to the floor. Nor can I quantify how much it has bothered me, this weekend (when I should've been enjoying myself), that we might not be able to get this seemingly crucial news to you.

One sacrifice I've had to make in this hurriedly sent Dispatch is that there's insufficient time to write a sample letter. In this Dispatch, we've linked to the,

* The "I Am Not Afraid" campaign
* The "One Subject at a Time Act" campaign
* The "Read the Bills Act" campaign

You can borrow from the points we've made in this message, and send an appropriate message from each of these campaigns. I hope you will.

But even more important, if you're logged in, you can refer to Your Downsize DC Toolbox, on the home page of the DownsizeDC.org, on the link above your state map, labeled "District Information," and you'll see the phone numbers of your two Senators.

* Make a brief note of what you want to say so that your thoughts are organized.
* Be polite but firm, and be sure to identify yourself as a constituent.
* Be especially sure to tell them to remove Sections 1031 and 1032 from S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has been placed on the Senate calendar.
* Then, call the numbers we provide on that page and give whoever answers your message.

Thank you for your prompt action,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.



< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 11/28/2011 2:41:52 PM >


_____________________________


Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 2:58:56 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Idiots that rather than courageously and vigorously seeking to remove that horrid piece of shit patriot act legislation are 'making a point', so they can garner votes from  the armchair airheaded of the US.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Ishtarr)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 3:02:33 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
The bill text isnt available on open congress yet.

I did find where Feinstein proposed an ammendment to limit the 1031 section.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:62:./temp/~bdEUsW::

In this one by Thomas....

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112yX3jyh:e462417:

1031 and 1032 are listed

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 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.


Im not reading it the way the article you were sent presents it.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

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

(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.


Again, Im not reading it the way it was presented.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Ishtarr)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 3:35:56 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
I wonder when they are going to add in all this...American Citiziens may be excuted without trial.

_____________________________

"The love of a slave girl is the deepest and most profound love that any woman can give a man. Love makes a woman a man's slave, and the wholeness of that love requires that she be, in truth, his slave." Magicians of Gor, page 31

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 3:37:55 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Perhaps after one or two more 'conservative' justices are added to SCOTUS.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 3:43:03 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I wonder when they are going to add in all this...American Citiziens may be excuted without trial.


And I wonder when it's going to dawn on them that American Citizens have 600- 800 million firearms.
All it takes is one spark!


_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 3:59:59 PM   
Slavehandsome


Posts: 382
Joined: 9/19/2004
Status: offline
Popeye, you're wrong. The American people stood by when the U.S. military executed foreigners without a trial, so why would the American people stand up now? Also, there's a big division between races, economic classes, and ideologies, so much that the U.S. people will never stand united.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 4:02:41 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
From outside threats, they would unite.

Threats from within, I fear you may be right.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Slavehandsome)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 4:03:30 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
How poetic!

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Military forces allowed to imprison people without ... - 11/28/2011 4:04:42 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Eeps!

Didnt mean that to happen!

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Military forces allowed to imprison people without trial on American soil? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.059