Senate Moves To Allow Military To Arrest Americans

My question is, what will Obama come out and say about this? (or will he even mention it on his campaign trail?)

President Obama has threatened to veto it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -custody-/

Soulshiner wrote: President Obama has threatened to veto it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -custody-/

A little more detail from the article...

Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to preserve language that would give the U.S. military a crack at al Qaeda operatives captured in the U.S., even if they are American citizens.

The White House earlier had threatened to veto the bill over the provisions, saying they amounted to an effort to micromanage the war on terror.

“Any bill that challenges or constrains the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt the president’s senior advisers to recommend a veto,” the White House said in a statement.

But 16 Democrats, one independent and 44 Republicans joined together to defy Mr. Obama’s threat. Two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois — voted to strip out the detainee language.

This is wonderful. A bipartisan bill, a bipartisan vote, all for a bipartisan police state. The Political Class is on a roll this year.

The law was passed today.

I have read and reread section 1032 of the bill. I do not see it as any different than what a states national guard can do now if called into action. There really is no difference. Hurrican Katrina was a good example of this, as the military stepped in once they were called up by the Gov. They became both a police and a force to protect and assist. This states and that American Citizens are exempt as are LEGAL resident aliens. There is nothing that states the military is coming to arrest you and put you away for ever. The sky is not falling, hell is not freezing over. If the President was to call Marshall Law that is one thing, that would be worse than what this does. The way I read this it also means we are in some kind of a military action or at war. Weather that be on our own shores or overseas.


(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
( 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.
( 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.

Arlen wrote: The law was passed today.

As of right now, the latest update to the Senate business today it is still on the floor and has not been approved


http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legisl ... g_page.htm

Perhaps the third party can be the Police party...pretty simple, everyone is required to join, oh wait you already did. Now it's the first party.

Arlen wrote: The law was passed today.

Wouldn't such wording imply that the pres signed it. I thought it was a bill once passed in the leg and a law once signed by the pres.

Don't forget, they don't even have to pass such a law. They can do the modern thing and simply pass a law that says a committee can write the details of the regs. This is the way most laws are now passed....it is how recreational and MMJ drugs are illegal, without a specific act signed saying so. Last night, a committee in Washington could have scheduled alcohol and it would simply be illegal today, no debate, no elected official needs to be involved or asked. It could happen tonight or tomorrow night. I know Americans are so unbelievably addicted to alcohol that this is unlikely, but it could happen in an instant, they system is in place and ready to run. Remember the people that rule you don't agree with how you live, or they would be pretty idle right now, they are not idle and have tools you don't even debate.

We can debate much, but have a say in very little we are even debating due to this system of letting the bureaucrats, who were not elected or even hired by elected people, decide the details.

chickaree wrote: Is anyone else frustrated that the only bipartisan bills seem to be to reduce our rights?

you betcha! seems that is the only matter of concern to our legislative body and to cover their lazy suit covered ass's...

navycpo7\n

I have read and reread section 1032 of the bill. I do not see it as any different than what a states national guard can do now if called into action. There really is no difference. Hurrican Katrina was a good example of this, as the military stepped in once they were called up by the Gov. They became both a police and a force to protect and assist. This states and that American Citizens are exempt as are LEGAL resident aliens. There is nothing that states the military is coming to arrest you and put you away for ever. The sky is not falling, hell is not freezing over. If the President was to call Marshall Law that is one thing, that would be worse than what this does. The way I read this it also means we are in some kind of a military action or at war. Weather that be on our own shores or overseas.

then what is the purpose of this bill and how does it compare to what is already in place with the patriot act?