S. 1867 does not state Americans can be detained! What gives? | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 6855450 United States 12/10/2011 02:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2525021 United States 12/10/2011 02:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't understand, the bill specifically states that American citizens can not be detained. Can someone explain why all the controversy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6855450 "(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." [link to fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com] [link to fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com] [link to thomas.loc.gov] Here's the lowdown: Basically, section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act, Senate Bill 1867, unlawfully states that American Citizens can be detained indefinitely or "until the end of hostilities" for questioning without a proper trial. Problems: Well, when is this "war on terror" going to end? And stating that someone can be detained indefinitely for simply being accused?.. Without any formal proof or one's right to a trial by a jury of your peers? It's against everything this country was founded on. And we haven't eve mentioned yet the completely vague wording used in 1031: "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". Could this vagueness be stating that really anyone the government doesn't like is now the enemy? And then there is section 1032 of the same bill which is in regards to indefinite military custody at facilities like Guantanamo Bay. It plays off of 1031. At first it seems to protect American Citizens by implying that it does not apply to American Citizens. Great right? Hopefully, but not necessarily, because they chose to use the word "required". They are not required to detain U.S. Citizens. Sound a little confusing and sketchy? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6808054 United States 12/10/2011 02:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 6855450 United States 12/10/2011 02:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't understand, the bill specifically states that American citizens can not be detained. Can someone explain why all the controversy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6855450 "(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." [link to fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com] [link to fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com] [link to thomas.loc.gov] Never mind, now I see the problem - requirement, isn't that sneaky. They don't have to detain citizens, but can if they like. Wow! Also this, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements 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.” "There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a “national security interest”. But those that planted these loopholes are not finished." Thread: Former Florida assistant attorney general : S.1867 is applicable to American citizens sorry, guess I'm slow. this is bad indeed. |